Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 10:24 am Post subject: Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
By RICHARD N. OSTLING
NEW YORK (AP) - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God - more or less - based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.
At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.
Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.
``I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins,'' he said. ``It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.''
Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article ``Theology and Falsification,'' based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.
Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.
There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.
Yet biologists' investigation of DNA ``has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,'' Flew says in the new video, ``Has Science Discovered God?''
The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland's University of St. Andrews.
The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. ``It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,'' he wrote.
The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's ``The Hidden Face of God'' and ``The Wonder of the World'' by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.
This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his ``God and Philosophy,'' scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Books.
Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well ``that's too bad,'' Flew said. ``My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.''
Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a ``minimal God'' and believes in no afterlife.
Flew's ``name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up,'' Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew's reversal, ``apart from curiosity, I don't think it's like a big deal.''
Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American ``intelligent design'' theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.
A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.
Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all.
Another landmark was his 1984 ``The Presumption of Atheism,'' playing off the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God exists.
Joined: 23 Dec 2004 Posts: 18 Location: Belgium/UK
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 8:43 am Post subject:
It's simple really, although the answer remains elusive.
If it could be proved that the Many-Worlds-Interpretation of Quantum Theory is wrong, that would be a very strong hint that God does exist but not necessarily according to any religion -- it would be the deists' god.
If the Many-Worlds-Interpretation of Quantum Theory is correct, then there is no need for any "super-intelligence" to have created life etc.
I have read that about 50% of the world's foremost Quantum Theorists believe in the MWI - including Stephen Hawking - but this is something usually not perceived by the general public.
biologists' investigation of DNA ``has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved
diverse and complex indeed and yet all living creatures - be it microbes or humans - share the same basic chemical structure.
i'd reckon we sort of know where and when life began, but we still and absolutely don't know how - let alone why.
the problem about "the ultimate origins of life" would be not what we are made of - rather, it's the biological information that vivifies us. to play God (even in the lab) should be much less straightforward than to bring Frankenstein to life by 1 m volts.
Peter wrote:
I have read that about 50% of the world's foremost Quantum Theorists believe in the MWI - including Stephen Hawking - but this is something usually not perceived by the general public.
of course not... how could one get outside the universe to observe it? it's kind of like a brain trying to think about the brain itself, i suppose.
besides, if i understand rightly, doesn't the observer matter a lot to this rather fuzzy theory in the first place?
i am also curious to know as to why Einstein himself later absolutely refused to accept it.
biologists' investigation of DNA ``has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved
diverse and complex indeed and yet all living creatures - be it microbes or humans - share the same basic chemical structure.
i'd reckon we sort of know where and when life began, but we still and absolutely don't know how - let alone why.
the problem about "the ultimate origins of life" would be not what we are made of - rather, it's the biological information that vivifies us. to play God (even in the lab) should be much less straightforward than to bring Frankenstein to life by 1 m volts.
Peter wrote:
I have read that about 50% of the world's foremost Quantum Theorists believe in the MWI - including Stephen Hawking - but this is something usually not perceived by the general public.
of course not... how could one get outside the universe to observe it? it's kind of like a brain trying to think about the brain itself, i suppose.
besides, if i understand rightly, doesn't the observer matter a lot to this rather fuzzy theory in the first place?
i am also curious to know as to why Einstein himself later absolutely refused to accept it.
MWI is based on non logical philosophy. Science is dependent upon logical philosophical foundations. Einstein understood the non-logical consequences of “belief” in statistics as a cause of anything.
As a result, he rejected quantum theory as an explanation for how the universe works, but he accepted it as a useful tool for predicting results of real events.
Quantum theory is based on statistics. The problem with the use of statistics in any area of science is that statistics do not explain the causes of events. Statistics tell us how likely an event is, based on observations of similar events in the past.
For Example.
Statistics can be used to predict the likelihood of crime in various neighborhoods in big cities. But statistics do not explain why each incident of crime occurred. The statistics do not cause the incidence of crime. Each incident of crime has its own specific causes and they vary from incident to incident.
Similarly, statistics can be used to predict the likelihood that a particle will exist at a certain place at a certain time. But the statistics do not cause the particle to be at the place. The location of each particle is the result of specific causes (forces) that vary from particle to particle and over time.
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 Posts: 123 Location: Salvador,BA,Brasil
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:48 pm Post subject:
Um Observador wrote:
AkuTyger wrote:
Observer! Where have you been? How are you!?
Hello AkuTyger,
I guess I sortof driffted away after the big shake up that occured on the forums about a year ago.....
I am still a little confused. I am not sure if I have to log into each section of the forum independently or not.
I have been well.
the spirit moved me to take a look and see what people were talking about ...
How are you doing, are you still in Brasil?
