Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A review of "There is a God" by Antony Flew
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 50 (435571)
11-21-2007 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by GDR
11-21-2007 4:03 PM


To repeat an earlier point....
...they certainly sound like the views of a rational man to me.
quote:
The first bit of evidence he cites is the fact that nature obeys rational and ordered laws. The second is the fact that we are intelligently organised and purpose-driven beings. The third is the very existence of nature itself. The brute evidence of nature, in others words, has led Flew to recognise that “the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence”.
As I stated a couple of weeks ago, the last time Flew's book was mentioned, this doesn't seem terribly rational to me. It's certainly not logically valid -- there seems to be a few lines missing from the syllogisms.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by GDR, posted 11-21-2007 4:03 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by GDR, posted 11-21-2007 5:01 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2007 6:07 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 17 of 50 (435574)
11-21-2007 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Chiroptera
11-21-2007 4:29 PM


Re: To repeat an earlier point....
quote writes:
The first bit of evidence he cites is the fact that nature obeys rational and ordered laws. The second is the fact that we are intelligently organised and purpose-driven beings. The third is the very existence of nature itself. The brute evidence of nature, in others words, has led Flew to recognise that “the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence”.
I can't see how you can consider this line of thought irrational. These observations certainly lead to questions about the basis of our existance, which may or may not lead peole to believe in a creative intelligence, but the conclusion that Flew comes to certainly appears rational.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 11-21-2007 4:29 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 11-21-2007 5:14 PM GDR has replied
 Message 21 by bluegenes, posted 11-21-2007 5:54 PM GDR has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 50 (435575)
11-21-2007 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by GDR
11-21-2007 5:01 PM


Re: To repeat an earlier point....
Maybe we're using different senses for the word rational.
If I said, "It is raining outside. My cookie tastes good," then that is certainly not irrational, but it is a non-sequitur. If I were trying to convince you that I was eating a delicious cookie, and I tried to use the fact that it is raining outside as proof, then you would rightly consider the argument illogical.
In the same way, "the fact that nature obeys rational and ordered laws, the fact that we are intelligently organised and purpose-driven beings, and the very existence of nature itself," (ignoring that the first two are open to subjective interpretation) and "the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence" are non-sequiturs. It isn't necessarily irrational to put them together in the same paragraph, but to imply that the first three somehow imply the last is illogical. The last is a statement that is logically independent of the first three.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by GDR, posted 11-21-2007 5:01 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by GDR, posted 11-21-2007 5:29 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 19 of 50 (435576)
11-21-2007 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Chiroptera
11-21-2007 5:14 PM


Re: To repeat an earlier point....
He makes three observations about our existance. I agree that they can just stand on their own without any response, on the other hand we do have enquiring minds which leads us to ask - I wonder why. One of the possibilities that this question raises is that things were intelligently designed, (which is naot a scientific statement), to be that way.
Flew isn't saying that the three things imply a Theistic conclusion. Flew is just saying that on balance when he considered these things it caused HIM to come to a Theistic conclusion. He isn't saying that because of any impication made by these three statements that you or anyone else should come to that conclusion. The statement sounds totally rational to me.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 11-21-2007 5:14 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 11-21-2007 5:42 PM GDR has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 50 (435577)
11-21-2007 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by GDR
11-21-2007 5:29 PM


Re: To repeat an earlier point....
He isn't saying that because of any impication made by these three statements that you or anyone else should come to that conclusion.
This is saying that the conclusion is not rational. Rational does not mean "the two statements are not contradictory and seem agreeable to me." Rational means that the conclusion follows from the premises. If no one else should come to a particular conclusion, then the conclusion is not rational. It is a simple matter of what rational means.
And, anyway, this isn't what the OP states. The OP states quite unequivocably
quote:
The atheist world was rocked by the news of one of the most important defections from its ranks in recent times....
In this hugely important book Antony Flew challenges all of us - atheists especially - to honestly and sincerely examine the evidence, without preconceived biases and agendas. Genuine intellectual honesty demands that we indeed follow the evidence wherever it may lead.
These statements make no sense if there is no reason why any of us should come to the same conclusions that Flew did.
When you say
Flew is just saying that on balance when he considered these things it caused HIM to come to a Theistic conclusion. He isn't saying that because of any impication made by these three statements that you or anyone else should come to that conclusion.
you are saying that Flew came to an idiosyncratic position that has little to do with reason. You are also undercutting the importance of the book by admitting that it is about the idiosyncratic arational musings of one particular person.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by GDR, posted 11-21-2007 5:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by GDR, posted 11-21-2007 6:45 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 21 of 50 (435579)
11-21-2007 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by GDR
11-21-2007 5:01 PM


