Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Leading atheist finds God

Anthony Flew is “an Oxford educated philosopher described by some as ‘legendary.” For years he was one of the world’s leading proponents of atheism. Indeed, “His ideas paved the way for thinkers such as Richard Dawkins, the UK’s most virulent opponent of religious belief.”

In 2004 Dr. Flew changed his mind. He is now convinced of the existence of a personal God who created the universe, though Flew is careful to add that his view of God so far is more like that of Aristotle rather than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. All of this according to a recent article by Hilary White. Excerpts of the article appear below but please read the entire article at LifeSiteNews.

Flew has emphasized that his “discovery” of a god who created life was a result of relentlessly “following the evidence”. “It was empirical evidence,” he told an interviewer, “the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence.”

Flew told Dr. Benjamin Wiker that two factors in particular “were decisive”. “One was my growing empathy,” he said, “with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.”

He told Wiker, “I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code.”

Flew answered Richard Dawkins’ argument that “the origin of life can be attributed to a ‘lucky chance.’” He said, “If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over.” Flew said, “I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data.”