The Turning of an Atheist

[Puppycow]

Silliness. Some theists have apparantly converted an octogenarian former atheist to the Intelligent Design theory, and point to this as evidence for the existence of God. I say it is evidence of nothing more than the fact that people sometimes lose their mind as they age.
An unfortunate, but all too common phenomenon.
The Turning of an Atheist (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print)

THE STARTLING ARTICLE appeared on Dec. 9, 2004. “A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind,” Richard Ostling of The Associated Press wrote. “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 superintelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.”

The “video released Thursday” was “Has Science Discovered God?” a DVD of a May 2004 conversation, held in a television studio at New York University, between Flew and two popular advocates of theism, the Orthodox Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder and the Christian philosopher John Haldane. There are long stretches of Schroeder, sitting behind what looks like an anchorman’s desk, lecturing an attentive Flew on matters like the unlikelihood that an infinite number of monkeys typing randomly would ever produce a Shakespearean sonnet. (He is rebutting Stephen Hawking, who argues in “A Brief History of Time” that nature, given enough time, can perform the wondrous feats that credulous people attribute to God.) Schroeder also talks about the Cambrian explosion of animal species hundreds of millions of years ago, which he says happened too suddenly to lack some supernatural guidance. Haldane chimes in to argue that certain human capabilities, like language and reproduction, can be explained only by a higher intelligence. Meanwhile, a narrator, talking as photographs of Werner Heisenberg and Albert Einstein appear on screen and Vivaldi plays in the background, says things like, “Many of the greatest scientists of all time” believed that “the intelligence of the universe, its laws, points to an intelligence that has no limitation.”

When at last Flew speaks, his diction is halting, in stark contrast to Schroeder and Haldane, both younger men, forceful and assured. Under their prodding, Flew concedes that the Big Bang could be described in Genesis; that the complexity of DNA strongly points to an “intelligence”; and that the existence of evil is not an insurmountable problem for the existence of God. In short, Flew retracts decades’ worth of conclusions on which he built his career. At one point, Haldane is noticeably smiling, embarrassed (or pleased) by Flew’s acquiesence. After one brief lecture from Schroeder, arguing that the origin of life can be seen as a form of revelation, Flew says, “I don’t see any way to meet that argument at the moment.”

[UnrepentantSinner]

Flew has adopted a deistic philosophy based on his "gut". That's hardly the same as the supposed post-investigation conversions to activist Christianity that C. S. Lewis or Lee Strobel claim.

It's also old news.

[Puppycow]

Flew has adopted a deistic philosophy based on his "gut". That's hardly the same as the supposed post-investigation conversions to activist Christianity that C. S. Lewis or Lee Strobel claim.

It's also old news.

The new news is that he has just "co-authored" with Christian apologist Roy Abraham Varghese a book called “There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.”

[UnrepentantSinner]

The new news is that he has just "co-authored" with Christian apologist Roy Abraham Varghese a book called “There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.”

I'm glad your reply tempted me to delve into the article rather than just quickly scan it.

Looks like he's being co-opted by evangelicals... again.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The new news is that he has just "co-authored" with Christian apologist Roy Abraham Varghese a book called “There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.”
I thought Madalyn Murray O'Hair was the most notorious atheist?

[JoeEllison]

When a Christian becomes an atheist, does it disprove the Bible? No?

Then why are some Christians so idiotic that they believe that the reverse is true?

[Jekyll]

The new news is that he has just "co-authored" with Christian apologist Roy Abraham Varghese a book called “There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.”
Contrast this with the opening to the piece in the NY Times:
Unless you are a professional philosopher or a committed atheist, you probably have not heard of Antony Flew
Looks like another case of fibs for Jesus again.

Edit: So did Flew rebut his earlier arguments and find a meaningful definition of god? That I might take the time to read...

Edit again: I've just finished reading the article, I can't believe they're doing that him. Taking advantage of an old man's senility to put words in his mouth which he doesn't understand. That's awful.

[Mercutio]

Pharyngula's take on the story. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/roy_varghese_and_the_exploitat.php)
It's the story of Antony Flew, the former atheist philosopher who rejected Christianity, but has since been dragged back into the limelight as a convert. It is not a story of an intellectual decision, but a sad tale of an aging, fading scholar who has lost almost all of his acuity and is severely memory-impaired, who is being manipulated and used as a pawn by a team of frauds and apologists for religion and creationism: Varghese, Gerald Schroeder, and John Haldane, Liberty University, and Biola University.

