"As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done." (Anthony Flew)

The newspapers these days are echoing with these regret-filled words by Antony Flew, in his time a well-known atheist philosopher. The 81-year-old British professor of philosophy Flew chose to become an atheist at the age of 15, and first made a name for himself in the academic field with a paper published in 1950. In the 54 years that followed, he defended atheism as a teacher at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, at many American and Canadian universities he visited, in debates, books, lecture halls and articles. In recent days, however, Flew has announced that he has abandoned this error and accepts that the universe was created.

The decisive factor in this radical change of view is the clear and definitive evidence revealed by science on the subject of creation. Flew realized, in the face of the information-based complexity of life, that the true origin of life is intelligent design and that the atheism he had espoused for 66 years was a discredited philosophy.

Flew announced the scientific reasons underlying this change in belief in these terms:

"Biologists' investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved." [1]

"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." [2]

"I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature." [3]

The DNA research which Flew cites as a fundamental reason for his change of opinion has indeed revealed striking facts about creation. The helix shape of the DNA molecule, its possession of the genetic code, the nucleotide strings that refute blind chance, the storage of encyclopedic quantities of information and many other striking findings have revealed that the structure and functions of this molecule were arranged for life with a special design. Comments by scientists concerned with DNA research bear witness to this fact.

Francis Crick, for instance, one of the scientists who revealed the helix shape of DNA admitted in the face of the findings regarding DNA that the origin of life indicated a miracle:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. [4]

Based on his calculations, Led Adleman of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles has stated that one gram of DNA can store as much information as a trillion compact discs. [5] Gene Myers, a scientist employed on the Human Genome Project, has said the following in the face of the miraculous arrangements he witnessed:

"What really astounds me is the architecture of life. The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed. There's a huge intelligence there." [6]

The most striking fact about DNA is that the existence of the coded genetic information can definitely not be explained in terms of matter and energy or natural laws. Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, has said this on the subject:

A code system is always the result of a mental process. It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. [7]

Creationist scientists and philosophers played a major role in Flew's acceptance of intelligent design, backed up by all these findings. In recent times Flew participated in debates with scientists and philosophers who were proponents of creation, and exchanged ideas with them. The final turning point in that process was a discussion organized by the Institute for Metascientific Research in Texas in May, 2003. Professor Flew participated in the discussion together with the author, Roy Abraham Varghese, a physicist, and the molecular biologist, Gerald Schroeder. Flew was impressed by the weight of the scientific evidence in favor of creation and by the convincing nature of his opponents' arguments and abandoned atheism as an idea in the period following that discussion. In a letter he wrote for the August-September, 2003, edition of the British magazine Philosophy Now, he recommended Schroeder's book "The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth" and Varghese's book "The Wonderful World." [8] During an interview with the professor of philosophy and theology Gary R. Habermas, who also played a major role in his change of mind, [9] and also on the video "Has Science Discovered God?" he openly stated that he believed in intelligent design.


The "Intelligence Pervading the Universe" and the Collapse of Atheism

In the face of all the scientific developments outlined above, the acceptance of intelligent design by Anthony Flew, famous for defending atheism for many years, reflects a final scene in the process of collapse which atheism is being subjected to Modern science has revealed the existence of an "intelligence pervading the universe," thus leaving atheism out of the equation.

In his book "The Hidden Face of God," Gerald Schroeder, one of the creationist scientists who influenced Flew, writes:

A single consciousness, a universal wisdom, pervades the universe. The discoveries of science, those that search the quantum nature of subatomic matter, have moved us to the brink of a startling realization: all existence is the expression of this wisdom. In the laboratories we experience it as information that first physically articulated as energy and then condensed into the form of matter. Every particle, every being, from atom to human, appears to represent a level of information, of wisdom. [10]

Scientific research into both the functioning of the cell and the subatomic particles of matter has revealed this fact in an indisputable manner: Life and the universe were brought into being from nothing by the will of an entity possessed of a superior mind and wisdom. There is no doubt that the possessor of that knowledge and mind that designed the universe at all levels is Almighty God.

