by binadub 21 Replies latest jw friends
Cedars:
Your original thread got too far off track so I decided to refresh it for my question.
I'm wondering what you think about Anthony Flew (rip). (Or do you? )
Incidently to James_Woods (if you read this thread):
It's my understanding that Einstein was a deist, as was Charles Darwin.
~Binadub
I think you are right about Einstein being a deist. I don't know about Darwin.
hi binadub - I think you are correct about Darwin at least
imo Charles Darwin and Einstein were more agnostic than atheist. Darwin's research was propelled by seeking non theological explanations for life and its orgins, it is true - this quest motivated his studies but he is reported as saying that he was agnostic and that he hated anti religious controversy. Einstein tended to use the idea of God metamorphically recognising the need for an intelligence to fill the gaps - no gaping senseless void for him. Both have been reported as praying. they are both quite far from the Neo Atheism which developed after 9/11. this movement is often described as religious and cultic in its zeal to demonise religion, religious people. My mission is to articulate a space for those like me (xjw wife and mother of JWs) who value freedom and want to avoid going from one cult to another.
edit: okay finished for today - off to work
Hi binadub, thanks for your message. The thread hasn't really "gone off track" because it didn't have a "track" to begin with! I just intended it as an extremely non-confrontational way of praising Dawkins for retaining some open-mindedness, that's all. I wasn't trying to paint him as something he isn't, or cause offense to any atheists. That wasn't my intention at all.
I'm really not that well read up on atheism, so I can't offer you a considered opinion on Anthony Flew, or any other atheist thinkers. I'm happy to exist in the vacuum of agnosticism for the time being, even though I have a "hunch" that the universe had an intelligent beginning. A cursory glance at information on Wikipedia yields that Flew argued in favor of presupposing atheism until empirical evidence of God surfaces. I understand that this is how most atheists reason, including Dawkins. I have yet to examine Flew's reasoning that brought him to this conclusion, but I personally see no reason to "presuppose" anything. I don't consider myself under any pressure to leap to any conclusions on the nature of a universe we know so little about, that's just the way I am. I hope others can understand my take on things in the same way as I can understand theirs.
Cedars
Flew became a "believer" shortly before his death , so rumour has it, exactly what his state of mind was at the time ,
who knows ?
Einstein is difficult to attach a label to, too many contradictory quotes.
I find it strange that believers latch on to the odd great thinker of our time who supports their position and ignore the legion of others who do not. We Atheists are a little more relaxed, just because Professor Big-Cheese Philosopher Extraordinaire is a believer carries no weight with us unless he can present satisfactory evidence for belief, this applies to even a legion of notable believers.
We who do not believe do not feel our position is validated no matter how many people, notable or not, join our ranks, or leave our ranks, I am sure if Richard Dawkins became a full on believer it would be touted as a blow to Atheism, and of course it would surprise us, but make no difference to our position.
We are open minded enough to say we could all be proved wrong, we don't mind, we will not be upset, just bring on the evidence.
I have yet to see any.
I find it strange that believers latch on to the odd great thinker of our time who supports their position and ignore the legion of others who do not.
Phizzy, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't "latch on" to anyone's views at this moment of my life. I find it strange that you imply that I do?!
We are open minded enough to say we could all be proved wrong, we don't mind, we will not be upset, just bring on the evidence.
I can go one better than that. I'm so "open minded" I don't make any assertions that can be proved wrong or proved right! Since I know so little about our universe, I would rather not make any assumptions whatsoever.
Cedars
Dear Cedars, I respect you , your posts, and your excellent work as well as your point of view. The remark was not aimed at you, but the believers I have seen on line, here,and elsewhere, and in other media, who do "latch on......"
There was a huge pile of such nonsense after Anthony Flew made his position public, and after his death.
I find a number of believers on here who are very sure of their position and their faith, and they, like most Atheists, are not fazed by people joining or leaving their ranks either, but others on here and elsewhere seem to feel that because someone is no longer an Atheist this is sufficient to bolster their position, that view is nonsense, and it was what I was getting at, never for a moment thinking it was your view.
We need on here sometimes to realise that comments are offered for general consumption and discussion, too many posters in the past have spat their dummy out and left because they felt stuff was directed at them personally, it is often not the case.
This subject is basically derived from a misquote of Dawkins from one of his books in which he classifies a spectrum of atheism to theism, with about 7 degrees from 'total atheist' to 'total theist', and he says that he's second from the furthest category of 'atheist'. Because he doesn't say he's 'the most absolute' form of atheist, theists and agnostics get all excited about Dawkins being 'agnostic' (as if Dawkins' personal views might give some kind of endorsement to theism, atheism, agnosticism, or any other ism).
For all practical purposes (not that there are really any practical purposes for theism), Dawkins, as he has said many times, is an atheist.
Thanks for explaining Phizzy!
Cedars
Wikipedia yields that Flew argued in favor of presupposing atheism until empirical evidence of God surfaces.
That is what Anthony Flew was most noted for most of his professional life. But in 2004 he reportedly had found the "empirical evidence" that caused him to convert to deism. It got a lot of publicity at the time. He died in 2010 at age 87, and here's some excerpt from an article in the April 16, 2010 New York Times about it:
Antony Flew, an English philosopher and outspoken atheist who stunned and dismayed the unbelieving faithful when he announced in 2004 that God probably did exist, died April 8 in Reading, England. He was 87 and lived in Reading. . . .
He was best known, however, for his books arguing against the existence of God and for atheistic principles. . . .
In 2004, however, he announced on a DVD titled “Has Science Discovered God?” that research on DNA and what he believed to be inconsistencies in the Darwinian account of evolution had forced him to reconsider his views. DNA research, he said, “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved.”
In “There Is a God” he explained that he now believed in a supreme intelligence, removed from human affairs but responsible for the intricate workings of the universe. In other words, the divine watchmaker imagined by deists like Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.
Flew did not convert to religion, but evidently did come to a conclusion of a diety creator, somewhat along the line of the Intelligent Design concept as I understand it. What impressed me was that after he was renouned for a lifetime career based on one premise, he was humble enough to change his mind and publish it. Quite an admirable quality for a human me thinks. Most people when they make an ego investment in a premise, you can't change their mind by proving them wrong. :-)
I was just wondering what you thought about him or what might have led him to his conclusions.
Thanks,
~Binadub