[Apology]

Flew was huge when I was in college. He was the Dawkins of his time. I almost felt personally betrayed by his reversion.

I want those hours of my life back that I spent reading his books :(

[JoeEllison]

Political Christians are once again shown to be among the worst people in the world. How sad and ugly of them.

[Apology]

I forgive Anthony Flew because I believe he's a victim himself. At his age and the physical condition he's in, I think he's confused and more easily led astray.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Let's see if it happens to Dawkins or Hitchens.

~~ Paul

[UnrepentantSinner]

Hey fellow rationalist skeptic atheists... do we throw logical fallacies (like ad hom) out the window if an atheist decides he's a deist and gets used by evangelicals?

Is there any indication that he's senile or demented or are some projecting their personal opinions on him just because he's old?

I think the apologists should be chastized mercilessly - especially Varghese for apparently putting words in Flew's mouth - but saying Flew's a doddering old codger just because he changes his mind about religion, but doesn't embrace any organized religion, is a bit uncalled for and unfair IMO.

[Apology]

Hey fellow rationalist skeptic atheists... do we throw logical fallacies (like ad hom) out the window if an atheist decides he's a deist and gets used by evangelicals?

Is there any indication that he's senile or demented or are some projecting their personal opinions on him just because he's old?

I think the apologists should be chastized mercilessly - especially Varghese for apparently putting words in Flew's mouth - but saying Flew's a doddering old codger just because he changes his mind about religion, but doesn't embrace any organized religion, is a bit uncalled for and unfair IMO.
I got that impression from reading his post-regression work and interviews, actually. There's no doubt that poor dear Anthony has gotten a little dotty in his old age :(

[ChristineR]

Wow, this keeps coming up. Flew went from atheist to agnostic deist, and theists will not shut up about it.

Here's an article which follows Flew's positions, and it does appear that he is confused and has been exploited by evangelical theists.

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

[Puppycow]

Hey fellow rationalist skeptic atheists... do we throw logical fallacies (like ad hom) out the window if an atheist decides he's a deist and gets used by evangelicals?

Is there any indication that he's senile or demented or are some projecting their personal opinions on him just because he's old?

I think the apologists should be chastized mercilessly - especially Varghese for apparently putting words in Flew's mouth - but saying Flew's a doddering old codger just because he changes his mind about religion, but doesn't embrace any organized religion, is a bit uncalled for and unfair IMO.

Well, I don't consider it an ad hominum to consider this possibility. In the article, there is evidence to support this. For example, Flew says that he "is not competant" to look up information on the Internet. If a young man from a developed country said such a thing, we would think him to have some sort of mental impairment. I remember trying to teach my grandmother to use a computer before she passed away, and I have also seen my kids learn to use it. My grandmother couldn't seem to get the hang of even simple operations such as using a mouse. And she couldn't remember what to do the second or third time. You had to tell her each time. BTW, I also had a scary experience with her driving a car. She was a terrible driver but didn't seem to realize it. It was a delicate situation, but I gently convinced her to let me drive. So, all I am saying is that, people do indeed tend to lose their mental acuity with age.

[Puppycow]

Flew was huge when I was in college. He was the Dawkins of his time. I almost felt personally betrayed by his reversion.

I want those hours of my life back that I spent reading his books :(

His old work should stand or fall on its own merit, I think. I haven't read any of it, but maybe it is actually worth reading. I wouldn't regret having read it just because of this.

[Puppycow]

I decided to google Theology and Falsification (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/flew_falsification.html), Flew's famous essay. I found it to be quite good. It's only about 1000 words.

[Kopji]

We should form a posse and go rescue him...

:D

I'd never heard of Flew before his 'conversion', but that's probably more evidence of how uneducated I am than anything else. Flew is well known in academic circles.

'Atheist Becomes Stupid Fundy' is a headline that sort of hits you like a cold shower in the morning and makes you wonder if you will catch the horrible disease next.

I anxiously await all the new and high quality material he will be putting his name to.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Well, I don't consider it an ad hominum to consider this possibility.

