Antony Flew was arguably the most prolific atheist writer of our time.
He was a champion of atheistic thought.
His stream of atheistic philosophy spans almost half a century.
He used to be cited frequently in the works of fellow atheist authors.
But no more.
Antony fell from grace.
Prior to his death, he issued the following statement:
…we have all the evidence we need in our immediate experience and that only a deliberate refusal to “look” is responsible for atheism of any variety.
Antony believed in God.
Sure, we can quibble about what ‘God’ means.
…but we’re not going to do that.
What Antony stated was that there simply wasn’t enough evidence to believe atheism.
He made no religious claims.
He didn’t believe in an after-life.
My question for you non-theists is:
Do you think there is any reason to investigate Antony’s claims of ‘evidence’? If no, what is your reason for dismissing one of atheism’s most prominent spokesmen?
4 Responses
Science doesn’t ‘explain’ anything.
Science ‘describes’ (some aspects of) nature. Science ‘discovers’ how (some) things work.
It is impossible to ‘explain everything with science’ not because it would take too long or because theories are incomplete but because Science does not explain anything.
Before I make the leap to atheism, I’m going to need a better refutation for the existence of miracles. I see miracles and I’m not delusional or lying.
Spiders spin webs without a single lesson.
Cells replicate themselves somehow without a brain.
Seeds planted upside down grow plants right side up.
I’m self-aware.
…and I could literally go on forever. Everywhere I look there is some inexplicable event taking place. You assure me that ‘Science explains it all’ then send me to YouTube for the proof. Forgive me if I don’t find this particularly persuasive.
You demand hard evidence for everything except your own faith claims.
You claimed that you could prove Santa Claus. Do you think it’s reasonable to simply change ‘God’ to ‘Santa’ in Antony Flew’s statement and consider the matter settled? Remember, you rejected this statement in the first place!
So I’m gonna take your answer to be, “No”. There’s no reason to investigate Dr. Flew’s reasoning. Fifty years of devout atheism doesn’t earn him the benefit of a doubt.
I’m thoroughly intrigued by your proclamations though. Please explain the origin of everything using science! Once you’ve done that, explaining miracles will be a cakewalk.
Then, just for fun, prove santa claus exists. You said it’s possible to prove any sort of being using ‘this person’s method’. So prove santa claus.
Sorry abut the late reply, but I must have missed the notification on my WordPress account.
Antony’s claim may require a bit of acknowledging, or at least taking into account, however it’s just a claim without evidence. He said that “we have all the evidence we need in our immediate experience and that only a deliberate refusal to “look” is responsible for atheism of any variety.” but provides no evidence of this.
If I were to try to explain everything with science, right here and right now, 1. it would take a heck of a long time, 2. parts of scientific theories are always changing as new evidence comes up, and some theories are still incomplete, and 3. I am sure that many parts would be debatable. However there are plenty of sites, videos, articles, etc. out there that provide comprehensive answers to your questions.
Miracles can usually be broken down into three answers:
1. the person claiming them is/was delusional, hallucinating or imagining it – people have claimed to see ghosts and monsters on a random night, but this can be answered with sleep paralysis or being partially asleep.
2. the ‘miracle’ can be answered with probability – many of the things that are called miracles can be explained with probability or another natural cause.
3. the person claiming them is lying/has been lied to, or the miracle was a large exaggeration – the miracle could be a hoax or a lie, and if the miracle has already happened and left no evidence behind, you have no way of knowing.
“…we have all the evidence we need in our immediate experience and that only a deliberate refusal to “look” is responsible for atheism of any variety.” = God exists and atheists are just deliberately refusing to accept it.
“…we have all the evidence we need in our immediate experience and that only a deliberate refusal to “look” is responsible for a disbelief in Santa Claus of any variety.” = Santa Claus exists and people that don’t belief are just deliberately refusing to accept it.
“What Antony stated was that there simply wasn’t enough evidence to believe atheism.”
The claim that there is ‘not enough evidence to believe in atheism’ is misleading. In this case he would be saying that there is not enough evidence to hold the position that there is no god, and not all atheists say that there is definitely no god. I agree with the statement that holding the position that there is no god is a very weak and slightly closed-minded position. Admitting that a god could exist is much more rational.
“…we have all the evidence we need in our immediate experience and that only a deliberate refusal to “look” is responsible for atheism of any variety.”
Perhaps if you make rationalizations and excuses. Near death experiences can be explained with science, the origin of everything can be explained by science, ‘miracles’ can be explained by science. There is no evidence that can only be explained by the supernatural. If you want to assign thee things to a god, then fine, but don’t say that everybody else should. Using this person’s method you could ‘prove’ any sort of being. You could say that we all have the evidence we need in our immediate experience (to prove aliens, or santa clause, or anything really) and that only a deliberate refusal to “look” is responsible for disbelief in (aliens, santa clause, or anything) of any variety.