World's Leading Atheist Is No Longer An Atheist
Antony Flew is the philosopher behind atheist's most popular arguements. He has been called the most influencial atheist philosopher in the world. In an interview just published in Philosophia Christi he reveals that he now believes in God.
To find out why he changed his mind I recommend this article in World Magazine:
How a prominent atheist philosopher made the revolutionary decision to become a theist.
With what sciences is revealing about our world, if we honestly follow Socrates' advice and go where the evidence leads, the only conclusion that can be reached is that there is a God. If you continue to follow the historical and scientific evidence the conclusion can only be that God is the God of the Bible.
To find out why he changed his mind I recommend this article in World Magazine:
How a prominent atheist philosopher made the revolutionary decision to become a theist.
With what sciences is revealing about our world, if we honestly follow Socrates' advice and go where the evidence leads, the only conclusion that can be reached is that there is a God. If you continue to follow the historical and scientific evidence the conclusion can only be that God is the God of the Bible.
posted by BrickBalloon
Read This Post In Our: Christianity in America Blog Archive
19 Comments:
You make a little bit of a leap there at the end. The fellow you discuss, Antony Flew, is not a Christian. The story makes a bit of a leap too. It suggests that because C.S. Lewis became a Christian that this Professor Flew will become one. I would imagine there are plenty of theist that end their days as theist. It seems he believes that God got the ball rolling so to speak. He does not believe in an afterlife. That is a long way from Christianity (or at least my understanding of it). Wouldn’t the professor be equally inclined to welcome Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or some other religion into his mind. The article is bias and attempts to put a Christian theme on the story. They go as far to suggest that the atheist movement is reeling from this news. I find that hard to believe. The atheist I know don’t know and don’t care who Antony Flew is.
As far as going where the evidence leads, I don’t know how this applies to God. Isn’t the basis for religion around the world faith. This means there is no evidence. The believer simply has to, well, believe. There is no clear cut evidence. If anything science has been tearing down the walls of religion for sometime now (please see: Flat Earth vs. Round Earth debate).
It has taken a while to respond to our comment because I need to create some web pages. There was much more to say than could be said in a blog comment. You'll find the pages starting at: http://www.mtainfo.com/faith/
Just follow the link at the bottom of each page.
Yes, religion is based on faith, but unlike all other religions--including atheism and secularism--Christianity is not based on blind faith. It is based on solid historical facts and evidence.
While I can agree that Antony Flew may not make it all the way to Christianity before he dies (he is 81), I do conclude that as someone who bases his investigations on rational examination of the evidence, that evidence will most likely lead him to Christianity. This is because Christianity is the only religion that is based on solid historical facts and evidence.
Is the atheist community reeling from the news of Professor Flew's conversion? I agree, not the average person. But those who dedicate their lives to philosophical thought are. How would most Christian's react if they heard that Karl Bart had become an atheist? It wouldn't mean anything to them. There would be no reaction--accept in the circles of Christian theologians where the news would be shocking! Just as Karl Bart is probably the 20th Century's greatest Christian theologian--but his name is unknown to the average Christian, Antony Flew filled the same role for atheism.
Secularism is not a religion.
Alright.. I'll ask. What is this "evidence" you speak of? If this evidence is so compelling, why are there not more Christians? Further, why are there divisions of Christianity? It ties into your post regarding truth. Even Christians do not agree on how to interpret this "evidence".
There have been books written on the various aspects of evidence for God and Christianity. I can refer you to some books, or you can pick a topic and I'd be happy to present some of the evidence (I'm not going to write a book here).
What would you like to talk about:
The creation of life. Where did life come from? This includes the intelligent design information that convinced Dr. Flew that God exists.
Historical evidence for Jesus and the resurrection.
Historical evidence for the accuracy of the Bible. This can include questions such as the age of the earth: about 6,000 years vs. millions of years. Was Noah's flood real? (Yes).
Why aren't people turning to Christianity in response to the evidence? Because they don't want to. In our fallen state we naturally love sin and hate God, and thus we turn away from God. So the answer to your question is, because we don't want God. Or maybe a better way to say it is that we want our own god(s), who have the characteristics we want god to have, instead of God as He describes Himself to us.
Why are there differences in Christianity? Two reasons.
One is that Christianity is the only 'religion' that does not impose a uniform culture on its believers. Christianity accepts most aspects of all cultures. I say most aspects, because--for example--head hunters would have to give up being head hunters. So you see many cultures reflected in Christianity.
Two: because we want to create our own god. Anyone can call themselves a Christian. So there are many individuals and churches that have created their own god(s), and who call themselves Christians. An example would be the Episcopal Church in America. They have turned away from the God of the Bible and created their own god who changes based on the culture. However, they are no longer followers of Christ, so they really should not be called Christians--they should be called Episcopals I suppose.