I don't consider it an ad hom to suggest he's a senile old geezer. I consider it an ad hom to suggest that the reason he switched from atheism to a demiurgistic deism is because he's a demented, senile geezer.

In the article, there is evidence to support this. For example, Flew says that he "is not competant" to look up information on the Internet. If a young man from a developed country said such a thing, we would think him to have some sort of mental impairment. I remember trying to teach my grandmother to use a computer before she passed away, and I have also seen my kids learn to use it. My grandmother couldn't seem to get the hang of even simple operations such as using a mouse. And she couldn't remember what to do the second or third time. You had to tell her each time. BTW, I also had a scary experience with her driving a car. She was a terrible driver but didn't seem to realize it. It was a delicate situation, but I gently convinced her to let me drive. So, all I am saying is that, people do indeed tend to lose their mental acuity with age.

My mom is 69 and has all her marbles but if I asked her to Google anything she'd be completely lost. She's not quite a luddite, but "u-tube" to her would be a catheter. I've had co-workers in their 70s and 80s who have had no interest in the rich treasure trove of information on the Net. Hell, I've had co-workers in their 30s I've introduced things to and a co-worker in his 50s that conflated Yahoo with the Internet.

And I hate to pull a pseudo-Godwin, but it's very reminiscent of totalitarian regimes to consider someone who diverts from orthodoxy - in this case atheist orthodoxy - demented or insane.

Anthony Flew didn't become a flaming fundy "xian" so I don't understand why he thinks there's something to deism that means he's crazy or senile.

[Apology]

His old work should stand or fall on its own merit, I think. I haven't read any of it, but maybe it is actually worth reading. I wouldn't regret having read it just because of this.

I was being sarcastic :D His stuff was really good, and it's sad that he changed his mind at this late date :(

[Apology]

Anthony Flew didn't become a flaming fundy "xian" so I don't understand why he thinks there's something to deism that means he's crazy or senile.

Ordinarily you'd have a good point. However, imagine Richard Dawkins stuttering, stumbling over his thoughts, and being extremely unsure about things. You'd think he'd blown a gasket or something too :(

[Dogdoctor]

I found a blog of someone who read his book. http://www.markvernon.com/friendshiponline/dotclear/index.php?2007/11/02/767-there-is-a-god-ii
It is interesting if true and shows how slanted the article before is (if we are to believe it)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ordinarily you'd have a good point. However, imagine Richard Dawkins stuttering, stumbling over his thoughts, and being extremely unsure about things. You'd think he'd blown a gasket or something too :(

We'll have to wait 30ish years for a realistic comparison. ;) And an appropriate analogue would be Dawkins adopting a deistic ID stance rather than becomming a stammering codger.

[Puppycow]

I don't consider it an ad hom to suggest he's a senile old geezer. I consider it an ad hom to suggest that the reason he switched from atheism to a demiurgistic deism is because he's a demented, senile geezer.I don't have a problem with deism. I myself am agnostic about that. It's Intelligent Design that bothers me, as well as the apparant fact that he really isn't a co-author of this book (see towards the ends of the article if you doubt that) in a significant sense. What we have here, I think, is simply a matter of Flew allowing his name to be used by a religious apologist.



My mom is 69 and has all her marbles but if I asked her to Google anything she'd be completely lost. She's not quite a luddite, but "u-tube" to her would be a catheter. I've had co-workers in their 70s and 80s who have had no interest in the rich treasure trove of information on the Net. Hell, I've had co-workers in their 30s I've introduced things to and a co-worker in his 50s that conflated Yahoo with the Internet. Noted. Again, however, there is more in the article specifically about Flew, such as:

(The editor of his book)“I don’t think Tony would have allowed us to put in anything he was not comfortable with or familiar with,” she said. “I mean, it is hard to tell at this point how much is him getting older. In my communications with him, there are times you have to say things a couple times. I’m not sure what that is. I wish I could tell you more. . . We were hindered by the fact that he is older, but it would do the world a disservice not to have the book out there, regardless of how it was made.”

And I hate to pull a pseudo-Godwin, but it's very reminiscent of totalitarian regimes to consider someone who diverts from orthodoxy - in this case atheist orthodoxy - demented or insane.

