| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
25 Dec 2004 08:15:02 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Baptist Press slanders Flew? Hardly. |
John Wilkins wrote:
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, P.G.:
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:10slnuid9dde95f@corp.supernews.com...
Well, not entirely slanders, but certainly, er, makes a
better story for themselves:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19780
Slanders? I didn't read anything close to slander.
Sure, they say he's becoming more like them. If you
know BP, you'd know that's an insult!
More seriously, I note that the strongest statements
they have about Flew's beliefs are either editorial insertions
or second-hand. If Flew really _is_ "impressed with
the arguments for the resurrection", whatever that means,
then he's fairly dim. And the other statement by
Habermas: "He wrote me a long letter, quite an incredible letter,
where at several points he conceded the evidence for [theism
and Christianity]." That's not even Habermas' words, at least
not "Christianity." Nothing else I've seen from Flew indicates
any concessions towards the evidence for Christianity.
It also doesn't address the really, really lame part of
Flew's actual beliefs, which is that he thinks the world
and life are too complex to come into existence on the
basis of physical laws, so he posits something MORE
complex to explain everything...
John, if you're reading, I never saw you address this
(to me) fairly obvious and gaping weakness in his
thinking. Did you?
Well I blogged and posted on Flew's "conversion", but it seems to me he
is not arguing the anthropic principle, nor even the design argument for
God,
From
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
"HABERMAS.... You mention a number of trends in theistic argumentation
that you find convincing, like big bang cosmology, fine tuning and
Intelligent Design arguments. Which arguments for God’s existence did
you find most persuasive?
FLEW: I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are
those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never
been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t
think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument
to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first
met it."
"HABERMAS: Once you mentioned to me that your view might be called
Deism. Do you think that would be a fair designation?
FLEW: Yes, absolutely right. What Deists, such as the Mr. Jefferson who
drafted the American Declaration of Independence, believed was that,
while reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that
there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation
of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual
human beings."
"HABERMAS: Tony, you recently told me that you have come to believe in
the existence of God. Would you comment on that?
FLEW: Well, I don’t believe in the God of any revelatory system,
although I am open to that. But it seems to me that the case for an
Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also
intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before."
but only that the origin of life is too low a probability to occur
naturally.
"HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological,
teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones
that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?
FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly
overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of
_The Origin of Species_, pointed out that his whole argument began with
a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the
creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of
evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he
had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings
of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a
new and enormously powerful argument to design."
From
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19780
"He [Flew] told me he was really rethinking theism and had corresponded
with Dawkins and was putting the ID arguments up against what Dawkins
was saying and trying to compare the arguments," Habermas said. "And he
was going back and forth as to whether he should be a theist or not."
It's a bad argument, and he relies on the rather pathetic (I
am told - never read him myself) book by Gerard Schroeder, which has
been roundly debunked anyway.
[JW]"It seems to me" that you have been [JW]"told" many things.
.
|
|
| User: "Lt. Kizhe Catson" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Press slanders Flew? Hardly. |
27 Dec 2004 09:24:12 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, P.G.:
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:10slnuid9dde95f@corp.supernews.com...
Well, not entirely slanders, but certainly, er, makes a
better story for themselves:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19780
Slanders? I didn't read anything close to slander.
Sure, they say he's becoming more like them. If you
know BP, you'd know that's an insult!
More seriously, I note that the strongest statements
they have about Flew's beliefs are either editorial insertions
or second-hand. If Flew really _is_ "impressed with
the arguments for the resurrection", whatever that means,
then he's fairly dim. And the other statement by
Habermas: "He wrote me a long letter, quite an incredible letter,
where at several points he conceded the evidence for [theism
and Christianity]." That's not even Habermas' words, at least
not "Christianity." Nothing else I've seen from Flew indicates
any concessions towards the evidence for Christianity.
It also doesn't address the really, really lame part of
Flew's actual beliefs, which is that he thinks the world
and life are too complex to come into existence on the
basis of physical laws, so he posits something MORE
complex to explain everything...
John, if you're reading, I never saw you address this
(to me) fairly obvious and gaping weakness in his
thinking. Did you?