Deep Sight:

I am very sorry to say what i am about to say.

Apologies in advance to those who I may offend.

BUT ATHEISM IS STUPIDITY.

Flew always described himself as a "negative atheist", asserting that "theological propositions can neither be verified nor falsified by experience", a position he expounded in his classic paper Theology and Falsification (1950), reputedly the most frequently-quoted philosophical publication of the second half of the 20th century.

He argued that any philosophical debate about the Almighty must begin by presuming atheism, placing the burden of proof on those who believe that God exists. "We reject all transcendent supernatural systems, not because we've examined or could have examined each in turn, but because it does not seem to us that there is any good evidence in reason to postulate anything behind or beyond this natural universe," he proclaimed. A key principle of his philosophy was the Socratean concept of "follow the evidence, wherever it leads".

When Flew revealed that he had come to the conclusion that there might be a God after all, it came as a shock to his fellow atheists, who had long regarded him as one of their foremost champions. Worse, he seemed to have deserted Plato for Aristotle, since it was two of Aquinas's famous five proofs for the existence of God – the arguments from design and for a prime mover – that had apparently clinched the matter.

But believers waiting to welcome this most prodigal of sons back into the fold were to be disappointed. Flew's conversion did not embrace such concepts as Heaven, good and evil or the afterlife – let alone divine intervention in human affairs. His God was strictly minimalist – very different from "the monstrous oriental despots of the religions of Christianity and Islam", as he liked to call them. God may have called his creation into existence, then, but why did he bother? To that question, it seemed, Flew had no answer.

But we make His love too narrow
By false limits of our own;
And we magnify His strictness
With a zeal He will not own.

For the love of God is broader
Than the measure of our mind;
And the heart of the Eternal
Is most wonderfully kind.

Enigma:

One thing saddens me about this episode though:




False doctrine of some of our fellow Christians, especially harshness and a readiness to condemn people to "hell" do turn otherwise intelligent people off Christianity. It reminds me of a song from a most beautiful hymn/song "There's a Wideness in God's Mercy" (especially when sung to the tune Corvedale which unfortunately is not one of the tunes in the link): http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/t/h/e/therwide.htm

In truth, part of the fault is with the "intelligent" people too in that they often don't apply enough intellect to understanding true biblical teaching and go by misrepresentations and in extreme cases, like Dawkins, are duplicitous in their tactics. Nevertheless, I believe that we need to balance all this "hell" and brimstone things with a true perspective on God's love as well without going to the other extreme a la WoF that god is my "sugar daddy" or my "boyfriend"!

Deep Sight:

I am very sorry to say what i am about to say.

Apologies in advance to those who I may offend.

BUT ATHEISM IS STUPIDITY.

noetic16:

No need for the apologies . .  ,  that which u said is a LEGENDARY FACT. 

nopuqeater:

We can understand the stance of the atheists. I[b] just dont understand the position of those who say they belief in God. But what is it that makes these "believers" [/b]make their God multipersonality Entity; one a human being hung, another a ghost docile and the last a revered father who cant act alone as Complete Supreme Creator without partnership with the other two?

karo93:

@ nopuqeater
let me break down their belief for you;the one that died is different from the one he was always praying to.

in fact in their opinion there is no one God but different forms that make a Godhead[i dont believe this]

that was why jesus had someone to cry and pray to.

karo93:

@wirinet
i do not advocate that you must worship God infact you can damn him but to say he doesn't exist is the pinnacle of foolishness

wirinet:

I for one had never advocated that you stop worshiping your God, and you can praise him/her/it till eternity, but to worship an imaginary entity with no definition, which you have never seen or heard, but depend on the stories and account of unknown people from another civilization, age and time, i[b]s the height of delusion and psychosis. [/b]

toba:

What then can u call atheist that says theres no God without being able to proof his non Existence?

