World renowned Atheist Accepts Possible Existence of God

solas

http://www.thewonderoftheworld.com/newsrelease-flew.php
saw a documentary about this a while ago, thought it was interesting.

DALLAS, TX (PRWEB) December 9, 2004 -- The Institute for Metascientific Research (IMR) announced today that one of the best-known atheists in the academic world, Professor Antony Flew of the University of Reading, United Kingdom, has accepted the existence of God. In a symposium sponsored by the IMR at New York University earlier this year, Professor Flew stated that developments in modern science had led him to accept the action of an Intelligent Mind in the creation of the world. In "Has Science Discovered God?", the recording of the symposium released today, Flew said his conclusion was influenced by developments in DNA research.

"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together," he said. "The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."

more excerpts and interview here:
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/

The following interview took place in early 2004 and was subsequently modified by both participants throughout the year. This nontechnical discussion sought to engage Flew over the course of several topics that reflect his move from atheism to theism.

HABERMAS: Tony, you recently told me that you have come to believe in the existence of God. Would you comment on that?

FLEW: Well, I don’t believe in the God of any revelatory system, although I am open to that. But it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before. And it was from Aristotle that Aquinas drew the materials for producing his five ways of, hopefully, proving the existence of his God. Aquinas took them, reasonably enough, to prove, if they proved anything, the existence of the God of the Christian revelation. But Aristotle himself never produced a definition of the word “God,” which is a curious fact. But this concept still led to the basic outline of the five ways. It seems to me, that from the existence of Aristotle’s God, you can’t infer anything about human behaviour. So what Aristotle had to say about justice (justice, of course, as conceived by the Founding Fathers of the American republic as opposed to the “social” justice of John Rawls (9)) was very much a human idea, and he thought that this idea of justice was what ought to govern the behaviour of individual human beings in their relations with others.
HABERMAS: Once you mentioned to me that your view might be called Deism. Do you think that would be a fair designation?

FLEW: Yes, absolutely right. What Deists, such as the Mr. Jefferson who drafted the American Declaration of Independence, believed was that, while reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings.

HABERMAS: Then, would you comment on your “openness” to the notion of theistic revelation?

FLEW: Yes. I am open to it, but not enthusiastic about potential revelation from God. On the positive side, for example, I am very much impressed with physicist Gerald Schroeder’s comments on Genesis 1. (10) That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate raises the possibility that it is revelation.

more reading here: http://www.livescience.com/othernews/atheist_philosopher_041210.html

robindch

> saw a documentary about this a while ago, thought it was interesting.

Very old news indeed and much whoopeed-about by many, mostly christians. Flew himself seemed somewhat surprised by the spin put on his views, and he was in touch with Rationalist International a few days after the first interview:

http://www.rationalistinternational.net/archive/en/rationalist_2004/138.html

Today, 16th December 2004, Professor Antony Flew, British philosopher, well known rationalist, atheist and an Honorary Associate of Rationalist International, telephoned me and informed that the wild rumours about his changed views are baseless. He expressed surprise over the confusion some people have spread and asserted that his position about the belief in god remains unchanged and is the same as it was expressed in his famous speech "Theology and Falsification". "I find no new reason to change my views", Professor Flew said.

Professor Antony Flew discusses the atheism of a rationalist, based on the impossibility to verify or falsify the religious claims about a god, in his short paper "Theology and Falsification", first published in 1950. Since then this paper was reprinted more than forty times in different places, including translations into German, Italian, Spanish, Danish, Welsh, Finnish and Slovak. During the conversation with me, Professor Antony Flew expressed desire to publicise this paper as it represented his views till this moment. "There is no change", Professor Antony Flew asserted. "Some people argue that I changed my views. It is simply not correct."

Regardless of whatever Flew's views are, many from authoritarian religions seem to forget that atheism is not an authoritarian religion itself. So it's really not hugely important which way Flew flew, even if he did change direction, which he seems not to have (according to himself).

solas

rbn wrote:

Regardless of whatever Flew's views are, many from authoritarian religions seem to forget that atheism is not an authoritarian religion itself. So it's really not hugely important which way Flew flew, even if he did change direction, which he seems not to have (according to himself).

actually I think its fairly relevant. The man has wirtten ten books promoting atheism.
I saw the documentary, what I'm referencing isn't merely something stated in an interview, its based on the information released in a video where he produced of his findings, aptly titled "Has science discovered God?"
In that video he categorically states

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

Thats quite a leap.
this information is derived from a scientific based website not a christian one. http://www.livescience.com/othernews/atheist_philosopher_041210.html

No doubt, the skeptics feel the need to protect their saviour considering his findings

Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.

I suppose a "minimal" God is better than non at all.

solas

from flews own mouth

Dear Editor,

The publication of ‘The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory’ by Massimo Pigliucci and others in Issue 46 of Philosophy Now provides a convenient occasion for pointing out the limits of the negative theological implications of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. In the fourteenth and final chapter of The Origin of Species Darwin himself – apart from noticing certain short (a mere handful of million years long) geological periods in which the fossil record reveals the occurrence of inexplicably rapid evolution – wrote:

“Analogy would lead me one step further, namely to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from one prototype.... Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings that have lived on the earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.”

Probably Darwin himself believed that life was miraculously breathed into that primordial form of not always consistently reproducing life by God, though not the revealed God of then contemporary Christianity, who had predestined so many of Darwin’s friends and family to an eternity of extreme torture.

But the evidential situation of natural (as opposed to revealed) theology has been transformed in the more than fifty years since Watson and Crick won the Nobel Prize for their discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.