Anthony Flew didn't become a flaming fundy "xian" so I don't understand why he thinks there's something to deism that means he's crazy or senile.
My only "orthodoxy" is to the principles of critical thinking based on evidence. Wherever that leads, so be it. I don't think he is insane, but I do think he is an old man whose faculties are failing him, and who is under the influence of others with an agenda.

[Apology]

We'll have to wait 30ish years for a realistic comparison. ;) And an appropriate analogue would be Dawkins adopting a deistic ID stance rather than becomming a stammering codger.

Well, actually it was the fact that Flew is now a stammering codger compared to who he once was (he was much like Dawkins) that made me draw the comparison. He used to make brilliant, compelling arguments in favor of atheism, just like Dawkins. The fact that poor old Anthony Flew has probably blown a gasket just makes his deism a little questionable. I don't have any reason to believe that Dawkins will fly the coop some day as well, nor am I trying to suggest that he will.

[DOC]

Flew has adopted a deistic philosophy based on his "gut".

While I believe "gut feeling" is important -- what does gut have to do with

A superintelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.”

the unlikelihood that an infinite number of monkeys typing randomly would ever produce a Shakespearean sonnet.

the Cambrian explosion of animal species hundreds of millions of years ago, which he says happened too suddenly to lack some supernatural guidance.

“Many of the greatest scientists of all time” believed that “the intelligence of the universe, its laws, points to an intelligence that has no limitation.”

Flew concedes that the Big Bang could be described in Genesis; that the complexity of DNA strongly points to an “intelligence”; and that the existence of evil is not an insurmountable problem for the existence of God.

In short, Flew retracts decades’ worth of conclusions on which he built his career.

After one brief lecture from Schroeder, arguing that the origin of life can be seen as a form of revelation, Flew says, “I don’t see any way to meet that argument at the moment.”

[Puppycow]

While I believe "gut feeling" is important -- what does gut have to do with

A superintelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.”

the unlikelihood that an infinite number of monkeys typing randomly would ever produce a Shakespearean sonnet.

the Cambrian explosion of animal species hundreds of millions of years ago, which he says happened too suddenly to lack some supernatural guidance.

“Many of the greatest scientists of all time” believed that “the intelligence of the universe, its laws, points to an intelligence that has no limitation.”

Flew concedes that the Big Bang could be described in Genesis; that the complexity of DNA strongly points to an “intelligence”; and that the existence of evil is not an insurmountable problem for the existence of God.

In short, Flew retracts decades’ worth of conclusions on which he built his career.

After one brief lecture from Schroeder, arguing that the origin of life can be seen as a form of revelation, Flew says, “I don’t see any way to meet that argument at the moment.”

Thank you DOC for that vivid demonstration of how this will be presented by the religious apologists. :)

No mention of his age or confusion. No context.
No suggestion that he has merely switched to deism rather than full-blown evangelical fundamentalist Christianity.

[Kopji]

I think it is a mistake to pursue God or atheism as a purely academic exercise.

And I am a little curious about Flew's lack of logic in denial of an afterlife. If he believes an intelligence created the universe, why not an afterlife?

[Kopji]

My gut feeling is that religion, even Deism, contributes to mentally ill people going untreated or mistreated around the world. And I now lay that at the feet of Flew. His belief is like telling alcoholics that it is ok to drink in moderation.

Just a feeling though.

[Jeff Corey]

Watson, Flew, too.

[Puppycow]

I found a blog of someone who read his book. http://www.markvernon.com/friendshiponline/dotclear/index.php?2007/11/02/767-there-is-a-god-ii
It is interesting if true and shows how slanted the article before is (if we are to believe it)

I've started in on the blog post. First of all, (at least in the first few paragraphs) it doesn't even mention that Flew has a co-author.
The cover of the book also seems to downplay his co-author:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512Cow1agBL._AA240_.jpg

[DOC]

Flew has adopted a deistic philosophy based on his "gut".

While I believe "gut feeling" is important -- what does gut have to do with

A superintelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.”

the unlikelihood that an infinite number of monkeys typing randomly would ever produce a Shakespearean sonnet.

the Cambrian explosion of animal species hundreds of millions of years ago, which he says happened too suddenly to lack some supernatural guidance.

