Atheist Changes Mind

Hey Seven, your link doesn't appear to work.

When I click on it, it works fine. But here's the link in plain text, so you can just copy and paste it: Home - Rational International
It's still a link of course, but if you position your cursor carefully you can select the actual text of the link and paste it in the address bar of your browser. If it still doesn't work, then I suggest you just google the subject. Something will turn up, I'm sure.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

I'd say, in general, that the Philosophers I've met have a horrible tendency to draw broad conclusions from snippets of misunderstood science when it appeals to them and to ignore science when it does not.

You're right. But look around, that goes for scientists as well. Its funny how many biologists feel well placed to discuss physics, or cosmologists discuss fine points of genetics. The Intelligent Design movement is full of that.In the end everyone discussing knowledge is a philosopher, that includes scientists who are natural philosophers, and regular old philosopher philosophers. Everyone from every field is capable of making the error you describe.I moved from straight philosophy into "hard science" and saw the same mistakes being made by the same amount of people. Only the scientists got to play like they must be right because they have a specified "scientific degree". They are not immune and sometimes a badge helps you miss that you might be a bad guy too.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hmm, yes, you're quite right. It's unfair to single out philosophers.

I think he is making a joke of it! I was about to actually correct his spelling since it irritated me. I then realized that he was trying to annoy the spellprudes, of whom I am Chief.

Now that we know the philosopher made no such change in his beliefs, shouldn't we rally to burn fox down for lying again? This is like the millionth time that they lied like this.

Well, burning fox down would be revenge on the world, but I think it would be easier to shut this thread down now. Atheist Did Not change mind after all. Atheist(Flew) merely wanted press.

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.

Actually it does sound like he's shifting into the fundie camp, slowly but surely. These specific tidbits are mainstays of the fundie circles, and I have watched an entire family move from theistic scientists to true fundies under their spell...1) Darwin's late in life "conversion".2) the god of theism certainly would be the cause of the big bang3) One must assume either the universe going on forever or, if you like, as Aristotle believed that there was a first cause.4) 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.Essentially this is setting out an historical precedent to create the groundwork for his own conversion, then moving into assertions and ancient philosophy for explaining why a god must exist (stock dilemma, with "going on forever" being a generic catchall which does not measure up to other unknown possibilities), and finally what God it must be.After all it is only the monotheistic Gods whose only answer is obedience, and he has already denied the possibility of Islam, through his bizarre and offensive commentary.My guess is he's converting but wants his cake and eat it too.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

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.

And then? Isn't this a contradiction? It provides purpose where he I thought he implied there was none. Maybe I'm misunderstanding?

holmes, What is the big problem with forever? Not that it's your viewpoint, but I see this as being offered as a huge hurdle to be explained {insert a god} all of the time. "Conscience Purpose" seems to be a human hangup that the universe is under no obligation to adhere to. Any insight?

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 worked in the healthcare field a bit he is sounding like one or both of the following that I've personally seen:1) Significant loss(es) of someone(s) he cared for. I've seen individuals accept theism based on their inability to cope with where and what will happen to that specific person (not themselves). Seems odd, but we all tend to "bank the fire" of our youth with increasing age....sometimes it's easier to "give in". Pure speculation, but obervations nonetheless.
2) A mild form of dimentia.