You say that secularism is not a religion. I'm sorry, but I disagree, and so does the U.S. Supreme Court. I don't necessarily consider the U.S. Supreme Court an authority in this, but it is interesting that they have ruled that both atheism and secularism are religions.
The truth is secularism is more of a religion and blind faith than Christianity is. Secularism is based on the hypothesis that life arose from natural processes and gradually increaced in complexity until it reached the peak--humanity. Yet there is no scientific support for this. It's a faith.
Secularism even has its own creed, The Humanist Manifesto.
But I see there is more to this topic than I can include this evening. Watch for a new topic discussing this.
2 entries found for secularism.
sec·u·lar·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sky-l-rzm)
n.
Religious skepticism or indifference.
The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
This is your website. You should run it however you wish. I am sure you will. But if you want to explain Noah and his boat. I would be more than happy to hear that story. Or go into Adam and Eve, be my guest. Or explain why the evidence has directed Christian groups to change their views on issues. It seems there may be a list of proper Chirstian groups. If you could direct me to that, it would be helpful. There was something else, but I forget now. This should be a good starting place.
Last night I was thinking about things a little. My real question has little to do with Christianity. It has more to do with religion in the general sense. Why do religions want to control every person in society? In the United States there are people from every walk of life. They come from every corner of the world and believe in anything and everything under the sun. Some may believe that divorce is wrong, but it still goes on. Some may believe that sex before marriage is wrong, but it still goes on. The most current example is denying gay couples equal rights given to heterosexual couples. In my view of the world, society should treat people equally. Period. Why do some religious organizations want to be involved in schools, politics and peoples lives, especially in the lives of those who are not members of that religious group? I guess that is my real question.
That's a good question. But, after thinking about it I don't believe this is the question. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but before I start answering a question, please see if this makes sense:
Society puts limits (controls, restrictions, etc.) on the lives of people in that society for the benefit of that society. We call them laws and the means of imposing and enforcing these limits is through government.
For example, we have speed limits on the highways. Based on what I see on the interstate most people don't believe in those speed limits. So, why are speed limits imposed and enforced? To benefit society by making highways safer.
We have a tax law that allows home mortgage expenses be a deduction, lowering our federal taxes. Why? Because it is felt that home ownership benefits society. Do people who rent get a federal tax deduction? No. So people are not treated equally (not everyone gets a tax deduction related to what they live in) because it is felt that the result is a benefit to society.
So, to me the real question is, what is a benefit to society, and is thus worth supporting through our laws? And what is not a benefit (for example, excessive speed in a school zone) and should thus be prohibited?
Does this make sense to you?
I can understand that. However, I feel that religion dictating the actions of government is wrong. So, why do religious organizations feel the need to impose icons and ideas in schools, courthouses and in the lives of law abiding, tax-paying positive contributors to society?
Why do you feel the need to impose icons and ideas in schools, courthouses and in the lives of law abiding,
tax-paying positive Christian contributors to society?
Yes, non-Christians have icons, usually expressed as "public art", which Christians find disgusting.
But, the point is -- why are you allowed to participate in the governing of this country and I should not be allowed to do so? In America this is a government by the people, of the people and for the people, is it not? Am I not considered a person?
Who said you were not allowed? I am sorry if you feel threatened when the ten commandments are taken out of the courthouse. I am sorry if you feel threatened by school children no longer want to say "Under God" in school. I am sorry if you feel threatened by a country moving forward and embracing the science of stem cells. The fact is that you have just as much a right to vote as anybody else. You can run for government, just like anybody else.
How would you feel if a group that worshiped some other god forced you to praise that god. A statue of that god was erected in the local courthouse. Your child was forced to pledge allegiance to that god. And you could not have the same rights as those families similar to you because the law was bias. Would that be right?
Just reading over your last post again made me think of something. If you are going to use what I wrote in your reply, then, can you, please, at the very least, copy it word for word?
Another small request, if you respond to my question. Can you, at the very least, respond to the question I ask?
I finally took some time to look back at some of the older posts on this website. I do not really know where to start. I really wonder, and would like for you to confirm or deny this, if MTA and Davis is the same person.
I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood your comment. You said:
"However, I feel that religion dictating the actions of government is wrong. So, why do religious organizations feel the need to impose icons and ideas in schools, courthouses and in the lives of law abiding, tax-paying positive contributors to society?"
I had assumed that when you said "religion" you were referring to Christianity, since that is the dominant "religion" in America. Were you referring to something else?
In our culture, when someone complains about the "influence" of "religion" on government, schools, etc. it is almost always Christianity that is being complained about.