mazaje:

@ OP so the fact that Anthony Flew accepted that their might be some kind of designed to the universe means that atheism is wrong and christianity right eh?. . . .By the way Anthony Flew never accepted that the christian god or any of the man made gods out there was real, He was willing to accept some form of a deist god. . . ,

What would a convincing argument for God's existence be like since there are so many god concept out there? Depends which "god" you're talking about. Most "god" concepts are either logically incoherent or cognitively vacuous and don't even require a preponderance of evidence to prove their non-existence. . . .Even christianity has many different versions  including some that were wiped out (such as the Gnostics, whose god was quite different). There is no one god even in christianity, but a multiple of ideas of this god that people are endlessly and frivolously trying to reconstruct based on some scriptures that were written by unknown men that also had different views of they god they were talking about.

Believers sometimes complain that atheists seem to accept no argument whatsoever for God's existence, and that they've already decided beforehand that God doesn't exist. Though to be honest, it seems like theists have accepted beforehand that God exists, but let's leave that for the moment.

So let us discuss: What would a convincing argument for God's existence be like? How could its veracity be established?

Most theist arguments are of this form:

1. There is something we don't have an explanation for.
2. Put God as the explanation.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Man has made tremendous progress in discovering answers to so many things and the answers keep disproving the existence of the man made ideas of their various gods. . . . .Natural phenomena are witnessed and studied all the time. Evidence for natural phenomena is abundant. A universe containing or beginning with the supernatural is an assumption.

There is no evidence for supernatural phenomena, and when alleged supernatural phenomena is studied a natural explanation is found, Issac Newton looked at the constellations and could not come up with any explanation for what kept the planets together around the sun in orbit and concluded that it was god that held them together. . .Now we know that no god actually hold the planets in orbit and have developed very good explanation for that  . . . . .Creationists embrace a belief system which rules out any other explanation - no matter what. . . . . .

Genesis is right. End of story. . . . . .No matter that Creatiionists are unable to produce any historical, geographical, geological, archaeological, biological, paleontological or cosmological evidence which substantiates anything in Genesis and[b] is accepted as valid by non-Creationists[/b].

And in 50 years' time, will science still be fumbling around? In 100 years' time? And when, eventually, it tells us how it as done, what new esape route will the Creationists have to hunt for?

Purely logical arguments cannot prove the existence of anything. They need some sort of premises to work from, and we can only get those premises from evidence.

If God actually existed, and was benevolent and powerful (as he is usually described), then he would participate in communication in a manner that is as clear as my communications with other humans. He would NOT communicate in a way that is impossible to distinguish from my own random thoughts. . . . .

wirinet:

It is amazingly shocking that full grown men living in the 20th century can believe such outlandish things like Gods.  Some believe their God is three in one or it it one in three, there even believe one of the three came as a human being suffer,beaten and be killed by mere men, in order for the other part of himself to forgive mankind, even though he can not actually die.

The other religions are just a preposterous, they are mere political tools of subjugation and exploitation of fellow human beings.

Religious people especially the Abrahamic  variation, is close to mass hysteria mixed with psychosis. The greatest plague that has afflicted mankind and still afflict mankind is Religion and it destructive, wicked, egocentic and intolerant Gods.

wirinet:

Please listen to your self, you guy keep regurgitating ridiculous arguments. How can you prove non existence of anything. I you can, then please prove the non existence of vampires, santa claus and Jupiter (the God), while at it have a go at proving the non existence of aliens from the Andromeda galaxy, a 10th planet in the solar system and a civilization living in the centre of the sun.

wirinet:

Please listen to your self, you guy keep regurgitating ridiculous arguments. How can you prove non existence of anything. I you can, then please prove the non existence of vampires, santa claus and Jupiter (the God), while at it have a go at proving the non existence of aliens from the Andromeda galaxy, a 10th planet in the solar system and a civilization living in the centre of the sun.

noetic16:

Non-existence should be provable if a belief-system is involved. xtians are not subject to believing or disbelieving the existence of santa-claus, vampires and jupiters . . . . .they are just not mentioned.

But atheism is defined as the belief in the non-existence of God. This belief should be backed by proof else it is irrational. So, where is your proof/evidence that God does not exist?

noetic16:

1. Last time I checked, we are in the 21st century and not the 20th  

2. Sir, this is NOT a xtian bashing thread. so it does not matter how "contradicting" u find the concept of God. the question is that. .  .  .does the complex intelligent nature of the universe, DNA and life support the existence of a super-intelligent creator?

noetic16:

Non-existence should be provable if a belief-system is involved. xtians are not subject to believing or disbelieving the existence of santa-claus, vampires and jupiters . . . . .they are just not mentioned.

But atheism is defined as the belief in the non-existence of God. This belief should be backed by proof else it is irrational. So, where is your proof/evidence that God does not exist?

karo93:

@wirinet
once again you miss my point. all i want you to do is to acknowledge that the world and its inhabitants could not have come about withouth the coordination of a higher power because even the most minute thing that expanded and became complex to form the world we have to know that it was put there by someone and that someone is GOD.

what i call stupidity is believing that something physical came out of nowhere and started becoming complex!

for instance;
a piece of moulded clay says he is made from clay and that his beautiful patterns were made by clay while another says he was made by a man using clay.

wont you call the first piece "foolish"?well,thats how you atheist are!

wirinet:

My apologies, it is the 21st century, it was an error due to my working and trying to post at the same time.

Noetic, i honestly do not find pleasure in religious arguments, like political arguments, it always leads to a dead end. Each person is caged in his mental universe and anything outside universe is forbidden no matter how logical or obvious it is.
The only time i feel compulsion to respond to post is when someone arrogantly attempts to denigrate others because they hold a completely different view from their acquired beliefs. They then exhibit a feeling of being special and others less than special, or they take on a moral high ground and see any other opinion immoral. That is why i have an aversion (apologies to davidylan) for religious fundamentalists.

I wish they can be contented and satisfied with their personal beliefs and allow other to their personal beliefs no matter how ridiculous it might sound. If a person like let him take a piece of stone and decides to make that a representation of his God, it is his/her right. But it should not lead to hatred, bigotry and discrimination.

I know they is a lot of resentment for atheists, and some tend to view them as less that humans and not worthy to live. The truth is that atheist cannot be wished away, except you want them to go underground as was the case of Christianity in the beginning.  

Noetic, you cannot build a religious cage and expect everybody to trap that person one step at a time. You first ask a person to enter the theist trap by believing in the existence of Gods, then you steer the person to believe in your own particular God, then to your own particular denomination as opposed to Cele or Catholic, and finally you want the person to have your own interpretation of your denominational views. In fact you want other people to become you before you are comfortable interacting with them.

Accept people for what they are, your beliefs is not superior to that of the Buddhist or Ifa worshipper. Every body holds a belief that is in harmony with himself.  

wirinet:

You are being economical with the truth here (notice, i did not say that you are lying). Christians definitely do not believe in the existence of Santa Claus, Jupiter, Mars, Thor, Odin, Venus, etc, if you doubt ask a professing Christian.

This your non - existence argument is baffling. So you are telling me that all that is needed for you to believe anything is a proof of non existence of that think. Meaning you accept the existence of a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow because you cannot prove its non existence, or you accept the existence of the  loch ness monster roaming around the little Scottish river, because with all the years of search by so many, with highly sophisticated equipment, nobody has been able to prove its existence or non existence.

noetic16:

unfortunately, Anthony Flew's soul is LOST forever in eternal damnation. what makes me smile is the fact that he at least acknowledged his ignorance and attempted to make remedy . . . . .but rather unfortunately he did not accept JC as his Lord.

There u go again, running around in circle. The subject of this thread has NOT been the many interpretations/concept of God. . .but the existence of a creator who Anthony flew just attested to.