I will here confine myself to recommending two books by individuals who started as believers in two different revealed religions. The author of the first started as, and remains, a Protestant Christian. The author of the second started as, and remains, an Orthodox Jew. The first book is Roy Abraham Varghese’s The Wonderful World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God (Fountain Hills, Arizona;Tyr Publishing 2003). The second book is Gerald L Schroeder’s The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth (Touchstone; New York 2001)

Anyone who should happen to want to know what I myself now believe will have to wait until the publication, promised for early 2005, by Prometheus of Amherst, NY of the final edition of my God and Philosophy with a new introduction of it as ‘an historical relic’. That book was a study of the arguments for Christian theism, first published in 1966 in various editions in both hardcover andpaperback in both the USA and the UK. My own commitment then as a philosopher who was also areligious unbeliever was and remains that of Plato’s Socrates: “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.”

Yours,

Antony Flew

I tried to find a review of the updated version of the book re published this year "God and Philosophy" but as you can see at amazon, no one seems to want to review it
but here's some I found at a philosophy site.

I was pretty shocked to read this. I'm glad he is still only acknowledging his possible existence in the form of a designer rather than the God of classical theism.

I must be years behind because so far i'm still unsatisfyed with any argument from design

What do you expect, he is British, he is old -- like one of his countries aristocratic spies who embraced Communism in the last century what better way to deny who you are -- and were for a lifetime of intllectual work than to become a turncoat.
The "Design" theory is old aand refuted Flew himself in more than one book.

Dr. Flew, Understanding that there is an Intelligent Design, both in creation and in the process of Philosophy is crucial to a balanced viw of history and the universe. Being willing to credit the Intelligent Designer with the creation and development of the individaul's [yours, mine] mind and personality is crucial to a balanced view of oneself. Many realms of awe flow from that step.

Looks to me like he did make quite a significant change.

robindch

> No doubt, the skeptics feel the need to protect their
> saviour considering his findings

Um, does anybody here feel that Flew is their "saviour"? Personally, I'd never even heard of him up until all of this hoohah blew up over a year ago!

> Looks to me like he did make quite a significant change.

Not really. In fact, if you define "god" as the "laws of physics" as he seems to be doing (except when 'god' is prefixed by 'christian', when he's referring to the 'oriental despot'), then what he seems to be saying is quite reasonable and in line with what he's said before.

Anyhow, as I said above, atheism isn't an authoritarian religion and I simply can't get myself worked up when one atheist is interpreted (by others) to be having doubts.

pH

There's a couple of interesting points to be made here, firstly truth (well rational scientific truth anway) does not depend on who or how many believe or disbelieve it.

Put another way Einstein's (or Flew's) beliefs are no more relevant than your's or mine.

Secondly he may well believe now that a God exists but it certainly is not a God that Christians believe in

"The fact of the matter is: Flew hasn't really decided what to believe. He affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by everything he argued in his 2001 book Merely Mortal: Can You Survive Your Own Death?). But he is increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs, nor does it provide any postmortem salvation."

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

solas

rbn wrote:

Um, does anybody here feel that Flew is their "saviour"? Personally, I'd never even heard of him up until all of this hoohah blew up over a year ago!

Professor flews academic record. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/flew-bio.html
He is credited with the rise of atheism over the last fifty years.

Not really. In fact, if you define "god" as the "laws of physics" as he seems to be doing (except when 'god' is prefixed by 'christian', when he's referring to the 'oriental despot'), then what he seems to be saying is quite reasonable and in line with what he's said before.

he himself considers his previous book on the subject "an historial relic". It seems to say something about how his own views have changed.
Without reading the latest edition I can't comment persoanlly but the reviews seem to concur.

Anyhow, as I said above, atheism isn't an authoritarian religion and I simply can't get myself worked up when one atheist is interpreted (by others) to be having doubts.

When one athiest changes his view on theism.
makes this forum very questionable. I can't say if you are blind or just entirely stubborn, but it seems to me as though you do not want to recognise the fact of the matter. An athiest has changed his views on theism.
As a scientist, his views are based on his scientific findings with regard to the complexity of DNA.
If all scientists proclaimed tomorrow the validity of "intelligent design" the issue would no longer be a question of belief or religion. It would become a process of scientific discovery.

ph wrote:

Secondly he may well believe now that a God exists but it certainly is not a God that Christians believe in

thats irrelevant. I'm not here to promote the concept of classical theism.

robindch

> An athiest has changed his views on theism.

So what?

> As a scientist, his views are based on his scientific
> findings with regard to DNA.

He's not a scientist, he's a philosopher.

And he's admitted that he's wrong about the "scientific findings" behind his own specific version of intelligent design:

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.

pH

If all scientists proclaimed tomorrow the validity of "intelligent design" the issue would no longer be a question of belief or religion. It would become a process of scientific discovery.

No it wouldn't!
as an example in the Soviet Union many scientists proclaimed (or were forced to proclaim) the validity of Lamarckian evolution, and many fields of grain were planted in the frost to 'evolve' characteristics better suited to grain production in the USSR. It almost ruined soviet agriculture. What scientists believe is irrelevent, falsifiable and sound theories backed by peer review and experimental evidence are what counts.

http://evonet.sdsc.edu/evoscisociety/lesson_from_history.htm

thats irrelevant. I'm not here to promote the concept of classical theism.

So then this must be a game - a bit like Top Trumps is it?

I'll play:
E.O. Wilson (1929 – )
E.O. Wilson is an entomologist and biologist at Harvard University who is famous, among other things, for his work on sociobiology. Wilson was a born-again Christian in the Southern Baptist Church. His study of evolution changed that view, and in his 1978 book, On Human Nature, he wrote: “If humankind evolved by Darwinian natural selection, genetic chance and environmental necessity, not God, made the species.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4137503,00.html

1-1

Your turn to play ....

solas

So what?

I'm not here to satisfy you Robin, considering the title of the thread and the forum its in, others might find it interesting reading.

