Roy Abraham Varghese: New Atheists’ fall for fallacy of LOGICAL POSITIVISM (Richard Dawkins Interview Ricky Gervais About Atheism!)

Richard Dawkins Interview Ricky Gervais About Atheism!

_________

Antony Flew – World’s Most Famous Atheist Accepts Existence of God

Uploaded on Nov 28, 2008

Has Science Discovered God?

A half-century ago, in 1955, Professor Antony Flew set the agenda for modern atheism with his Theology and Falsification, a paper presented in a debate with C.S. Lewis. This work became the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the last 50 years. Over the decades, he published more than 30 books attacking belief in God and debated a wide range of religious believers.

Then, in a 2004 Summit at New York University, Professor Flew announced that the discoveries of modern science have led him to the conclusion that the universe is indeed the creation of infinite Intelligence.

For More Info Visit:
http://ScienceFindsGod.com

__________________

________________

Second, they show no awareness of the fallacies and
muddles that led to the rise and fall of logical positivism.
Those who ignore the mistakes of history will have to repeat
them at some point. Third, they seem entirely unaware of
the massive corpus of works in analytic philosophy of reli-
gion or the sophisticated new arguments generated within
philosophical theism.
It would be fair to say that the “new atheism” is nothing
less than a regression to the logical positivist philosophy
that was renounced by even its most ardent proponents. In
fact, the “new atheists,” it might be said, do not even rise
to logical positivism. The positivists were never so naive as
to suggest that God could be a scientific hypothesis—they
declared the concept of God to be meaningless precisely
because it was not a scientific hypothesis. Dawkins, on the
other hand, holds that “the presence or absence of a cre-
ative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific ques-
tion.”6
This is the kind of comment of which we say it is
not even wrong! In Appendix A, I seek to show that our
immediate experience of rationality, life, consciousness,
thought, and the self militate against every form of athe-
ism, including the newest.
But two things must be said here about certain com-
ments by Dawkins that are directly relevant to the pres-
ent book. After writing that Bertrand Russell “was an
exaggeratedly fair-minded atheist, over-eager to be disillu-
sioned if logic seemed to require it,” he adds in a footnote:
“We might be seeing something similar today in the over
publicized tergiversation of the philosopher Antony Flew,
who announced in his old age that he had been converted
to belief in some sort of deity (triggering a frenzy of eager
repetition all around the Internet). On the other hand, Rus-
sell was a great philosopher. Russell won the Nobel Prize.”7
The puerile petulance of the contrast with the “great phi-
losopher” Russell and the contemptible reference to Flew’s
“old age” are par for the course in Dawkins’s epistles to
the enlightened. But what is interesting here is Dawkins’s
choice of words, one by which he unwittingly reveals the
way his mind works.
Tergiversation means “apostasy.” So Flew’s principal
sin was that of apostatizing from the faith of the fathers.
Dawkins himself has elsewhere confessed that his atheistic
view of the universe is based on faith. When asked by the
Edge Foundation, “What do you believe is true even though
you cannot prove it?” Dawkins replied: “I believe that all
life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere
in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwin-
ian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in
the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design
cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie
the universe.”8 At bottom, then, Dawkins’s rejection of an
ultimate Intelligence is a matter of belief without proof.
And like many whose beliefs are based on blind faith, he
cannot tolerate dissent or defection.
With regard to Dawkins’s approach to the rational-
ity underlying the universe, the physicist John Barrow
observed in a discussion: “You have a problem with these
ideas, Richard, because you’re not really a scientist. You’re
a biologist.” Julia Vitullo-Martin notes that for Barrow biol-
ogy is little more than a branch of natural history. “Biolo-
gists,” says Barrow, “have a limited, intuitive understanding
of complexity. They’re stuck with an inherited conflict from
the nineteenth century, and are only interested in out-
comes, in what wins out over others. But outcomes tell you
almost nothing about the laws that govern the universe.”9
Dawkins’s intellectual father seems to be Bertrand Rus-
sell. He talks about how he was “inspired . . . at the age of
about sixteen”10 by Russell’s 1925 essay “What I Believe.”
Russell was a determined opponent of organized religion,
and this makes him a role model for Harris and Dawkins;
stylistically too they emulate Russell’s penchant for sar-
casm, caricature, flippancy, and exaggeration. But Russell’s
rejection of God was not motivated just by intellectual fac-
tors. In My Father, Bertrand Russell, his daughter, Katha-
rine Tait, writes that Russell was not open to any serious
discussion of God’s existence: “I could not even talk to him
about religion.” Russell was apparently turned off by the
kind of religious believers he had encountered. “I would
have liked to convince my father that I had found what
he had been looking for, the ineffable something he had
longed for all his life. I would have liked to persuade him
that the search for God does not have to be vain. But it was