“Many of the greatest scientists of all time” believed that “the intelligence of the universe, its laws, points to an intelligence that has no limitation.”

Flew concedes that the Big Bang could be described in Genesis; that the complexity of DNA strongly points to an “intelligence”; and that the existence of evil is not an insurmountable problem for the existence of God.

In short, Flew retracts decades’ worth of conclusions on which he built his career.

After one brief lecture from Schroeder, arguing that the origin of life can be seen as a form of revelation, Flew says, “I don’t see any way to meet that argument at the moment.”


Thank you DOC for that vivid demonstration of how this will be presented by the religious apologists. :)

No mention of his age or confusion. No context.
No suggestion that he has merely switched to deism rather than full-blown evangelical fundamentalist Christianity.


I didn't "present" anything but a word for word repetition of what you brought in in your OP. I was simply pointing out that the basis for Flew's change had little to do with "gut" as someone opinionated.

[Gregory]

I'd never even heard of "the world's most notorious atheist" until this fiasco. I didn't care what he had to say when he was an atheist, and now that he's a deist ... well, I still don't care.

Some old geezer changes his mind about something and writes a book, and suddenly we're supposed to think it's important? I don't know...

[Apology]

I'd never even heard of "the world's most notorious atheist" until this fiasco. I didn't care what he had to say when he was an atheist, and now that he's a deist ... well, I still don't care.

Some old geezer changes his mind about something and writes a book, and suddenly we're supposed to think it's important? I don't know...

Seriously, he was huge 20 years ago. He was the Dawkins of my generation. It may not mean much to you, but it means a lot to the older folks who have been atheists or agnostics for quite a while. :(

[Puppycow]

I didn't "present" anything but a word for word repetition of what you brought in in your OP. I was simply pointing out that the basis for Flew's change had little to do with "gut" as someone opinionated.

Be that as it may, I think the real issue here is that Flew seems to be under the influence of someone else. At the very least, isn't it dishonest for Flew's name on the cover to be emphasized in large type while his co-author's name is deemphasized? If Flew had actually been the main writer, OK, but here is what Flew himself said about it:
As he himself conceded, he had not written his book.

“This is really Roy’s doing,” he said, before I had even figured out a polite way to ask. “He showed it to me, and I said O.K. I’m too old for this kind of work!”

[Puppycow]

Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God (http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/suffering-evil-and-the-existence-of-god/)
Stanley Fish blogs about this book and another one by Bart D. Ehrman called God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer.

[apmason]

We cary this book at my store and I must say that I too am concerned about the presence of Flew's name on the cover and the lack of input he had in its creation.
This is very much the kind of thing I see all the time with "celebrity" books with ghost writers. Unfortunately this "celebrity" has allowed a writer with an agenda much opposed to his own (previously held) position to do the work. Oh well, I hope he got a nice fat royalty czech for it. Seems that his original position as posted in the link by puppycow remains and will remain for the forseeable future.

[bobcarp]

When a Christian becomes an atheist, does it disprove the Bible? No?

Then why are some Christians so idiotic that they believe that the reverse is true?

You just answered your own question.

[Silentknight]

The obvious point would be that even if one were to posit the existence of the god of deism, that's still a long way from proving the existence of the god of any one religion, let alone establishing the legitimacy of Christianity or its fundamentalist factions.

Also, slightly off topic, I'm not necessarily a huge fan of Christopher Hitchens. I personally try to avoid hero worshiping anyone, for that matter.
http://aintnogod.com/atheist/index.php/topic,1568.0.html

[bokonon]

Wow, this keeps coming up. Flew went from atheist to agnostic deist, and theists will not shut up about it.
Authorities are to fundies what evidence is to skeptics.

[JusCogens]

Silentknight, that is complete and utter crap... I'm not on the same page as Hitchens either when it comes to the war, but nobody seriously thinks that Hitchens is pro-genocide.

The anti-war people hate him with a passion, and not altogether unjustly, but trying to smear him as they did on that occasion made me sick to my stomach. And you shouldn't eat up what they say so uncritically.

Hitchens is more than willing to side with the neocons in order to fight theocracy, and that should make his fans (me included) think twice about our high opinion of him. But that smear piece (PZ Myers also went a bit far in his post on that Hitchens' speech) is uncalled for.