And he's admitted that he's wrong about the "scientific findings" behind his own specific version of intelligent design:

and if you continued reading the entire article, post publication of the 2005 edition it concludes:

Despite all this, Flew has not retracted his belief in God, as far as I can tell. He only writes that "if any unbelievers choose to make a fuss about my recent very modest defection from my previous unbelief in any journal to which I subscribe, then I intend to point out in a letter to the editor that" his new preface to God and Philosophy "points the road to a more radical form of unbelief than" he held originally, which "was a belief that there was no sufficient evidencing reason to believe in the existence of the Gods of either Christianity or Islam," but now "surely there is material here for a new and more fundamental challenge to the very conception of God as an omnipotent spirit," it's just that "I am just too old at the age of nearly 82 to initiate and conduct a major and super-radical controversy about the conceivability of the concept of God as a spirit." This would appear to be his excuse for everything: he won't investigate the evidence because it's too hard. Yet he will declare beliefs in the absence of proper inquiry. Theists would do well to drop the example of Flew. Because his willfully sloppy scholarship can only help to make belief look ridiculous.

ph wrote:

What scientists believe is irrelevent, falsifiable and sound theories backed by peer review and experimental evidence are what counts.

I'll surely remember that for future reference.

So then this must be a game - a bit like Top Trumps is it?

I'm not here to promote the concept of classical theism. I've provided information on a subject thats relevant to the forum.
If you don't want to agree with the facts as they are being stated, thats your business. An athiest changes his views on theism. Simple as that really.
This is the athiesm/agnostic forum right?
Does that mean you don't believe in anything or just God?

Your turn to play ....

you can be sure I have better things to do.

pH

you can be sure I have better things to do.

I'll take that to mean you can't find another!

Michael Shermer (1954 – )
Michael Shermer is executive director of the Skeptics Society, founding publisher of its magazine, Skeptic, and a columnist for Scientific American.

Early in life he experienced his first conversion. “In my senior year of high school I accepted Jesus as my Savior and became a born-again Christian,” he wrote in The Science of Good and Evil. “I had found the One True Religion, and it was my duty — indeed it was my pleasure — to tell others about it, including my parents, brothers and sisters, friends and even total strangers.”

Less than a decade later, however, he had become an atheist after studying evolutionary biology in graduate school.

1-2

robindch

> > > An athiest has changed his views on theism.
> > So what?
> [...] others might find it interesting reading.

Most people would agree, I think, that your second post shows that you expect atheists to be shocked over this. I'm interested in finding out why you seem to beleive this? Personally, I couldn't really care one way or the other what an elderly philosopher says about his own peculiar conception of 'god' and I'm not altogether sure that pH does either.

> and if you continued reading the entire article [...]

I did read it all -- I was just extracting the bit (on the 'evidence') most relevant to your posting. Anyhow, have a look at the last four sentences you kindly quoted me and which I resisted including in the earlier quote, but won't resist now:

This would appear to be his excuse for everything: he won't investigate the evidence because it's too hard. Yet he will declare beliefs in the absence of proper inquiry. Theists would do well to drop the example of Flew. Because his willfully sloppy scholarship can only help to make belief look ridiculous.

Says it all

solas

rbn wrote:

Most people would agree, I think, that your second post shows that you expect atheists to be shocked over this.

I don't expect very much from skeptics. What is interesting is the door Flew has opened with regard to the "challenge to the very conception of God as an omnipotent spirit", particularly with regard to atheistic understanding and philosophy.

Personally, I couldn't really care one way or the other what an elderly philosopher says about his own peculiar conception of 'god' and I'm not altogether sure that pH does either.

I don't find that suprising at all. Its very typical of Skeptics (I think its important to discern at this point the difference between a skeptic and an athiest) to ignore any discerning material for consideration.

ph wrote:

Michael Shermer is executive director of the Skeptics Society, founding publisher of its magazine, Skeptic, and a columnist for Scientific American.

Perhaps you should figure out the difference between a skeptic and an athiest.

rbn wrote:

Says it all

it sure does.

pH

Perhaps you should figure out the difference between a skeptic and an athiest.

I'm sure one can be both! or are you claiming that Michael Shermer is *not* an atheist, merely a skeptic?

Less than a decade later, however, he had become an atheist after...

robindch

> Its very typical of Skeptics to ignore any discerning material
> for consideration.

Rather than slagging us off with a handwave, why not pin us down and actually tell us what "discerning material" we've ignored?

Am I the only one reading "accepts existence of god" as "of course god exists, and atheist has finally come to accept the truth"?

pH

Am I the only one reading "accepts existence of god" as "of course god exists, and atheist has finally come to accept the truth"?

Yes you probably could read that into the original post

"Hey this guy copped himself on, so should the rest of ye" or something like that.

Anyway he's almost missed his chance to play his C.S. Lewis card and tie the match 2-2!!


[edited to add]
And solas, much as I disagree I with the post, the *LAST* thing I'd want to do is have it removed or have people posting such things BANNED. Healthy debate and all that ....

Zombrex

solas wrote:

The man has wirtten ten books promoting atheism

Solas you seem to not really crasp what athemism is .. it is not a belief system, it is not a religion. It is a personal belief, or more specifically, a personal lack of belief in a God(s)

I am an athethist and I have never heard of Prof Flew, and I care even less about his personal beliefs. I am sure his writings are very interesting, but they don't shape atheism as a movement, I doubt atheism could even be considered a movement.

Him changing his mind (which I don't think he actually did) has no bearing on my beliefs, any more than you believing in God (I assume you do) has a bearing on my beliefs.

If someone was only an atheist because Prof. Flew told them to be one then that person should really look at the reasons they claim to believe what they believe.

Zombrex

solas wrote:

I can't say if you are blind or just entirely stubborn, but it seems to me as though you do not want to recognise the fact of the matter. An athiest has changed his views on theism.

Most atheists (I would imagine) base their lack of belief in a god on the fact that there is no evidence or logical reason for the existance of a God, the fact that the universe works quite well without the concept of a God, and the fact that it is far more plausable that the human imagination invented the concept of God.

The logic behind these arguments has not changed, and none of these arguments are dependent on the personal beliefs of Prof Flew.

I fail to see how atheists in general would be disturbed by this man changing his beliefs. Most atheists I know are big believers in the right of a person to follow their own personal religious beliefs so long as they don't force those beliefs on others.

