quote:
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.
I agree that he does not give enough detail as to why, but it is very interesting that he's saying that it was scientific evidence that lead him that way. While yes he's a philosopher that does not at all negate his knowledge of the subject. After all you're in software development. But I still consider you relatively knowledgeable of biological science. So that argument is both unnecessary and useless.
And this isn't some random atheist turned theist. This was one of the leading proponents of philosophical atheism. There had to have been some credible and highly convincable evidence. Yes he's up in age, but I don't believe he would randomly nor easily change his mind on the subject. I would love to know what exact evidence he points to, as would we all.
There is another article, in fact an interview of Flew by Dr. Habermass of Liberty University. That is where I first found about this, and is extremely thorough. It's an excellent article and you get a really good taste for what he actually believes, although the exact why is still looming in many instances.
Atheist turned theist
™ Version 4.2