Well I blogged and posted on Flew's "conversion", but it seems to me he
is not arguing the anthropic principle, nor even the design argument for
God,
From
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
"HABERMAS.... You mention a number of trends in theistic argumentation
that you find convincing, like big bang cosmology, fine tuning and
Intelligent Design arguments. Which arguments for God’s existence did
you find most persuasive?
FLEW: I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are
those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never
been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t
think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument
to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first
met it."
"HABERMAS: Once you mentioned to me that your view might be called
Deism. Do you think that would be a fair designation?
FLEW: Yes, absolutely right. What Deists, such as the Mr. Jefferson who
drafted the American Declaration of Independence, believed was that,
while reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that
there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation
of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual
human beings."
"HABERMAS: Tony, you recently told me that you have come to believe in
the existence of God. Would you comment on that?
FLEW: Well, I don’t believe in the God of any revelatory system,
although I am open to that. But it seems to me that the case for an
Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also
intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before."
but only that the origin of life is too low a probability to occur
naturally.
"HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological,
teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones
that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?
FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly
overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of
_The Origin of Species_, pointed out that his whole argument began with
a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the
creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of
evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he
had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings
of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a
new and enormously powerful argument to design."
Flew echoed much of the above in an interview on CBC Radio on the 23rd
(see my empty post of that date -- damn Google). He also quite
explicitly rejected Christianity, which he termed a teaching of hatred,
for condemning unbelievers to an eternity of torment. His God is more
like Aristotle's Intelligent First Cause. This is "moving closer to
Christianity" only if one sees the range of religious belief as a
one-dimensional line stretching from atheism to fundamentalism. I see
Habermas' claim as typical evangelist's wishful thinking.
-- Kizhe
[rest snipped]
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Baptist Press slanders Flew? Hardly. |
27 Dec 2004 01:05:39 PM |
|
|
Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:
david ford wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, P.G.:
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:10slnuid9dde95f@corp.supernews.com...
Well, not entirely slanders, but certainly, er, makes a
better story for themselves:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19780
Slanders? I didn't read anything close to slander.
Sure, they say he's becoming more like them. If you
know BP, you'd know that's an insult!
More seriously, I note that the strongest statements
they have about Flew's beliefs are either editorial insertions
or second-hand. If Flew really _is_ "impressed with
the arguments for the resurrection", whatever that means,
then he's fairly dim. And the other statement by
Habermas: "He wrote me a long letter, quite an incredible letter,
where at several points he conceded the evidence for [theism
and Christianity]." That's not even Habermas' words, at least
not "Christianity." Nothing else I've seen from Flew indicates
any concessions towards the evidence for Christianity.
It also doesn't address the really, really lame part of
Flew's actual beliefs, which is that he thinks the world
and life are too complex to come into existence on the
basis of physical laws, so he posits something MORE
complex to explain everything...
John, if you're reading, I never saw you address this
(to me) fairly obvious and gaping weakness in his
thinking. Did you?
Well I blogged and posted on Flew's "conversion", but it seems to
me he
is not arguing the anthropic principle, nor even the design
argument for
God,
From
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
"HABERMAS.... You mention a number of trends in theistic argumentation
that you find convincing, like big bang cosmology, fine tuning and
Intelligent Design arguments. Which arguments for God’s existence did
you find most persuasive?
FLEW: I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are
those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never
been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t
think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument
to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first
met it."
"HABERMAS: Once you mentioned to me that your view might be called
Deism. Do you think that would be a fair designation?
FLEW: Yes, absolutely right. What Deists, such as the Mr. Jefferson who
drafted the American Declaration of Independence, believed was that,
while reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that
there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation
of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual
human beings."
"HABERMAS: Tony, you recently told me that you have come to believe in
the existence of God. Would you comment on that?
FLEW: Well, I don’t believe in the God of any revelatory system,
although I am open to that. But it seems to me that the case for an
Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also
intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before."
but only that the origin of life is too low a probability to occur
naturally.
"HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological,
teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones
that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?
FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly
overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of
_The Origin of Species_, pointed out that his whole argument began with
a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the
creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of
evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he
had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings
of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a
new and enormously powerful argument to design."
Flew echoed much of the above in an interview on CBC Radio on the 23rd
(see my empty post of that date -- damn Google). He also quite
explicitly rejected Christianity, which he termed a teaching of hatred,
for condemning unbelievers to an eternity of torment.
Flew [LKC]"quite explicitly rejected Christianity" Compare
"HABERMAS: C. S. Lewis explained in his autobiography that he moved
first from atheism to theism and only later from theism to Christianity.
Given your great respect for Christianity, do you think that there is
any chance that you might in the end move from theism to Christianity?
FLEW: I think it's very unlikely, due to the problem of evil. But, if
it did happen, I think it would be in some eccentric fit and doubtfully
orthodox form: regular religious practice perhaps but without belief.
If I wanted any sort of future life I should become a Jehovah's Witness."
From
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
Significantly, Jehovah's Witnesses reject the never-ending-torment
position, and accept the annihilationist position.
[LKC]"rejected Christianity, which he [Flew] termed a teaching of
hatred, for condemning unbelievers to an eternity of torment."
"Christianity" is not monolithic when it comes to the nature of hell.
Besides this
Bacchiocchi chapter "Hell: Eternal Torment Or Annihilation?"
http://www2.andrews.edu/~samuele/books/immortality_resurrection/6.htm
I also liked Pinnock's essay (extract below).
IMO, the proof texts for the never-ending-torment position are a joke.
Annihilation is not that far removed from the idea that capital
punishment can be a just punishment.
Pinnock, Clark H. 1992. "The Conditional View" in _Four
Views On Hell_, edited by William Crockett (Michigan:
Zondervan Publishing House), 190pp., 135-166. The first 3
paragraphs:
The cover story of _US News and World Report_ for
March 25, 1991, read as follows: "Hell's Sober
Comeback. Three out of five Americans now believe in
Hades but their views on damnation differ sharply.
Theologians are struggling to explain these infernal
images." The journalist observed that more people
today are taking the reality of hell seriously than in
recent years, though they continue to be uncertain about
hell's nature; thus a debate around the issue has arisen in
the churches. I can identify with that observation. For
me too, hell is an unquestioned reality, plainly
announced in the biblical witness, but its precise
_nature_ is problematic.
Of all the articles of theology that have troubled the
human conscience over the centuries, I suppose few
have caused any greater anxiety than the received
interpretation of hell as everlasting conscious
punishment in body and soul, an anxiety which is
heightened only by the cluster of other dark notions that
cling to it in the tradition: I refer to beliefs such as
double predestination, the fewness of salvation, and the
idea that the plight of the damned brings delight to the
saints who behold it from heaven's glory. Even though
the focus here is on the nature of hell as everlasting
punishment-- and there is no space to refute the ideas
associated with it, however deserving of refutation-- it
would be a mistake not to point to the larger pattern to
which the traditional view of hell belongs and which
accentuates the horror. According to the larger picture,
we are asked to believe that God endlessly tortures
sinners by the million, sinners who perish because the
Father has decided not to elect them to salvation, though
he could have done so, and whose torments are
supposed to gladden the hearts of believers in heaven.
The problems with this doctrine are both extensive and
profound.
Not surprisingly, the traditional view of the nature of
hell has been a stumbling block for believers and an
effective weapon in the hands of skeptics for use against
the faith. The situation has become so serious that one
scarcely hears hell mentioned at all today, even from
pulpits committed to the traditional view. This fact
demonstrates that its defenders are not enthusiastic
about it, even though the doctrine remains on the books.
The Westminster Confession, for example, states that
the non-elect "shall be cast into eternal torments and be
punished with everlasting destruction" (33.2). Even
when an individual does have the stomach to defend the
doctrine, there is seldom the delight or pleasure in it as
earlier generations had and never any mention of
predestination in the presentation. The doctrine once in
full flower is drooping.
His God is more
like Aristotle's Intelligent First Cause. This is "moving closer to
Christianity" only if one sees the range of religious belief as a
one-dimensional line stretching from atheism to fundamentalism. I see
Habermas' claim as typical evangelist's wishful thinking.
[rest snipped]
Does this display [LKC]"wishful thinking" on Habermas's part?:
"'Deism is a very tenuous position, and deistic belief is a short-lived
movement in the history of philosophy over the last few centuries,'
Habermas said. 'One reason deism is a troubled position is that it
usually moves one way or the other.' Flew could revert back to atheism,
Habermas noted."
From
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19780
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