Brasil is wonderful as usual. I have a son now, did you know? I am not sure if I was even pregnant the last time we talked online.
You have to log into each forum individually, but unfortunately this one is not frequented much. You need to go to brazzilforum to find actual conversational antics of the old times, brazzilboard is a little more tame. _________________
biologists' investigation of DNA ``has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved
diverse and complex indeed and yet all living creatures - be it microbes or humans - share the same basic chemical structure.
i'd reckon we sort of know where and when life began, but we still and absolutely don't know how - let alone why.
the problem about "the ultimate origins of life" would be not what we are made of - rather, it's the biological information that vivifies us. to play God (even in the lab) should be much less straightforward than to bring Frankenstein to life by 1 m volts.
Peter wrote:
I have read that about 50% of the world's foremost Quantum Theorists believe in the MWI - including Stephen Hawking - but this is something usually not perceived by the general public.
of course not... how could one get outside the universe to observe it? it's kind of like a brain trying to think about the brain itself, i suppose.
besides, if i understand rightly, doesn't the observer matter a lot to this rather fuzzy theory in the first place?
i am also curious to know as to why Einstein himself later absolutely refused to accept it.
MWI is based on non logical philosophy. Science is dependent upon logical philosophical foundations. Einstein understood the non-logical consequences of “belief” in statistics as a cause of anything.
As a result, he rejected quantum theory as an explanation for how the universe works, but he accepted it as a useful tool for predicting results of real events.
Quantum theory is based on statistics. The problem with the use of statistics in any area of science is that statistics do not explain the causes of events. Statistics tell us how likely an event is, based on observations of similar events in the past.
For Example.
Statistics can be used to predict the likelihood of crime in various neighborhoods in big cities. But statistics do not explain why each incident of crime occurred. The statistics do not cause the incidence of crime. Each incident of crime has its own specific causes and they vary from incident to incident.
Similarly, statistics can be used to predict the likelihood that a particle will exist at a certain place at a certain time. But the statistics do not cause the particle to be at the place. The location of each particle is the result of specific causes (forces) that vary from particle to particle and over time.
This is a grotesquely simplistic answer written after 3 glasses of wine, and after more than several years have passed since I last considered the subject, but here goes ……
Current models of the universe, used in modern physics involving atomic structure, envision Electrons orbiting around a Nucleus, where the Nucleus consists of Neutrons and Protons.
Each electron not only has a quantized amount of charge. But it also has a quantized amount of energy.
The energy of the electron can only be intervals of the energy of an electron in the lowest orbit. If the energy of the electron in lowest orbit is “l” then the energy in the next highest orbit would be “2xl”, and the energy in the next highest orbit would be “3xl”, etc …
Now, how does an electron jump from one energy band to another higher energy band? It does so by absorbing energy from something, maybe a photon, with enough energy to cause the electron to make the jump. How does an electron jump to a lower band? It does so by radiating energy (photons).
However, all these observed absorptions and radiations are measured in mass. We only have the ability to measure the aggregate statistical result. This has led many scientists (who happen to be unhinged from any basic philosophical understanding of the universe) to conclude that electrons jump from energy band to energy band without cause. They do not say it occurs without cause. They say that it occurs because of chance, without explaining what “chance” is.
In other words. Many in the scientific community get the philosophy wrong. They think “chance” is a cause of “observed statistical distributions”. Yet, they never define what “chance” is, even though they seem to declare “chance” to be nothing. A clear healthy philosophical approach would note that observed statistical distributions are actually an affects of a basic “Cause”.
And that “chance” is merely a poor label used to identify that “Cause” which science cannot measure, a “Cause” that exists beyond time and space (and therefore beyond physical science).
thanks for the explanation, Observador. i wonder what wine you had yesterday evening(?), btw?
the electron is uncertain in itself as to where it is and how it is moving - i.e you simply can't predict what the outcome is going to be, and yes, i've read that whilst this interpretation of parallel universes has been very popular, Einstein didn't like the notion that potential realities are co-existing - i.e that "God plays dice".
it seems to me that by having all parallel realities they are okay with the "observer" issue, although personally, i just don't fancy this MWI thing somehow... no chance that i'll believe your interpretation of "Cause", though - needless to say .
i don't recall what this theory's called, but there seems to be another way of looking at quantum mechanics (which i do fancy!) - i.e although nature does allow for every possibility, these potential realities are not really real. instead what happens is that when the quantum system (that we're considering) becomes sufficiently complex, then it makes the transition to the familiar everyday *logical* world.
i like this interpretation best so far. it doesn't give us an answer to the question of whether nature is to make up its mind or not, though.
thanks for the explanation, Observador. i wonder what wine you had yesterday evening(?), btw?
the electron is uncertain in itself as to where it is and how it is moving - i.e you simply can't predict what the outcome is going to be, and yes, i've read that whilst this interpretation of parallel universes has been very popular, Einstein didn't like the notion that potential realities are co-existing - i.e that "God plays dice".
it seems to me that by having all parallel realities they are okay with the "observer" issue, although personally, i just don't fancy this MWI thing somehow... no chance that i'll believe your interpretation of "Cause", though - needless to say .
i don't recall what this theory's called, but there seems to be another way of looking at quantum mechanics (which i do fancy!) - i.e although nature does allow for every possibility, these potential realities are not really real. instead what happens is that when the quantum system (that we're considering) becomes sufficiently complex, then it makes the transition to the familiar everyday *logical* world.
i like this interpretation best so far. it doesn't give us an answer to the question of whether nature is to make up its mind or not, though.
Regarding the wine, I get the cheep stuff. But it is delicious. Peter Vella’s “Cabernet Sauvignon”. It’s about $12 fot 5 liters.
Regarding belief in Causes…..
You and I are similar in more ways than we are different. I suspect you believe what is easiest for you to believe. I assure you, believe what is easiest for me to believe. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you believe what you believe based on your careful thought and reasoning about what is most plausible. Please understand that I too believe what I believe only after careful thought.
It appears to me that you believe that the cause of the physical universe is within the physical universe. But, to me, what you seem to believe is implausible.
The physical universe appears to me to be time dependent. And, time appears to me to be based on something that transcends time, namely the laws of logical causality.
The presumption that the cause of the physical universe is timeless (or independent of time) appears to me to be the only logical conclusion.
Your belief that the cause of the physical universe is within the changing physical universe appears to me to be a belief that is inconsistent with the laws of logic.
In fact, as I see it, my belief that the Cause of the physical universe transcends the physical universe is not a belief at all. It is to me the only logical conclusion.
In short, the existence of the Cause that transcends time is not to me a belief. It is a fact.
However, much of my understanding of the characteristics of that Cause is based on belief.
Regarding the wine, I get the cheep stuff. But it is delicious. Peter Vella’s “Cabernet Sauvignon”. It’s about $12 fot 5 liters.
french red wine then? i should taste that one some time...
Observador wrote:
Regarding belief in Causes…..
You and I are similar in more ways than we are different. I suspect you believe what is easiest for you to believe. I assure you, believe what is easiest for me to believe. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you believe what you believe based on your careful thought and reasoning about what is most plausible. Please understand that I too believe what I believe only after careful thought.
It appears to me that you believe that the cause of the physical universe is within the physical universe. But, to me, what you seem to believe is implausible.
The physical universe appears to me to be time dependent. And, time appears to me to be based on something that transcends time, namely the laws of logical causality.
The presumption that the cause of the physical universe is timeless (or independent of time) appears to me to be the only logical conclusion.
Your belief that the cause of the physical universe is within the changing physical universe appears to me to be a belief that is inconsistent with the laws of logic.
In fact, as I see it, my belief that the Cause of the physical universe transcends the physical universe is not a belief at all. It is to me the only logical conclusion.
In short, the existence of the Cause that transcends time is not to me a belief. It is a fact.
However, much of my understanding of the characteristics of that Cause is based on belief.
Quantum mechanics very accurately predicts the behavior of things on a subatomic level. But as I understand it, Quantum mechanics does not account for all of the forces in nature: namely, it ignores gravity. Since gravity is such a weak force (trillions of trillions times weaker than Electro-Magnetism) it does not seem to effect subatomic particles.
Now, since Quantum mechanics can only predict probabilities (without 100% certainty), Einstein refused to accept it with the aforementioned "God does not play dice" quote.
While there is no true understanding of the "cause" of particle behavior in many cases, it was not so long ago that Newtonion physics had the same embarrasing problem. The truth is that while Newton (using his own type of math that he named 'calculus') could predict with astonishing accuracy the behavior of large bodies of matter (planets, stars, etc.) in his theory of Gravity, the fact is that he had absolutely NO IDEA how it worked. It wasn't until Einstein's theories of relativity that a true working knowledge of what caused gravity came to light (that large bodies warp the structure of spacetime causing the "force" that we now understand to be Gravity).
My only point in this rambling post is that although Mr. Plank's Quantum Theory may lack some of the "whys" and "hows" that science thirsts for, it is no less accurate than Sir Isaac Newton's theory of Gravity. It may just take more time - and maybe the birth of a new "Einstein" - to figure it all out. Advances in Superstring theory today give us hope that it may happen soon, and we will finally have a single unified theory that can explain all things in the universe (and perhaps beyond our universe).
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
.