Dades

Solas,
You have to expect the knee jerk reation from people here to such a piece of media. If someone posted an article entitled "Vatican Cardinal turns Atheist" in the Christianity forum you'd get the same - "so what?" replies.

That said, the article, the way it was presented and the subsequent fallout are all good food for thought.

No "door" has been opened for atheists to believe in a god - as atheism by it's very nature does not suffer from the sheep mentality that comes with organised religion.

The wording of the headline is meant to imply that a former atheist is now embracing the theistic God that we have always believed in. A more apt headline would probably have been "Former Atheist turns Agnostic". Not quite so enticing but probably more accurate.

After a lifetime of contemplation, when I'm 83, there's a good chance I'll start embracing more comforting ideas about where we came from.

solas

Am I the only one reading "accepts existence of god" as "of course god exists, and atheist has finally come to accept the truth"?

I guess youcan read into it whatever you like. It seems like a very offensive idea to many of you. These are not my thoughts and reasonings. If you have issues with the man, why don't you discuss that instead of what you think I think.

Solas you seem to not really crasp what athemism is .. it is not a belief system, it is not a religion. It is a personal belief, or more specifically, a personal lack of belief in a God(s)

I'm am aware what atheism is. Maybe you should have admin relocate this forum to somewhere more appropriate. (soc with humanities might be more suitable)

I fail to see how atheists in general would be disturbed by this man changing his beliefs.

On the topic of conversation, a philosopher who has promoted his reasonings for his athiest understanding for the last fifty years, has now decided to up the challenge by stating the material for reasoning has changed. "surely there is material here for a new and more fundamental challenge to the very conception of God as an omnipotent spirit,"
Instead of discussing his reasoning, you all seem to want to dismiss the idea, without considering the substance of it.

Most atheists I know are big believers in the right of a person to follow their own personal religious beliefs so long as they don't force those beliefs on others.

Thats not very evident from my perspective, you only need to go into the chrisitianity forum or the paranormal forum and some skeptic or athiest is spouting off their "beliefs" and opinions, based on their reasoning.

ph wrote:

And solas, much as I disagree I with the post, the *LAST* thing I'd want to do is have it removed or have people posting such things BANNED. Healthy debate and all that ....

you're a muppet.

solas

the atheist wrote:

The wording of the headline is meant to imply that a former atheist is now embracing the theistic God that we have always believed in. A more apt headline would probably have been "Former Atheist turns Agnostic". Not quite so enticing but probably more accurate.

I did tone it down y'know, it was even more "astounding". There were exclamation marks and everything.
but the point remains. The guy is old, he seems to be leaving a challenge for those interested and I think its a reasonable one.

Maybe I should clarify that I wasn't having a go at anyone about the title - it just read that way to me and I was curious. I'm not even an atheist =/
I also wasn't implying anything about what you think, solas, just the possible implications of the title. Which I thought was clear enough since I didn't refer to you once...

solas

the athiest wrote:

If someone posted an article entitled "Vatican Cardinal turns Atheist" in the Christianity forum you'd get the same - "so what?" replies.

it's been refreshing turning the tables.

robindch

> You have to expect the knee jerk reation from people
> here to such a piece of media.

Hmmm... were my "it's really not hugely important which way Flew flew" & "I simply can't get myself worked up" comments 'knee-jerk reactions'? Or have I mistakenly read more into the sentence than was meant

Zombrex

Ok ok, lets give Solas the benefit of the doubt and assume he just wanted to spark discussion on this specific topic of Prof Flew, that he did not post the original article in some form of "ha ha don't you guys feel stupid now" tact.

So lets discuss the article, instead of the issue of if atheists are supposed to have a crisis of faith (or lack of faith) by this guy changing his views (clearly they don't).

It seems to me that Prof Flew is now entertains the idea of a higher intelligence based on the complexities of the natural world and specifically of the process of life.

This is the same idea used to justify the argument of intelligent design, that it would be nearly impossible for life to develop from non-biological molecules into biological molecules.

Now, no offense to Prof Flew, but this belief shows more of a lack of understanding of biology and chemistry than evidence of an intelligent mind.

Chemistry shows us that, far from being special and rare, complex molecular structures are not only common but part of nature. Molecules naturally want to form complex bonds with each other.

Simply put, there is still no evidence that suggests that complex proteins (or what ever came before protiens 4 billion years ago) and other biological molecules could not have formed completely naturally.

Dades

solas wrote:

you're a muppet.

And you are contravening the charter. Interestingly from what I see of the paranormal charter, I don't think you'd tolerate personal insults there either, given the recent call to tighten what is allowed to be posted. At any rate consider yourself warned.

Robindch - never meant to imply your comments in particular were knee-jerk reactions. My badly made point was that when a quote is misrepresented in such a way as in that article there is only going to be one type of (justified) reaction. If you kick a dog it'll snap.

Wicknight wrote:

Ok ok, lets give Solas the benefit of the doubt and assume he just wanted to spark discussion on this specific topic of Prof Flew, that he did not post the original article in some form of "ha ha don't you guys feel stupid now" tact.

Probably the best plan.

Scofflaw

If I was affected by the conversion to Deism of a man I've never heard of, wouldn't I be affected by the very much larger number of people who never have been atheist?

Endurance Man

okay

Dades

Endurance Man wrote:

My sister bought me a bible and is nagging me to read it. Perhaps if any of you have read it you can give me a run down and save me the time!!

Hmmm probably not the best place to ask, unless you want a very bias (if not cynical) description. In short it's either:

1. The Book of Truth inspired by the Creator of all things, or
2. A book about the most successful of any number of gods invented by man.

robindch

> My sister bought me a bible and is nagging me to read it. Perhaps if any
> of you have read it you can give me a run down and save me the time!!

