Did former atheist Antony Flew commit the unpardonable sin by following the evidence wherever it leads?

2011-01-23 9:34 pm
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/one_flew_out_of_the_atheists_nest/http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1523707/dna_evidence_convinces_atheist_that.html?cat=34

If you’re wondering what evidences Flew is following, I suggest reading his book ‘There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.’ But for now, I’m wondering whether or not he committed the unpardonable sin; did he?
更新1:

While I agree with those who are criticizing the subtitle of his book, I think most of you are sidestepping the question. And I don’t care whether or not you read it. Now, is Flew guilty of committing the unpardonable sin or not?

更新2:

@Dreamstuff Entity, didn't you block me? If so, don't you think it is hypocritical to disallow me to answer your questions, yet turn around and answer mine. Furthermore, my question was whether or not Flew committed the unpardonable sin by following the evidence wherever it leads. I made no claims that he embraced theism, although it is very much similar to deism, and practically the opposite from atheism. From what I've read from you so far, it is clear that you haven't read his book.

更新3:

@Dreamstuff Entity, how is what I've posted so far an argument from authority? In fact, I'm unaware that I've even put forth an argument; rather a simple little question for you to answer. Furthermore, you probably shouldn’t have dated your posts, for Flew’s book describing his journey from atheism to deism wasn’t published until 2007. You should stick with the latest sources. If you don’t, you could make Flew out to still be an atheist.

更新4:

@Dale Sturtevant, I didn't know Charles Darwin was an atheist, let alone a notorious one.

更新5:

@Dale Sturtevant, but employing the reality of suffering in order to deny the existence of a good God is to make a moral judgment. Such a moral judgment requires an objective moral law in order to meaningfully contrast good and evil. Yet, if an objective moral law exists rather than moral preferences of individuals or societies, by logical consequence there must be a moral lawgiver. This would be God. The problem of suffering, when raised as a disproof for God, assumes the reality of the God it is trying to disprove. It is people who put themselves in hell, not God. Hell is where they want to be, not where God wants them to be.

更新6:

Flew flat-out denies any type of an afterlife, including hell and heaven. He also doesn't believe in a personal, loving God that accounts for evil and suffering, thus, your objections to not investigating Flew's reasons for following the evidence where it leads is irrelevant.

更新7:

Although there may be hypocrites in the church and Hollywood, I think they’re more abundant in the First Church of New Atheism, in that they never apply the same historical, scientific, and philosophical criteria of truth to Christianity as they would naturalism. Dale Sturtevant is a case in point concerning philosophy, using the wrongness of suffering as evidence for the nonexistence of a loving God without telling us where such objective standards of good and evil come from.

回答 (14)

2011-01-24 1:09 am
✔ 最佳答案
As the atheists demonstrate here, Flew will not be pardoned by them for following the evidence into theism. The impossibility of a naturalistic explanation of the Big Bang, the precision of the cosmological constants, and the direction of even the simplest life by rich information, all pointed to the work of God in designing our world.

Pardoning Flew might tempt atheists into examining the evidence they presently reject out of hand. Thus, his offense remains unpardonable.

Cheers,
Bruce
2011-01-23 9:37 pm
Antony Flew's conversion was not to theism, but to a weak deism, a belief that a creator set the universe in motion but has not participated in any way since (Carrier 2004).

Flew's one and only piece of relevant evidence for accepting a deistic god was the apparent improbability of a naturalistic origin for life (Carrier 2004). Flew, by his own admission, had not kept up with the relevant science and was mistaught by Gerald Schroeder, a physicist and Jewish theologian (e.g., Schroeder 2001). He later conceded, "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction" (Carrier 2005). Thus Flew's conversion is, by Flew's own admission, baseless.

Flew remains a deist but calls his belief a "very modest defection from my previous unbelief" (Carrier 2005).

The argument from authority is weak to begin with, and Flew has never been a spokesperson for atheism, much less for the unrelated subject of evolution. Nobody's unsupported beliefs, including Flew's, constitute an argument for or against evolution (nor for or against atheism). Only evidence and logical argument are legitimate reasons to accept or reject any objective position.
參考: Links: Carrier, Richard. 2004. Antony Flew considers God--Sort of. The Secular Web (Oct. 10), http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369 Young, Matt. 2005. Antony Flew's conversion to deism: An update. http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000723.html (Jan. 9). References: Carrier, Richard. 2004. Antony Flew considers God--Sort of. The Secular Web (Oct. 10), http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369 Carrier, Richard. 2005. Antony Flew considers God--Sort of; Update (January 2005). The Secular Web (Oct. 10), http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369#January2005-1 Schroeder, Gerald. 2001. The Hidden Face of God: How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth.
2011-01-23 9:35 pm
If he's the world's most notorious atheist, you @$$holes are going to drop all that Stalin Mao and Pol Pot nonsense, right?
參考: f*** you
2011-01-23 9:35 pm
He's not that notorious, I'd never heard of him.