hopeless. He had known too many blind Christians, bleak
moralists who sucked the joy from life and persecuted their
opponents; he would never have been able to see the truth
they were hiding.”
Tait, nevertheless, believes that Russell’s “whole life was
a search for God. . . .Somewhere at the back of my father’s
mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depths of his soul,
there was an empty space that had once been filled by God,
and he never found anything else to put in it.” He had the
“ghostlike feeling of not belonging, of having no home
in this world.”11
In a poignant passage, Russell once said:
“Nothing can penetrate the loneliness of the human heart
except the highest intensity of the sort of love the religious
teachers have preached.”12You would be hard put to find
any passage that remotely resembles this in Dawkins.
Returning to the account of Flew’s “tergiversation,” it
has perhaps never occurred to Dawkins that philosophers,
whether great or less well known, young or old, change
their minds based on the evidence. He might be disap
pointed that they are “over-eager to be disillusioned if logic
seemed to require it,” but then again they are guided by
logic, not by fear of tergiversation.
Russell, in particular, was so fond of tergiversation that
another celebrated British philosopher, C. D. Broad, once
said, “As we all know, Mr. Russell produces a different
system of philosophy every few years.”13 There have been
other instances of philosophers changing their mind on
the basis of evidence. We have already observed that Ayer
disavowed the positivism of his youth. Another example of
one who underwent such radical change is J. N. Findlay,
who argued, in Flew’s 1955 book New Essays in Philosophi-
cal Theology, 14 that God’s existence can be disproved—but
then reversed himself in his 1970 work Ascent to the Abso-
lute.
In the latter and subsequent books, Findlay argues
that mind, reason, intelligence, and will culminate in God,
the self-existent, to whom is owed worship and uncondi-
tional self-dedication.
Dawkins’s “old age” argument (if it can be called that)
is a strange variation of the ad hominem fallacy that has no
place in civilized discourse. True thinkers evaluate argu-
ments and weigh the evidence without regard to the pro-
ponent’s race, sex, or age.
Another persistent theme in Dawkins’s book, and in
those of some of the other “new atheists,” is the claim that
no scientist worth his or her salt believes in God. Dawkins,
for instance, explains away Einstein’s statements about God
as metaphorical references to nature. Einstein himself, he
says, is at best an atheist (like Dawkins) and at worst a
pantheist. But this bit of Einsteinian exegesis is patently
dishonest. Dawkins references only quotes that show Ein-
stein’s distaste for organized and revelational religion. He
deliberately leaves out not just Einstein’s comments about
his belief in a “superior mind” and a “superior reasoning
power” at work in the laws of nature, but also Einstein’s
specific denial that he is either a pantheist or an atheist.
(This deliberate distortion is rectified in this book.)
More recently, when asked on a visit to Jerusalem if he
believed in the existence of God, the famous theoretical
physicist Stephen Hawking is reported to have replied that
he did “believe in the existence of God, but that this Divine
force established the laws of nature and physics and after
that does not enter to control the world.”15 Of course, many
other great scientists of modern times such as Heisenberg
and Planck believed in a divine Mind on rational grounds.
But this too is whitewashed out of Dawkins’s account of
scientific history.
Dawkins, in fact, belongs to the same peculiar club of
popular science writers as Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov from
a previous generation. These popularizers saw themselves
not simply as scribes, but as high priests. Like Dawkins,
they took on themselves the task not just of educating
the public on the findings of science, but also of deciding
what it is permissible for the scientific faithful to believe
on matters metaphysical. But let us be clear here. Many
of the greatest scientists saw a direct connection between
their scientific work and their affirmation of a “superior
mind,” the Mind of God. Explain it how you will, but this
is a plain fact that the popularizers with their own agendas
cannot be allowed to hide. About positivism, Einstein in
fact said, “I am not a positivist. Positivism states that what
cannot be observed does not exist. This conception is sci-
entifically indefensible, for it is impossible to make valid
affirmations of what people ‘can’ or ‘cannot’ observe. One
would have to say ‘only what we observe exists,’ which is
obviously false.”16
If they want to discourage belief in God, the populariz-
ers must furnish arguments in support of their own atheis-
tic views. Today’s atheist evangelists hardly even try to argue
their case in this regard. Instead, they train their guns on
well-known abuses in the history of the major world reli-
gions. But the excesses and atrocities of organized religion
have no bearing whatsoever on the existence of God, just
as the threat of nuclear proliferation has no bearing on the
question of whether E = mc2.
So does God exist? What about the arguments of athe-
ists old and new? And what bearing does modern science
have on the matter? By a striking coincidence, at this par-
ticular moment in intellectual history when the old positiv-
ism is back in vogue, the same thinker who helped end its
reign a half century ago returns to the battlefield of ideas
to answer these very questions.