While it's not on-topic, and noting that my life is too short to read all of it, here's one possible summary:

Old Testament - God built the earth for purposes unknown, populated it, then wrote pages of sticky laws for inhabitants. Suggested smiting people who disagreed, had sex before marriage, was gay or was a witch. Brief entertaining erotic interlude with Song of Songs, then back to some more smiting.

New Testament - God realises he messed up earlier on and sends himself to apologise to himself, repeals most of his own previous laws, dies, undies, then flies to heaven saying he'll be back soon to continue work of spreading love and peace to all (gays not included). Extended trippy postlude in Revelation leaves believers with plenty to mull over and a busy eisegesis industry.

Zombrex

Just watch the Simpsons bible storeis episode .. its all in there :v:

Yossie

So if that's the bible, which one was i thinking of; where - boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, girl couldn't care less about boy, boy crucifies himself on cross?

robindch

Dang, forgot to link to the lego-brick testaments at:

http://www.thebricktestament.com/
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html

...etc...

Zombrex

Yossie wrote:

So if that's the bible, which one was i thinking of; where - boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, girl couldn't care less about boy, boy crucifies himself on cross?

Sounds like my last relationship TBH .. :v:

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

Dang, forgot to link to the lego-brick testaments at:
...etc...

What a wonderful link, thanks robindch.

Excelsior

robindch wrote:

Old Testament - God built the earth for purposes unknown, populated it, then wrote pages of sticky laws for inhabitants. Suggested smiting people who disagreed, had sex before marriage, was gay or was a witch. Brief entertaining erotic interlude with Song of Songs, then back to some more smiting.

Hebrew Scriptures - God, an all-loving and all-powerful being, creates the world and everything in it, especially us, because the most generous thing that an all-loving, most excellent being could do is make people to enjoy him. Humans have a taste of what it is like to be God because they can create things. They decide their creative powers are more than enough and they displace God. God and humans can't hang out anymore because humans don't want to and couldn't survive his purity.

So God sets about reconciling people to him. He promises an old lad called Abram that he will make things good and never let humanity fall away from him because he loves them so much. Most of these books are about God setting a standard for what it takes to be in his company or about him telling stories about what he is like. Even the sextastic Song of Songs is about him. Well, its also about sex too. No one can reach this standard and he hopes they'll see they need to depend on him to make things alright.

robin wrote:

New Testament - God realises he messed up earlier on and sends himself to apologise to himself, repeals most of his own previous laws, dies, undies, then flies to heaven saying he'll be back soon to continue work of spreading love and peace to all (gays not included). Extended trippy postlude in Revelation leaves believers with plenty to mull over and a busy eisegesis industry.

New Testament- God's big plan, which he has been talking about since the 1st chapter after humanity broke it off with him, is revealed in the form of him breaking into the world as a man to literally befriend us again. Everything he does in this time has been explicitly predicted in the older section. Everyone, homosexuals and even self righteous religious people, can be reconciled with him by having faith.

Whether you end up believing it or not, it is the most influential book of all time. Its worth a read. I love it.

Yossie

Excelsior wrote:

Whether you end up believing it or not, it is the most influential book of all time. Its worth a read. I love it.

The question that needs to be asked is how and why was is it so influential.

If Constantine hadn't "seen" that cross in the sun, which prompted the adoption of christianity, which was just a very small sect at the time, as the state religion we'd all be as ignorant of it as we are of any of the other sects.

Like in most things the powers-that-be foisted the "choice" on us. Basically, its influence has been as a result of political and historical factors and not because of a property of the rather boring, rather long book itself. It is these two factors that has meant that the influence of the bible has been almost exclusively in maintaining the status quo, keeping Roman rulers etc in power and the plebs down.

The "rules of the road" is also an influential book, but only because of its necessity that is ensured by the state. It's also a better read than the bible imho.:D

If you want a book to love, I suggest Catch 22.:)
Yossarian Lives

Yossie

Wicknight wrote:

Sounds like my last relationship TBH .. :v:

Only you and me would define a situation where only one person is interested, as a "relationship".;)

Give it up when you find youself shouting - "Hey you! Leave my imagined girlfriend alone!";)

Excelsior

Yossie wrote:

The question that needs to be asked is how and why was is it so influential.

To ask that question, one should begin by reading it. Alongside the works of Joyce, the Bible is the greatest work of literature least widely read by those who have an interest in writing, reading and books.

yossie wrote:

If Constantine hadn't "seen" that cross in the sun, which prompted the adoption of christianity, which was just a very small sect at the time, as the state religion we'd all be as ignorant of it as we are of any of the other sects.

This is an unsupportable comment historically Yossie. The writings of the early church leaders, the writings of Roman society and (most intruigingly) the writings of non-Christian belief systems that adopted themes from the Jesus saga show the huge influence that Christianity was having on the decaying Roman Empire. You don't put so much energy into squashing a tiny sect as Rome exerted on trying to kill Christians.

The accepted shorthand account of Constantine's conversion was that it was pretty much counterfeit and intended to authorise a dangerous subversive influence and bring it under the auspices of the Emperor. Crucially though, every single one of the texts (and indeed most of the formative theological interpretation) was already over 225 years old by the time Rome pulled Christ close.

What I am saying is that Constantine's conversion was an effort to stop the spread of subversive Christianity. Sadly, it largely succeeded (until Luther, Zwingli and Calvin ) for a long time.

yossarian wrote:

Like in most things the powers-that-be foisted the "choice" on us. Basically, its influence has been as a result of political and historical factors and not because of a property of the rather boring, rather long book itself.

Cop on and let people take responsibility for things. The Bible had no direct influence over people's lives until the printing press. Since then, people who read the Bible certainly have done it by their own volition. No state could never encourage reading the Bible because (except for short tedious Jewish history sections) it is a deeply troubling book for any power group. How can you blanket call the books long and boring when delights like Hosea and Habakkuk exist.

yossarian wrote:

It is these two factors that has meant that the influence of the bible has been almost exclusively in maintaining the status quo, keeping Roman rulers etc in power and the plebs down.

Well I haven't met anyone that badly off these days as a result of Caesar but I know what you mean. The irony is that the Bible is, as I have claimed above, the kind of book that kills status quos dead if you read it through. And I think that had Constantine never adopted it, its huge influence would still be felt because the story is so compelling.

yoassarian wrote:

The "rules of the road" is also an influential book, but only because of its necessity that is ensured by the state. It's also a better read than the bible imho.

I know this is a joke but I hear it so often I wonder how people who obviously haven't read it can think it boring. The Rules of the Road analogy is a bit weak too, in fairness, at the end of the day, fair play, like. The Rules are just that- an applied behavioural code. The Bible is a many stranded compilation of 66 different books consisting of 1000s of individuals' stories with one dominant theme of a Creator God with a bad case of unrequited love. Even if the Bible is influential only because some guy with a girl's name made it the law 1700 years ago, it still could never be compared to the Rules of the Road.

yossarian wrote:

If you want a book to love, I suggest Catch 22.

I love it too. I love lots of books. But I need to challenge these myths that the New Testament is a retrodding of pagan myths, that the God of the OT is different from the NT, that political manipulation is the only explanation of the Bible's success and most importantly, that the Bible is boring.

Yossie

Excelsior wrote:

To ask that question, one should begin by reading it. Alongside the works of Joyce, the Bible is the greatest work of literature least widely read by those who have an interest in writing, reading and books.

Ah, it’s the – “YOU don’t know enough about crystal healing/astrology/homeopathy/ the bible/[insert irrational belief here], so YOU can’t comment” – argument.

It was the bibles influence I asked about. Why was it that christianity became an effective meme? As regards the narrative of said book, I’ll defer to your greater knowledge; although, I did have it read to me every Sunday for many years, not to mention religion class etc and it all failed to fire my interest.

Excelsior wrote:

This is an unsupportable comment historically Yossie.

Well Excelsior, I have a few close classicist friends who would like to debate that point with you.

Excelsior wrote:

The writings of the early church leaders, the writings of Roman society and (most intruigingly) the writings of non-Christian belief systems that adopted themes from the Jesus saga show the huge influence that Christianity was having on the decaying Roman Empire.

While the Roman Empire wasn’t as stable as it once was, the political changes initiated by Diocletian held off the division of the empire, and its resultant decay into east and west, for another 80 years (395 CE). The forms and functions of empire were still in very much in place.

There were many other sects around just as big as the jesus followers, such as the Jews and Manicheans, the latter were the more immediate subversive threat to the Empire and who they took measures to suppress before they looked to the christians.

There was widespread persecution of all sects at this time. However, under Constantine “soft power” was soon to be the order of the day and relative religious tolerance followed thanks to his own ambiguous beliefs. The jesus crowd, who were concentrated in urban centres, were also a little more politically well connected, with bishops like bishop Ossius of Cartage (of cross “vision” fame) and christian aristocracy already in the court of Constantine - this was no subversive revolution from below.

The wider rural regions remained inclined towards paganism; this was only to change gradually when “it” was brought to them from above and came with real day-to-day benefits or avoidance of sanctions. As christianity became the accepted and favoured state religion other groups, like the ones you mentioned, cashed in on it or avoided disadvantage by adopting some chriatian themes and symbolism. Examples of this are the laws that exempted christian clergy from state-service, which subsequently had to rolled back seven years later because of other groups falsely professing christian belief just to avail of it. Bishops were also given significant judicial powers so it paid to be christian in these bishops courts.

More and more, one had to be christian to get along in society. If you were a pagan of the time and you saw things going against you and your gods, while on the other hand the christian god appears to be providing quite well for his followers what are you going to do? That decision primarily comes down to socio-economic materialist reasons, not theology.

So why was christianity chosen by the state? The christians with their, one simple god, positive disposition towards proselytising for new members, none-too-strict lifestyle laws, not so anti-woman-ness, and no requirement for the removal of “hoodies” all worked nicely for the Emperor’s and court’s agenda and propaganda, not to mention their winkles;) .

For Constantine and his court this was primarily a political conversion not spiritual. One god gave justification for one “divinely” chosen emperor. The court was presented as “heaven on earth”, with the chriatian god (and leading christians) giving legitimacy to the powers-that-be. Constantine himself would even continue to include sun worship, conveniently marrying both together with “crux in sun” vision.

When christainity became the dominant religion at court a lot of money and resources was thrown at the “reformation” of the wider public, further materially influencing “conversion”. The church was swollen by the Emperor’s gifts, one need only look at the opulent church buildings that sprung up between Rome and Jerusalem or even at Constantinople, to see that this was state controlled.

My point form my previous post being that christianity could easily have changed position with any of the lesser known sects in terms of spirituality. It was chosen for good solid political reasons leading to the infection of western society with the christian meme.

Yossie

cont.....

excelsior wrote:

Crucially though, every single one of the texts (and indeed most of the formative theological interpretation) was already over 225 years old by the time Rome pulled Christ close

Not that it matters much, since as shown theology had little to do with it, but, the idea that the central theological issues of christianity formed a coherent comprehensive whole at this time is naïve. These early christians weren’t the kind we know of today. They formed hybrid theories for their old and new religions. They continued to carry out sacrifices etc until it was forcibly stamped out by the state.

There were many factions within the court and within the “religion”. Large and volatile non-cosmetic changes occurred in the theology so Empire and religion could co-exist with each others political realities. The Arians, the Montanists, the Gnostics, the Marcionites all did battle for dominance, so much so that Constantine himself had to hold special councils to try prevents schisms, which might destabilise the court. Bishops of different regions of the empire courted the men of power to gain advantage. Out of all this, a moderate conservative middle-way was agreed upon for political stability and theological considerations took that line. There were even those of the christian faith, the Donatists, who believed that christianity had sold-out even before Constantine, and formed a break away group.

excelsior wrote:

The accepted shorthand account of Constantine's conversion was that it was pretty much counterfeit and intended to authorise a dangerous subversive influence and bring it under the auspices of the Emperor.

excelsior wrote:

What I am saying is that Constantine's conversion was an effort to stop the spread of subversive Christianity

As stated above there wasn’t much subversion on behalf of jesus. On the contrary, Roman reorganised christianity and the church along its own lines. Hence, the modern RC church’s hierarchical positions exactly mirror those of the Roman Empire. Just like a lot of our law and philosophy.

excelsian wrote:

Sadly, it largely succeeded (until Luther, Zwingli and Calvin ) for a long time.

