I read an interview with Flew that the JWs have been circulating. He mentions that if he was to be any Christian religion he likes the hope of JWs - living forever on earth. However, the majority of the interview he discusses that he has no idea who or what God is, and does not have much respect for Christianity at all. So he certainly was not advocating religion, just the likelyhood of some sort of higher power.
"There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind"
by Open mind 56 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
beksbks
Oh that's right, I forgot!! Darn my head!! Where are my thought police when I need them????
-
inkling
What does Dawkins care about what another chooses to believe?
If you notice, it wasn't Dawkin's who "cared"; This was a Q&A session. Aparently Dawkin's audience cares what a leading
popular biologist thinks about a former fellow atheist who was converted due somewhat to reasons of biology.Seems reasonable to me.
[inkling]
-
inkling
As opposed to Theists/Deists, who've got a huge cosmic teddy bear to lose, myself included.
My insecure, irrational, emotional self would LOVE for there to be a benevolent God up there ready to bestow eternal life upon me for being a decent person and maybe saying a few "Hail Buddhas" or whatever hoops he wants me to jump through now and then.
My rational brain doesn't see it though.
Wish I could. I honestly do. I openly admit a bias in favor of Theism, and I STILL can't see it. Which is why I picked up the book.
This is an excellent way of putting it. Let us know what you think of the book once you get into it.
[inkling]
-
Manny Trillo
Before you read that book you may want to read this feature article from the NYT that they ran a few months ago.
Flew's story of late is kind of sad. Read this and tell me if his 'changing of his mind' is legitimate or not. He barely even could be said to have 'written' this book.
You may not be able to read you may need to sign up. If you can get to it, make sure you read this first.
Please tell me no one is seriously arguing who the most notorious atheist is?
-
BurnTheShips
Sorry, but "the world's most notorious atheist" means "the world's most notorious atheist." That means he is better known than Sam Harris, Christopher Hutchins etc. In this case he is definitely NOT the worlds most notorious atheist. Never heard of him, just like none of us here have3 ever heard of him.
He is of an older generation of Atheists. Harris, Hitchens etc are the current vanguard. You've probably never heard of Bertrand Russell or A.C. Grayling either.
Burn
-
Open mind
Thanks for the link Manny.
Here's a sad quote from the article:
"With his powers in decline, Antony Flew, a man who devoted his life to rational argument, has become a mere symbol, a trophy in a battle fought by people whose agendas he does not fully understand."
I think I'll do a quick scanning of the book and that's about it.
OM
-
BurnTheShips
I think you're attributing more anti-god bias to Dawkins than there really is call for.
Dawkins on God:
If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it.
... a misogynistic homophobic racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal….
I guess he isn't very biased, my apologies.
Burn
-
Rapunzel
Dear Open Mind: I find your choice of an adjective - notorious - in describing Flew to be very odd and highly questionable. Some synonyms for "notorious" are ill-famed; infamous; having abad reputation. This choice of descriptive is odd because Flew is, in fact, a very famous philosopher with an excellent reputation. He is a world-renowned scholar. There is absolutely nothing notorious about Flew. It makes me wonder if you consider Flew to be notorious because he was formerly an atheist. Do you consider all atheists to be "notorious"? Could anyone holding such an opinion consider himself or herself open-minded?
I know Flew solely by his scholarly reputation which is, as I said, excellent. I have not had the chance to read his book yet. And while I may not agree with his position, I am sure that he came to his conclusion based on sincerity and good faith. I'm sure that a lot of honest inquiry has led him to believe what he has come to believe. Throughout the centuries, very many extremely intelligent people have grappled with the question of the existence or the non-existence of God. And these numerous people have come to different conclusions. As far as I am concerned, each and every one of them has come to a conclusion that is true for them. I believe that this is the case for every person alive; everyone must come to a conclusion that is true for them. And I think that that each person who approaches the question honestly and in good faith will arrive at an answer that is true for him or herself. The fact that differnent people come to different conclusions need not matter because everyone follows their own path in their questioning.
It's interesting to see how very intelligent people can change and evolve over time in their opinion. For example, it's interesting to compare Anthony Flew with Bart Ehrman. Both men are extremely intelligent and erudite; both have published numerous books and are famous in the academic world. Each man - Flew and Ehrman - started at opposite "poles" on the issue, and continued on to the other position that each had previously held. In other words, Flew went from being an atheist to believing in God, while Bart Ehrman went from being an evangelical Christian, who studied at Moody Bible College, to being an atheist. Ehrman came to his conclusion due the question of theodicy - that is to say that he could not reconcile the idea of an all-powerful and benevolent God with the fact that there is so much suffering and evil in the world. Ehrman was very familiar with all of the traditional explanations for the existence of evil in the world, but he also rejected all of these explanations. He rejected the idea that an omnipotent and benevolent God could allow for evil and suffering to exist in the world. Either God cannot control evil - in which case God cannot be considered all-powerful - or else God is not all-Good in that God allows people to suffer. This is an ancient question with which even people living in the pre-Christian era had to deal. I recommend that someone go to the New York Times website and then use that site's "search" function. In the search box, key in "Stanley Fish." Fish is a scholar who reviews books by Ehrman, Flew, Dawkins, Hawking and others.
-
beksbks
Rapunzel,
Dear Open Mind: I find your choice of an adjective - notorious - in describing Flew to be very odd and highly questionable.
OM can correct me here if I'm wrong, but I believe that is actually the title of the book.
"There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind" by Antony Flew.