 

______________

Richard Dawkins vs William Lane Craig – Full Debate –

 

Antony Flew on God and Atheism

Published on Feb 11, 2013

Lee Strobel interviews philosopher and scholar Antony Flew on his conversion from atheism to deism. Much of it has to do with intelligent design. Flew was considered one of the most influential and important thinker for atheism during his time before his death (he’s a much better thinker than Richard Dawkins too – even when he was an atheist). His conversion to God-belief has caused an uproar among atheists. They have done all they can to lessen the impact of his famous conversion by shamelessly suggesting he’s too old, senile and mentally deranged to understand logic and science anymore.

News on Antony Flew’s conversion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1e4FU…

Interview and discussion with Antony Flew:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53REH…

________________

 

Related posts:

Antony Flew did not make a public profession of faith in Christ but will his conversion from atheism to theism have an impact?

____________ Jesus’ Resurrection: Atheist, Antony Flew, and Theist, Gary Habermas, Dialogue Published on Apr 7, 2012 http://www.veritas.org/talks – Did Jesus die, was he buried, and what happened afterward? Join legendary atheist Antony Flew and Christian historian and apologist Gary Habermas in a discussion about the facts surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Join the […]

Concerning the book THERE IS A GOD Antony Flew stated, “This is my book and it represents my thinking!

_______ ________ Does God Exist?: William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew Uploaded on Dec 16, 2010 http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com – William Lane Craig and Antony Flew met in 1998 on the 50th anniversary of the famous Copleston/Russell debate to discuss the question of God’s existence in a public debate. Unlike Richard Dawkins, Flew was one of the most […]

Bill Muehlenberg’s review of “There Is a God” By Antony Flew

_________________   Antony Flew on God and Atheism Published on Feb 11, 2013 Lee Strobel interviews philosopher and scholar Antony Flew on his conversion from atheism to deism. Much of it has to do with intelligent design. Flew was considered one of the most influential and important thinker for atheism during his time before his […]

Former Atheist Antony Flew noted that Evolutionists failed to show “Where did a living, self-reproducing organism come from in the first place?”

____   Does God Exist? Thomas Warren vs. Antony Flew Published on Jan 2, 2014 Date: September 20-23, 1976 Location: North Texas State University Christian debater: Thomas B. Warren Atheist debater: Antony G.N. Flew For Thomas Warren: http://www.warrenapologeticscenter.org/ ______________________ Antony Flew and his conversion to theism Uploaded on Aug 12, 2011 Antony Flew, a well known […]

Educated Scholars like Antony Flew can believe in God!!!

__________ Discussion (1 of 3): Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas Uploaded on Sep 22, 2010 A discussion with Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas. This was held at Westminster Chapel March, 2008 Debate – William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens – Does God Exist? Uploaded on Jan 27, 2011 April 4, 2009 – Craig […]

Antony Flew rightly noted that Richard Dawkins’ “monkey theorem was a load of rubbish”

________   William Lane Craig versus Eddie Tabash Debate Uploaded on Feb 6, 2012 Secular Humanism versus Christianity, Lawyer versus Theologian. Evangelical Christian apologist William Lane Craig debates humanist atheist lawyer Eddie Tabash at Pepperdine University, February 8, 1999. Visit http://www.Infidels.org andhttp://www.WilliamLaneCraig.com ________________ Antony Flew on God and Atheism Published on Feb 11, 2013 Lee […]

Article from 2005 indicated Antony Flew abandoned atheism because of Law of Biogenesis!!!!

___________   Does God Exist? Thomas Warren vs. Antony Flew Published on Jan 2, 2014 Date: September 20-23, 1976 Location: North Texas State University Christian debater: Thomas B. Warren Atheist debater: Antony G.N. Flew For Thomas Warren: http://www.warrenapologeticscenter.org/ ______________________ Antony Flew and his conversion to theism Uploaded on Aug 12, 2011 Antony Flew, a well known […]

The Christian influence on society is real and that is one of the reasons Antony Flew left Atheism!!!

_____________ Antony Flew on God and Atheism Published on Feb 11, 2013 Lee Strobel interviews philosopher and scholar Antony Flew on his conversion from atheism to deism. Much of it has to do with intelligent design. Flew was considered one of the most influential and important thinker for atheism during his time before his death […]

Antony Flew, George Wald and David Noebel on the Origin of Life

___________ Does God Exist?: William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew Uploaded on Dec 16, 2010 http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com – William Lane Craig and Antony Flew met in 1998 on the 50th anniversary of the famous Copleston/Russell debate to discuss the question of God’s existence in a public debate. Unlike Richard Dawkins, Flew was one of the most respected […]

The Fine Tuning Argument for the Existence of God from Antony Flew!

___________ ________ Jesus’ Resurrection: Atheist, Antony Flew, and Theist, Gary Habermas, Dialogue Published on Apr 7, 2012 http://www.veritas.org/talks –Did Jesus die, was he buried, and what happened afterward? Join legendary atheist Antony Flew and Christian historian and apologist Gary Habermas in a discussion about the facts surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Join […]

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: