Atheist Changes Mind

What he thinks is interesting but why he thinks that is more interesting.There isn't enough in the article to get a real understanding of it. He seems to be coming from a position of incredulity. That is understandable to some degree but hardly "scientific evidence". He is after all a philosopher and not deeply knowledgable in the various fields I would presume.Too little to go on really. There is some idea of what he thinks but not really anything on why.

But hardly enough detail yet.

quote:

---

However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.

---

(from the interview -- thanks for that by the way)There are two possibilities here: one is that he knows of something that hasn't been brought up here or other places I have read, the second is that he doesn't.If the latter then his opinion is based on what, in my opinion, is junk. If the former I would wonder why we haven't seen that additional evidence and reasoning.It might be a good idea to point out to most of the believers here that the "god" he is professing a belief in isn't the God that many here believe in.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-11-2004 01:51 PM

LOL, aren't we glad he's gone over to the "other side"? I'm glad I don't have to have his attitude in any way associated with my views.

I'm sorry about this, but I do think you'd do well to work on your spelling. You may have fixed some but not all.Do you have access to a word processor with spell check? Try entering your posts into that and then copying to here. For your own benefit you need to work on that.(mind you it is more of a do-as-I-say thing )

As I type I am listening to him on CBC radio.He has decided that there is some reason for thinking that "Aristotle's God" might exist. This is contradictory to the web page we have.This may be on an "As It Happens" archive in a few hours.His reasoning seems to be totally on the problem of the origin of life not evolution. He thinks it is a big problem.He is commenting on Darwin's late in life "conversion".I'm not sure he has his facts straight.He says that "the god of theism certainly would be the cause of the big bang".What are the characteristics of this god? he is asked. What is it's purpose?"Why should he have a purpose?" is his response. One must assume either the universe going on forever or, if you like, as Aristotle believed that there was a first cause.Does your god concern himself with maintaining his creations? Is he interested in us?Only a god who wants to be praised and wants to be obeyed would create a universe in which there are people to praise and obey is his answer.He is not a Christian it seems.

It was actually on a later reprise of some of the morning shows. I'll try to find an archive later. Busy days right now.

It appears to be a contradiction and that is what I thought listening to him. For a famous philosopher he rambled a bit. I wasn't all that impressed.You should also remember I was trying to type as he was speaking so you can't trust that I have it right.

Having suffered such a loss I can tell you that it would be very nice to be able to believe that it isn't an end. I think I have a tiny bit of understanding of that.I did think I heard, in his ramblings, a bit of cognitive impairment.It's hardly reasonable to be diagnosing at a distance mind you. He is after all only a philosopher. I've heard them go on about the sciences before from a place of deep ignorance. I attended a number of philosophy lectures with a friend back in school (they weren't great but she was ). They spoke of relativity and quantum mechanics with great profundity and knew not a damm thing about the subjects.I'd say the Flew is in the same position with regards to what he is talking about.