You mean until the next major political and social upheaval, for which a huge body of evidence and research also exists to show its social/political materialist underpinnings. (You are also showing your anti-catholic (pro-presbyterian?) prejudice with this comment.)

excelsian wrote:

Cop on and let people take responsibility for things.

*Copping on in 5…… 4…… 3……. 2……… 1…….. I am Captain Copped-on. Hear me speak!*

“Whether people get drunk and start fights or not is their choice and their responsibility.”

However, I’d hope that you’d agree, the fact that one is “Irish” or “Chec” and not “British” or “Czechoslovakian” and the fact that one is “born” Catholic/Jew/etc are both facts foisted on us by history, politics and the powers-that-be. This doesn’t affect personal choices, btw.

excelsian wrote:

No state could never encourage reading the Bible because (except for short tedious Jewish history sections) it is a deeply troubling book for any power group.

I know of a very influential American who ain’t that troubled by it, in fact, he reads it everyday and claims it as his inspiration. Although I did hear this man don’t read too good so he probably got the wrong idea.

Excelsior wrote:

And I think that had Constantine never adopted it, its huge influence would still be felt because the story is so compelling.

Where I think not, as we’ve seen evidence of above. The simple historical facts are that christianity wouldn’t have flourished without the support of the Roman Empire.

As regards compelling, well the communist manifesto is compelling; hell, the Da Vinci Code is compelling, some even argue “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” - Isaac Asimov. The “compelling” is only in the mind of the “compelled” such as yourself and probably because people get the meme (i.e. believe) first and read later. The number of converts to christianity of people who have read the bible and were convinced, I would argue, is a minute, even negligible, fraction of total christians. For the vast majority, it was only an unfortunate accident of birth.

My point in a nutshell is that the position of the bible in the world, like christianity/religion, answers more to historical materialist reasons than to any of their own merits.

Just as christianity’s adoption by the Roman Empire was for material reasons; just like the reformation was a political power struggle; just like the English revolution with its seekers, quakers, independents, diggers, levellers and ranters; just like the countless conversions and countless counter-conversions of whole countries by monarchs; just like “the troubles” up north; just like new-age individualist spirituality bunkum; they are all wedded to socio-economic material reasons, not divinity.

Excelsior wrote:

How can you blanket call the books long and boring when delights like Hosea and Habakkuk exist

…and most importantly, that the Bible is boring.

Having said all that, if you want to make a case for the literary merits of the bible then go on ahead, although I think Ulysses and Catch 22 will fair better. However, if you claim it is anything more than just a book or even that it is inspired by the divine then that is an extraordinary claim and you require extraordinary evidence. [I would make some witty comparisons here but I don’t want to trigger your hostile anti-trekkie prejudice.]

So I ask you, is your bible imbued with the divine or it just a book?

I say it is just a book and a long, boring one at that.

(Oh, and btw, do you have a literal interpretation of genesis?)

Long live “The Rules of the Road”! *Might make that my signature*

Ickle Magoo

I had no idea there was such a thing as "a world renound athiest" - and I had never heard of Prof Flew.....

What he says is interesting but ultimately it is smattered with the usual ambiguous "I think" and "I believe" statements that all those trying to convince of a higher-being must use, in lieu of any difinitive proof.....

As neither the existance, nor absence, of a higher-being can be proven - isn't it just one man who used to believe there was no God, now believing that there may be?.....I can't imagine that everytime a priest or suchlike has a crises of faith the believing world follow suit, so I'm not sure how Prof Flew's new faith moves the bigger argument on any?

It remains to be seen if I'll die an athiest - I wish never to be so closed minded that I assume I have all the answers and stop considering the choices and possibilities out there.....so maybe some day I'll change my mind too.....that's the great thing about athiesm, it gives you the freedom to explore and consider

Dades

Yossie wrote:

I would make some witty comparisons here but I don’t want to trigger your hostile anti-trekkie prejudice.

Good. Somebody published 'witty' cartoons in Denmark recently which only cemented the notion that people don't always appreciate wit at the expense of their religion. And that 'witty' people should know better.

Yossie wrote:

So I ask you, is your bible imbued with the divine or it just a book?

I say it is just a book and a long, boring one at that.

Isn't that question rather superfluous?

My spidey senses detect a large post in the future...

Excelsior

Yossie wrote:

Ah, it’s the – “YOU don’t know enough about crystal healing/astrology/homeopathy/ the bible/[insert irrational belief here], so YOU can’t comment” – argument.

Ah its the old "Compare Christianity to astrology and leave it at that" argument.

Yossie wrote:

It was the bibles influence ...

Ah its the old belief system as meme argument. Sadly, Memetics is a belief system, without any support for it except that it fits as an explanation for the world view of the adherents.

Yossie wrote:

Well Excelsior, I have a few close classicist friends who would like to debate that point with you.

Ah its the old "I have friends expert in that area, you know?" argument

Yossie wrote:

There were many other sects around ...
.... That decision primarily comes down to socio-economic materialist reasons, not theology.

Excelsior wrote:

The accepted shorthand account of Constantine's conversion was that it was pretty much counterfeit and intended to authorise a dangerous subversive influence and bring it under the auspices of the Emperor.

Once under those auspices, Christianity stagnated and went into decline. Christianity was, as you have laid out well, used as a tool by the state to coerce people into one line.

Yossie wrote:

So why was christianity chosen by the state? ... not to mention their winkles;) .

Once neutered, Christianity serves as a very effective social glue.