Re: To repeat an earlier point....
GDR writes:
I can't see how you can consider this line of thought irrational. These observations certainly lead to questions about the basis of our existance, which may or may not lead peole to believe in a creative intelligence, but the conclusion that Flew comes to certainly appears rational.
Observations leading to questions are one thing, baseless conclusions are another. But what's interesting in relation to Flew is that this is old stuff. He could have (indeed must have) considered these points long before he reached the age of 80. I considered them decades ago.
So think about it. What changed? Has he grown more brain cells as he got older, with which to consider these points? Or maybe.....not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by GDR, posted 11-21-2007 5:01 PM GDR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 22 of 50 (435581)
11-21-2007 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Chiroptera
11-21-2007 4:29 PM


Re: To repeat an earlier point....
None of them are rational.
The first is just a bit of special pleading. It amounts to "Order needs an explanation except when it takes the form of God" Well why exactly should "God" get a special exemption other than the fact that God's existence is the desired conclusion ?
The second is equally bad. God would equally appear to be "intelligently designed" and "purpose driven". So either we have an infinite regress or we recognise that we ought to look for other explanations.
The third is just silly. Why should the bare existence of nature imply the existence of anything supernatural ?
To be honest, anyone who falls for ideas like these is not a great thinker. Flew may have been a significant figure in the past - but he certainly doesn't seem to be now. So his "conversion" is hardly the significant event that some would have you believe.
To me the main significance is the shabby dishonesty of publishing the book under Flew's name when he didn't write a word of it - and a significant part was written by someoen who doesn't even get a credit.
It is written "by their fruit you shall know them". It seems that Varghese is just one more bad apple from a rotten tree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 11-21-2007 4:29 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 23 of 50 (435583)
11-21-2007 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Chiroptera
11-21-2007 5:42 PM


Re: To repeat an earlier point....
Chiroptera writes:
These statements make no sense if there is no reason why any of us should come to the same conclusions that Flew did.
It is a review of the book. I would imagine that you have to read the book to gain the reasons.
Chiroptera writes:
you are saying that Flew came to an idiosyncratic position that has little to do with reason. You are also undercutting the importance of the book by admitting that it is about the idiosyncratic arational musings of one particular person.
I know that this just leads into amother argument about reason but it is your opinion that his so called musings are idiosyncratic. In my view the notion that the universe exists without a prime mover is irrational. Can I prove that? No. Is it idiosyncratic? Maybe, but no more so than asserting that there is no prime mover.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 11-21-2007 5:42 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Chiroptera, posted 11-21-2007 6:58 PM GDR has replied
 Message 30 by Omnivorous, posted 11-21-2007 10:29 PM GDR has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 24 of 50 (435586)
11-21-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
11-21-2007 1:50 PM


In 2004 the atheist world was rocked ...
... although for some reason atheists didn't notice this ...
...by the news of one of the most important defections from its ranks in recent times. The world’s leading atheist, Antony Flew ...
... who none of us had ever heard of ...
BTW, I didn't realize there was a ranking system for atheists. Looking at the daft arguments he comes up with for theism, I find it hard to believe that he was ever the "world's leading" anything.
For over 50 years Flew was the number one proponent of atheism ...
... without atheists knowing who the heck he was.
I certainly had never heard of the man until he became a poster boy for theists.
---
Incidentally, if he was "the world's leading atheist", who is now in the number one spot? Or won't you know until the next obscure nonentity gets religion?
Oh, and if this is "one of the most important defections", who are all the others? You have names, perhaps? How did they rank?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 11-21-2007 1:50 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 11-21-2007 7:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 50 (435588)
11-21-2007 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by GDR
11-21-2007 6:45 PM