[Silentknight]

If you'll notice my response, I said I hadn't fully reached any conclusions about him or what was said about him, however I am still utterly opposed to and will never agree with any form of militant atheism. I'm well aware that antiwar.com is hardly unbiased or objective, given their record of exaggerating war casualties in order to make their point. That doesn't mean I won't state my objections to Hitchens' ideas, or their implications if they're true, which I admitted I could not tell whether or not they were.

That aside, my point was the same as the rest. Appeals to authority do not constitute evidence, and I'm not about to start hanging on the every word of someone just because he is or once claimed to be an atheist. I've had the Anthony Flew card played on me at least once, but the first time I heard it, his name didn't mean that much to me for that very reason.

[Ron_Tomkins]

One Flew over the cuckoos nest. :D

[Olowkow]

Many of the thinking atheists that I have read or heard speak openly claim that if they had evidence or proof of a god, they would believe. It is just folly to think otherwise. Mr. Flew seems to be a very bright guy and has come to believe things he could not believe when younger. Whether due to advancing years or not, I say "so what?" Everyone has to believe what he must. Claiming to be a god worshipper just to make a buck or to hypocritically claim real estate in heaven, or to advance one's slimey agenda is what bugs me... even more than stupidly attempting to refute scientific evidence in favor of talking snakes.

[articulett]

I think the consensus on Flew (at least in scientific circles) is that some theists have taking advantage of his advancing age and "ghost wrote" a book with him which doesn't really even say what people are claiming it says.

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/11/antony-flew-bogus-book.html
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/yet-more-on-ant.html

But given all the people who convert from theism to atheism, they'll take whatever support they can get... even if they have to make it up from whole cloth--like their god.

[Olowkow]

I'm just too gullible I guess. I'm thinking I'm defending an old codger's right to believe what he wants to, but I keep forgetting what IDers are potentially capable of. At this point, I am leaning towards the comment below from one of the blogs. I've lost track which one. Probably Carrier's. Carrier's assessment is very compelling given his knowledge of the man.


There does seem to be reasonable doubt as to whether Flew quite understands what he’s being used for, or why. But of course, whether or not Flew grasps any of this is irrelevant to the creationists - or maybe it’s not irrelevant. It’s entirely within creationist character to be using Flew as a vehicle for misrepresentation precisely because he has become so confused and easy to manipulate.

[Macoy]

On reflection, I would have to say:

"Wot you lookin at?"*

*© scientologist simpson

[Darth Rotor]

Pharyngula's take on the story. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/roy_varghese_and_the_exploitat.php)

No emotion in that observation. :rolleyes:

ETA: Oops, I note that US covered this already. Sorry for the redundancy.

[Darth Rotor]

Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God (http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/suffering-evil-and-the-existence-of-god/)
Stanley Fish blogs about this book and another one by Bart D. Ehrman called God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer.
Why the assumption that this was the Bible's intent, to explain why we suffer? Suffering is a given in the human condition. Taking the Bible as a whole, I think it provides a framework for dealing with life, even with suffering involved, but I don't know Ehrman's in depth treatment, so I shall stop there.

I thank you for the reference, Puppycow. I enjoy Ehrman. I'll add this to my list of books to look for at Half Priced Books. Still hoping to find a memoirs of US Grant, my next "must read" book, so it will be a while before I can comment on Ehrman.

DR

[Gregory]

No emotion in that observation. :rolleyes:

The idea of an old man whose mind is going being taken advantage of makes Pharyngula emotional, I guess. It sort of makes me emotional, too; shouldn't it?

[Irony]

No emotion in that observation. :rolleyes:

ETA: Oops, I note that US covered this already. Sorry for the redundancy.

As has already been posted, there is evidence that Flew's mind is not what it used to be, and that evangelicals are taking advantage of this to basically lie about his beliefs, secure in the knowledge that he no longer possesses the cognizance to call them out for it.

Some people actually believe in such things as respecting the elderly, especially those with declining mental faculties, and take issue with using their disabilities as a tool to manipulate them.

Some people become, quite understandably, emotional when they see this sort of thing.

You don't have to understand those emotions and you don't have to agree with them, but could you at least not use them as a tool to bash people in the future?

[pgwenthold]

Some people actually believe in such things as respecting the elderly, especially those with declining mental faculties, and take issue with using their disabilities as a tool to manipulate them.



