Cedars

soft+gentle

Hi binadub

it seems that the strong anthropic principle was implicated in his change of mind towards deism. This principle is based on the huge number of cosmological coincidences that are needed for life to exist on earth.

M-theory (the multi universe theory), some scientists believe, provides an argument against the strong anthropic principle. But M-theory is still contentious (though exciting) and scientists have different opinions about it. Same goes for the anthropic principle - it too is contentious. Cosmology is still in its infancy

james_woods

Incidently to James_Woods (if you read this thread):
It's my understanding that Einstein was a deist, as was Charles Darwin.

~Binadub

James Woods here. I have a book in which Einstein (tries) to explain his theology.

First of all - he tried to show respect to the cosmos. He did not think that God was revealing it (just to) him.

He did believe in a certainty and beauty of the mathematical basis of creation.

He was quite shocked by the random logic of the Copenhagen interpretation, the Shroedinger uncertainty, and Quantum theory in general. I think he probably went to his eternal rest realizing that there are questions which cannot be solved.

He does make the statment that when he said "God does not play dice with the universe" he was discussing his theory of the mathematical basis of the universe rather than a belief in a "universal creator".

Einstein - as I could best explain my interpretation - was really a Jewish agnostic.

And, of course, a great man. I am still reading his works and trying to understand him.

Hello Binadub - from the information you've conveyed to me, it sounds like Flew took a whole lifetime to arrive at the position I'm at right now. In particular, this resonates with me...

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.

The way I feel right now, I have a hunch that the universe and its intricate mechanisms had an intelligent beginning, and possibly enjoyed intelligent manipulation thereafter (i.e. with the origins of life). However, at this moment I'm currently struggling to rationalize how this creator is concerned with human affairs on this planet.

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.

Yes, it takes great courage to voice an opinion that contradicts what you've previously said, and disappoints thousands of your devotees. It's a candor and honesty that we don't often see in the intellectual community. Even though I haven't looked into Flew's work yet, he would definitely get my respect for that.

Cedars

binadub

Gd'evening Soft+Gentle, James_Woods, and Cedars:

I don't know how interested you folks are in ID (intelligent design) theory , but a very interesting scholar, Stephen Meyer, speaking to a distinguished group in London presents the kind of scientific factual information that I think influenced Anthony Flew to abandon his atheist philosophy. The video is about a hour-and-a-half, so I had to watch it in spurts, but if your mind runs along this line of interest, it is excellent. I have no idea what Professor Meyer's personal religious views are. Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs

If you do watch it, all or even in part, I would be interested in your comments. In any case, thanks for your comments so far.

~Binadub

Phizzy

Meyer is a prime mover in the Intelligent design movement, I think he was one of the main people behind trying to get I.D taught in science classes in schools.

Of course, there is not one shred of scientific evidence for I.D, so the guy may have qualifications and be a talker, but he is a dreamer.

binadub

Hi Phizzy:

I don't know if Meyer is trying to get ID taught in science classes (maybe he is--I don't know).
I think it should be taught, but not as science. It rightfully belongs in philosophy, imo.

When you say "there is not one shred of scientific evidence" for ID, I think you may mean there is not a shred of "proof."
Did you happen to watch the video? What Meyer presented was ALL scientific "evidence"--just not proof.

Or maybe it would help to know your definition of scientific "evidence."

~Binadub

Phizzy

Thanks Binadub, first of all for drawing our attention to this video and its presentation of an alternative point of view held by many. This forum is made great by presenting all points of view, and thus broadening our education, an opportunity we did not get whilst in the WT.

Thanks too for picking up on my sloppy use of language, of course all that Dr. Meyer presents is scientific evidence, I should have said that satisfactory scientific proof is lacking, and to be fair, should have said so is such proof for life starting purely randomly similarly lacking, in that respect the two theories are equal at present.

Maybe I should in future err on the side of I.D, not because of Dr. Meyers presentation, but for a purely unscientific reason.

My wife tends to judge people she meets by her "gut feeling", she is never wrong, (thus far at least), and her gut feeling on I.D is that it is correct, so maybe I should trust her purely emotional conclusion, in the absence of evidence, listening to her has saved me many a mistake in the past !

binadub

Hi Phizzy:

Thanks (perhaps to your wife?) for your "fair and balanced" response.

I just finished watching a video lecture, "The Collapse of Intelligent Design" by Kenneth Miller, because a former poster on this forum, AlanF, suggested it on my other forum. (I think it may have been suggested here, too.)

It presents the other side of the picture in being vehemently opposed to ID being taught in the schools because it is perceived as being against science and against evolution. A choice between either God or science, but not both. I think that is unrealistic and unfair. Miller himself is Catholic, and many notable scientists (e.g., Dr. Francis Collins) are religious and also believe in evolution.

I like your wife's reason for siding with ID, but I also think Steven Meyer presents very compelling scientific evidence.
Nevertheless, I agree that in of itself, ID is reasoning and mathematical theory based on scientific observation rather than being the science itself.

~Binadub

still thinking

Dr Francis Collins is interesting...to me anyway.

I first read his book..'The Language of God, A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief'.... as a believer...and hung on his every word about belief and spirituality...loved it.

But having just read it again from a 'don't really believe any more' stance...he was great to read until he started entering in and out of the domain of belief...each time he did this I felt like I was drifting in and out of fairy tale land and logic was being left at the gate. I still enjoyed the book the second time around. But for completely different reasons.

Isn't it interesting how our perception can change the meaning and value of what we read.

Glander

The poor bastard just died. Can't you let him RIP?

Family Feud will never be the same.

Cedars - Re: Richard Dawkins Is Agnostic? Thread

Share this