Re: To repeat an earlier point....
I would imagine that you have to read the book to gain the reasons.
But I don't have to read the book. You just claimed that Flew doesn't have any reasoning that anyone else should find compelling. (Besides the fact, of course, that Flew himself had nothing to do with the book.)
-
In my view the notion that the universe exists without a prime mover is irrational. Can I prove that? No.
Is this thread supposed to be conducted in GDRese? In English, "irrational" means that it goes against reason; that is, it is contradicted by logic or evidence. That you cannot prove it means that it is not, in fact, irrational.
You are using the words "rational" and "irrational" in ways that are going to cause confusion (and have caused confusion so far) to people who are reading your posts. Even in colloquial English, "rational" and "irrational" refer to whether or not conclusions can be logically inferred from the premises and whether the conclusions are contradicted by evidence respectively. You appear to be using the words to mean, "makes sense to me" and "doesn't make sense to me".
If you're trying to say that the existence of a deity makes sense to Flew, just say so -- don't use the word rational since it isn't appropriate in the context in which you are using it. If you are saying that the existence of the universe without a creator doesn't make sense to you, just say that; the use of irrational in the way you are using it is inappropriate.
Rational and irrational refer to whether a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises of the argument or can be logically inferred from the evidence available. Creating non-sequiturs, like this alleged argument from Flew, are not rational in the usual meaning of the word.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by GDR, posted 11-21-2007 6:45 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by GDR, posted 11-21-2007 7:21 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 26 of 50 (435590)
11-21-2007 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
11-21-2007 6:53 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
... who none of us had ever heard of ...
The following is from a secular humanist web site followed by the link
Quote writes:
Professor Flew is the author of “Theology and Falsification,” one of the most famous essays of the twentieth century (Pojman 1987). In that essay, which has been reprinted over 40 times and translated into several languages (Flew 2000), he shows that religious belief is not falsifiable and is based on an argument from incredulity.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/.../exclusive/young_01-05.htm

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-21-2007 6:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-21-2007 10:11 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 27 of 50 (435591)
11-21-2007 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Chiroptera
11-21-2007 6:58 PM


Re: To repeat an earlier point....
Chiroptera writes:
If you're trying to say that the existence of a deity makes sense to Flew, just say so -- don't use the word rational since it isn't appropriate in the context in which you are using it. If you are saying that the existence of the universe without a creator doesn't make sense to you, just say that; the use of irrational in the way you are using it is inappropriate.
OK. I'll go along with this.
Chiroptera writes:
Rational and irrational refer to whether a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises of the argument or can be logically inferred from the evidence available. Creating non-sequiturs, like this alleged argument from Flew, are not rational in the usual meaning of the word.
It is just possible that you understand the use of the word better than I do. I was using the term pretty much interchangably with sensible. Thanks

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Chiroptera, posted 11-21-2007 6:58 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 50 (435597)
11-21-2007 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by GDR
11-21-2007 4:03 PM


Re: Oh, and by the way...
Where is the link to that?
Where's the link? We talked about it at this very forum. Heck, wasn't it you who started the topic, back then?
As often happens on this forum the way to refute an argument is to attack the individual.
When you present an argument from authority, as you did - "Flew's conversion should convince atheists because he's a reasonable person who used to be an atheist" - then it's entirely reasonable to rebut that argument by showing the "authority" to be no authority at all.
You vcan and will disagree with these points but they certainly sound like the views of a rational man to me.
The list doesn't even sound like it was written by a reasonable man. "Flew's has three different arguments, and they're nature, design in nature, and nature." I mean, what?
At any rate, we know that these aren't even Flew's arguments, so what's your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by GDR, posted 11-21-2007 4:03 PM GDR has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 50 (435601)
11-21-2007 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by GDR
11-21-2007 7:13 PM


I didn't say that no-one had ever heard of him, nor did I deny that some people have grossly overestimated his importance, because obviously they have.
Did you know that he was "the world's top atheist" before he started letting fundies write his books for him?
I notice that you haven't said who's now in the number one spot. Apparently this can only be determined retrospectively.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 11-21-2007 7:13 PM GDR has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 30 of 50 (435608)
11-21-2007 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by GDR
11-21-2007 6:45 PM


Re: To repeat an earlier point....
The most telling evidence involving the recent work attributed to Flew involves the intellectual bankruptcy of the evangelicals who exploited a sadly diminished old man.
That this cynical manipulation of a man in his dotage is being trumpeted as a victory is pathetic.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by GDR, posted 11-21-2007 6:45 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by bluescat48, posted 11-21-2007 11:29 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 32 by sidelined, posted 11-21-2007 11:58 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024