There was a story on 60 Minutes I think about fleecing the elderly. There was a company in Canada that convinced elderly folks in the States to send them money, and to send it they had to tuck $100 bills in the pages of a magazine so that it could get through the inspectors.

And people did it! Sent them thousands of dollars hidden in the pages of magazines!

I mean, it is really hard to feel sorry for people that are that dupable. I honestly wonder how these folks can survive in modern society.

[Gregory]

I mean, it is really hard to feel sorry for people that are that dupable

Speak for yourself; personally, I have no trouble at all feeling sorry for gullible old men and women who are being fleeced by con-men.

[pgwenthold]

Speak for yourself; personally, I have no trouble at all feeling sorry for gullible old men and women who are being fleeced by con-men.

"Send me $1000. Oh, and hide the money in the pages of a magazine so the custom's inspectors can't find it" is not quite "fleecing" in my book.

Of course, I didn't say I didn't feel sorry for them. I said it is hard to.

[Almo]

The fact is, I don't care how many people disagree with me. When people face me with the question, "How can __% of the world believe in a god and be wrong?" I just say, "Easy. They're wrong." That one prominent athiest changes his mind has no bearing on the truth. People desperate to cling to their belief in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence wil hang on to this kind of incident. I'm comfortable in my atheism, and don't need support to stick with it. Of course, I'm not trying to convert anyone, either.

[slingblade]

But he didn't change his mind. There was no choice involved, after all. The idea of belief simply took over his mind, against his will. You can't blame him for believing. He has no power over it; he's helpless.

[Furi]

The fact is, I don't care how many people disagree with me. When people face me with the question, "How can __% of the world believe in a god and be wrong?" I just say, "Easy. They're wrong."

and normally they have that %age screwed up as well, but then again remember that China and the Ex soviet union states don't count as the world do they. And Hindus and pantheists like away goals count double.

They also seem to forget that while they are rabidly saying the numbers of the faithful make up christianity but not including those that follow Judeaism or Islam (unless of course they wish to put the numbers up higher for their claim) same god different rules, errm how many of those xians follow their and only their specific flavour of insanity, all of a sudden the number starts to dwindle rapidly,

All of those that they consider to be infidels sinners social outcasts all of a sudden become best buds when it comes to making up the numbers for God regardless of how much they detest everything their religion stands for.

So until they coalesce into one and offer proof, I am quite happy to sit and point, just like I do watching the tubbies produce sweat through the window at the local gym whilst enjoying my yummy pie.

[Wowbagger]

So, the only way to know that God exists, is to lose ones mind? Is that what the fundies are trying to prove?

[pgwenthold]

So, the only way to know that God exists, is to lose ones mind? Is that what the fundies are trying to prove?

Well, there is already a lot of that. Folks like Josh McDowell who claim they used to be atheists but think that Pascal's Wager and Lewis's Lord, Liar, Lunatic false trichotomy are compelling, for example.

Losing one mind, or just brain-dead to start with.

[Dogdoctor]

Well, there is already a lot of that. Folks like Josh McDowell who claim they used to be atheists but think that Pascal's Wager and Lewis's Lord, Liar, Lunatic false trichotomy are compelling, for example.

Losing one mind, or just brain-dead to start with.

Atheism provides no protection from errors in thinking.

[Darat]

Atheism provides no protection from errors in thinking.


Well it does provide protection from one particular error.... :)

[Dogdoctor]

Well it does provide protection from one particular error.... :)

I think that since atheists can become religious it doesn't provide any protection.

[articulett]

And the Vatican swears condoms can't protect against aids...

I think those who think their way to atheism, for the most part don't go back. Flew is not religious... he's not even mentally capable at this point. At most he's a deist... and at worst, he's experiencing senility and has allowed his words to be twisted by some very dishonest people.

[thaiboxerken]

Atheism provides no protection from errors in thinking.


True, but theism encourages errors in thinking.

[articulett]

True, but theism encourages errors in thinking.

Celebrates them, in fact.

They are a said to be a "sign" of the saved. Can't make sense of theology...? 'chalk it up to "divine mystery" --and reverently tell yourself "this is beyond human understanding..." and "it's arrogant to question god". :)