"Now, is Flew guilty of committing the unpardonable sin or not?"
No, sin doesn't exist.
2011-01-23 9:35 pm
he found god AND GOD SAVED HIM
2011-01-23 9:37 pm
I'll be offline for awhile...gonna run to the library.
2011-01-23 9:36 pm
"the World's Most Notorious Atheist"? Wow, somebody loves himself.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think I would be interested in this guy's opinion? My atheism isn't based on what other people think.
2011-01-23 9:41 pm
I doubt he was the most famous atheist..that title will be a little holy like claim and we dont do like people who do that, This book has been the subject of controversy, following an article in the New York Times magazine alleging that Flew had mentally declined, and that Varghese was the primary author but... How can atheists can be right about the unreality of Zeus and Mythra? 5 centuries before any christian or muslim exist but..we are wrong when we say your favorite god is unreal? Amazing you share 99% of our view on false deities.
2011-01-23 9:36 pm
He's an old man, perhaps he's getting soft.
2011-01-23 10:02 pm
It is not surprising that an 81 year old man would give in to FEAR.

It is ok if we lose one...in this day and age of the Internet he will be replaced with about 10 young Atheists. Why do you think Atheists outnumber christians at YA 3 to 1? We are here for christians teenage children who are eager to ask questions their christian parents forbid them to even ask...we are here to give them the answers they seek and to plant seeds of doubt into those fertile young minds, seeds which take root in the teen years and then blossum when those teens hit the college scene and our Atheist College Professors take over the conversion from that point.

This internet is a fantastic tool for the Atheist...15 years ago I would have been lucky to have an opportunity to plant seeds of doubt into 1 christian teen a YEAR! Today I plant seeds of doubt into at least 10 christian teens a week on various sites...got one already today.

And one more thing for you to consider...Flew is a very intelligent man and somewhat well known as a lifelong Atheist...and he knows how gullible and easily led christians are. So how much MONEY did you spend on his book? Was it hard to resist buying a book with that kind of title?

Flew is raking in some hard earned christian cash right now...I will gleefully look forward to his announcement in a year when tells christians his is and always has been an Atheist but thanks them for the money to purchase his new Mansion and Ferrari with.

:-)
2011-01-23 9:43 pm
Here are the facts of the matter:

"Flew's one and only piece of relevant evidence for accepting a deistic god was the apparent improbability of a naturalistic origin for life (Carrier 2004). Flew, by his own admission, had not kept up with the relevant science and was mistaught by Gerald Schroeder, a physicist and Jewish theologian (e.g., Schroeder 2001). He later conceded, "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction" (Carrier 2005). Thus Flew's conversion is, by Flew's own admission, baseless."

Flew, who recently died, remained a deist but called his belief a "very modest defection from my previous unbelief" (Carrier 2005).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA115_1.html

"After months of soul-searching, Flew concluded that research into DNA had "shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved". Moreover, though he accepted Darwinian evolution, he felt that it could not explain the beginnings of life."

"His God was strictly minimalist – very different from "the monstrous oriental despots of the religions of Christianity and Islam", as he liked to call them."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html

Again, Flew later admitted that he had not kept up with the latest research and made a fool of himself "by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction..."

Regardless of his change of mind to Deism, he totally rejected the primitive, abhorrent tribal god of the Bible.

And the unpardonable sin is a part of Christian superstition, not atheism.
2011-01-23 9:38 pm
Anthony Flew is the world's "most notorious atheist" ? Really ? B/c until he converted to theism, I'd never heard of him. I would say that Dawkins and, before him, Darwin, are the world's most notorious atheists. Oh, and Stalin of course.

As for his 'evidence', the day I hear a decent explanation for how an omnipotent being who loves us let's us suffer and then let's us die and then sends most of us to hell for arbitrary BS, that will be the day I bother reading any further.

Wow, DE just ripped your question to shreds. You have my sympathies. Sorta.
2011-01-23 9:37 pm
the unpardonable sin is Blasphamey, this term is used TOO loosely. To commit Blasphamey is to die without profess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior; and without proclaiming the God on High -- El Shaddai as the maker of all things
2011-01-23 9:36 pm
So you're just ignoring the evidence supporting the theory that he didn't actually write that book are you?
參考: In 2007, Flew published a book titled There is a God, which was listed as having Roy Abraham Varghese as its co-author. Shortly after the book was released, the New York Times published an article by religious historian Mark Oppenheimer, who stated that Varghese had been almost entirely responsible for writing the book, and that Flew was in a serious state of mental decline, having great difficulty remembering key figures, ideas, and events relating to the debate covered in the book.[6] His book praises several philosophers (like Brian Leftow, John Leslie and Paul Davies), but Flew failed to remember their work during Oppenheimer's interview. The article provoked a public outcry, in which atheist PZ Myers called Varghese "a contemptible manipulator."[26]


收錄日期: 2021-04-21 18:04:24
原文連結 [永久失效]:
https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110123133408AAhvG4J

檢視 Wayback Machine 備份