If you were lumping Christianity in with all other religions, that doesn't make sense. For example, Islam imposes Islamic "government" and law on its adherents. Christianity does not impose a specific form government or laws, and only opposes laws that require Christians to engage in unBiblical practices. Christians do favor a government and laws they feel is best, as I'm sure you do also.
There is no monolithic "Christian" organization that enforces or imposes icons or ideas or beliefs. The Christian church is the body of believers. Each individual believer is in a personal relationship with God. No organization tells believers they must vote in a certain way. Christians vote their conscience.
So when you said you do not want "religion dictating the actions of government", I took this statement to mean that you did not wish Christian to be allowed to vote for Christian values. Thus you wished to prevent Christians from voting their conscience, if you didn't like what they wanted to vote for.
I wasn't upset about your statement. But, I was shocked that you were apparently telling Christians that you do not want them to vote, or participate in government, if they do not vote they way you want them to.
I assume you have values that guide your decisions when you vote, or participate in government. Why should not Christians be allowed to have the same right, the right to vote their conscience?
If you are saying that because Christian values are based on the moral values of the Bible, and the moral values taught by an individual organization should not be imposed on the country as a whole, then I suggest that we also take the vote away from students. Colleges and universities generally indoctrinate students in a specific, moral system and world view. Thus this group, based on your reasoning, should not be allowed to impose their morals and values on the rest of the country by voting for what they believe in.
I'd also take exception to your including "positive contributors to society" in the same group as law-abiding and tax-paying. That's not always a true statement. But, that's another issue and this is long enough already.
I'm addressing the second part of your first comment today in this separate comment. You wrote:
"How would you feel if a group that worshiped some other god forced you to praise that god. A statue of that god was erected in the local courthouse. Your child was forced to pledge allegiance to that god. And you could not have the same rights as those families similar to you because the law was bias. Would that be right?"
I've traveled quite a bit and when I'm with people who have different beliefs, I don't participate. For exaple, in this country if I'm in a Morman or Unitarian "church", I do not participate in their prayers or say "amen" at the end of their prayer. (Amen means "I agree"). If I'm with Muslims in their country I view their buildings and inscriptions from the Quarn as history or art. And when they are all praying, I don't participate. I may stand or sit; I may observe or I may choose to take the time to pray to God (the God of the Bible).
I have not see anyone forcing non-Christians to worship God. A basic part of Christianity is that no one can be forced to worship God, worship must come from you heart. Otherwise it is meaningless and God turns His back on your words and actions of "worship".
If there was a courthouse that was located in an area in which there were numerous Muslins, and the court decided to include inscriptions from the Quran on its walls. That's fine. I own a copy of the Quran and have studied it. (FYI: Muslins don't erect religious statues. And the only major religion that has statues of their "gods" is Hinduism.)
I don't know of any law or practice that causes anyone in America to pledge allegiance to a god. We pledge allegiance to our flag and our country, and in that pledge we recognize the fact that this country was founded on Christian principles. That's a historical fact. Muslims can change the word "God" to "Allah" if they wish. For an atheist it's a meaningless statement, and they can leave those words out--no one will notice.
Are you claiming there are people in Amewrica who do not have the same rights as other people? I don't know of anybody who has "rights" that some other American does not have. I don't know of anyone who does not have the same rights as anyone else. The only exception would be prisoners and those serving in the military (and in some other jobs). Their rights are limited because of their circumstances or job requirements.
To start with your last question. I am not officially Davis, that is another person here who runs our American History blog. However, when I was moving the blogs around, setting up and testing the new blogs (each person here has their own blog), I made some posts in this blog while I was logged in using Davis' account. I believe all but one or two of the posts under the name "Davis" here are mine. Davis made one or two posts of his own when he was learning about blogs, and he just wanted to try to say something.
My name is Steve, and in other discussion boards and blogs you'll usually see me as Labeler2003. I use MTA here because I'm the official spokesperson for Mission to America.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I do not really know where to start. I have even typed out several responses to your recent posts. The more conversation we have, the more seems to be misunderstood. I feel that my words are taken, misconstrued, misrepresented and altered into your personal response. It seems that a previous poster had this similar problem. I do not really know what else to do but start over. The little I take have taken away, thus far, seems to be that Christian people wish to impose their values on society much like anybody else would. I thought the answer would be more complicated than that.
It disappoints me that Gay Americans can not marry in most states. What is the argument as to why some wish to prevent this from happening?
Since our discussion is moving off the original topic, I've used your comments as new posts. If this is not acceptable, let me know and I'll remove the posts.
If you wish to send an email about my making it a separate posting, our email form is at:
http://www.mtainfo.com/request.html
I'm tied up a little bit with other things today, but I'll add my comments to answer your question as shortly.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home