Yossie wrote:

For Constantine and his court this was primarily a political conversion not spiritual.

Thanks. If you and I keep writing that, people might start to realise it.

Yossie wrote:

Constantine himself would even continue to include sun worship, conveniently marrying both together with “crux in sun” vision.

And so the neutering begins.

yossie wrote:

When christainity became the dominant religion at court... to see that this was state controlled.

And so radically different to the house church, cell structure that had marked its beginnings.

yossie wrote:

Not that it matters much, since as shown theology had little to do with it,

Well my central point here is that while political machinations explain why Rome post Constantine was Christian it doesn't explain why all those people became Christians before then or say, today in Ireland.

yossie wrote:

but, the idea that the central theological issues of christianity formed a coherent comprehensive whole at this time is naïve. These early christians weren’t the kind we know of today. They formed hybrid theories for their old and new religions. They continued to carry out sacrifices etc until it was forcibly stamped out by the state.

You gotta tell me where this is coming from. Just cite something. Or get your classicist friend to register. Just move this argument beyond the general to give me something to work with.

yossie wrote:

There were many factions within the court and within the “religion”. ... Constantine himself had to hold special councils to try prevents schisms, which might destabilise the court.

While the political and the theological are interwoven, they are not one strand. What I read you as saying is that the fact that there were psuedo-Christian sects vying for power in the court of Constantine shows us that there were disputes in the theological realm. But the Marcionites and the Arians were voted out of Christianity through the representative leadership of the churches in the form of the Bishops. In both cases, practically unanimous. This shows a theological coherence, not the opposite. They could identify that which strayed beyond the bounds of the belief system and unite to distance it.

Yossie wrote:

Bishops of different regions of the empire courted the men of power to gain advantage. Out of all this, a moderate conservative middle-way was agreed upon for political stability and theological considerations took that line. There were even those of the christian faith, the Donatists, who believed that christianity had sold-out even before Constantine, and formed a break away group.

And so we have Yossie laying the ground for a historical account of the schism. Your hesitance to debate theology means all I can say is that I agree with everything you have written here from a historical and political perspective.

Yoss wrote:

As stated above there wasn’t much subversion on behalf of jesus. On the contrary, Roman reorganised christianity and the church along its own lines. Hence, the modern RC church’s hierarchical positions exactly mirror those of the Roman Empire. Just like a lot of our law and philosophy.

Rome adopted Christianity and reorganised it to remove anything dangerous to the status quo. Exactly.

Yoss wrote:

You mean until the next major political and social upheaval, for which a huge body of evidence and research also exists to show its social/political materialist underpinnings.

But at some point you have to acknowledge that the personal conversion of the private person cannot be explained entirely through a socio-political investigation, as influential as context is.

Yoss wrote:

You are also showing your anti-catholic (pro-presbyterian?) prejudice with this comment.

This is the first time I have been described as anti-Catholic. Over on the Christianity forum they throw "ecumenicist" at me like it is an insult.

I am not pro-presbyterian if you mean that to be the church institution. But Sempre Reforma is a slogan I can proudly draw to my chest.

yoss wrote:

However, I’d hope that you’d agree, the fact that one is “Irish” or “Chec” and not “British” or “Czechoslovakian” and the fact that one is “born” Catholic/Jew/etc are both facts foisted on us by history, politics and the powers-that-be. This doesn’t affect personal choices, btw.

And so we stray to the border of theology again and Excelsior is left to look in on that fine country with longing.

While I am sociologically an Irish Catholic, it is certain that I am not a Roman Catholic. You are interested in the fact that modern western society is "Christian" in its heritage and how that can be explained largely through a historical analysis of social and political factors. What I am interested in is why in a modern western society that is predominantly secular going forward, certainly post-Christian, why are individuals choosing to believe that a carpenter was God and that by rising from the dead the whole of Creation is different.

You phrase it as "Why does that meme work" and in my clearer moments I phrase it as "WTF?" but mostly "Why do they, why did I, do that?"

Yoss wrote:

I know of a very influential American who ain’t that troubled by it, in fact, he reads it everyday and claims it as his inspiration. Although I did hear this man don’t read too good so he probably got the wrong idea.

Can you find any case of Bush referencing the Bible in a speech except in general statements of faith? What people are offended by with Bush is the fact that with broad religious strokes he curries favour from a large and influential body of the electorate who are seeking someone to protect their idea of morality. But Bush does not encourage reading the Gospels. Or the Pauline letters. It would be a very dangerous thing for him to advocate. He will never quote from Isaiah.

yoss wrote:

The number of converts to christianity of people who have read the bible and were convinced, I would argue, is a minute, even negligible, fraction of total christians. For the vast majority, it was only an unfortunate accident of birth.

My personal experience in a growing evangelical church in Dublin is totally different to your theories. An "unfortunate accident of birth" once again refers to a phenomenon that is largely irrelevant to me. I am not interested in people who go to church. I am interested in people hold their faith as the central fulcrum around which their life turns as a result of personal decision.

yossie wrote:

Just as christianity’s adoption by the Roman Empire was for material reasons; just like the reformation was a political power struggle; just like the English revolution with its seekers, quakers, independents, diggers, levellers and ranters; just like the countless conversions and countless counter-conversions of whole countries by monarchs; just like “the troubles” up north; just like new-age individualist spirituality bunkum; they are all wedded to socio-economic material reasons, not divinity.

All of these historical crises were played out by people. Those people exist in a socio-economic framework and are driven in a large part by material needs. As such, any individual's conversion or any large swathe of history will be analysed to some large success by a socio-economic explanation. But it doesn't account for the crucial moment of the theological decision that alter people's lives (whether that decision is to reject their distant "cultural heritage" in place of the contemporary a-divine secular worldview or to embrace the aforementioned lunacy about the Nazarene).

Yoss wrote:

So I ask you, is your bible imbued with the divine or it just a book?

I believe the Bible is divinely inspired.

yoss wrote:

I say it is just a book and a long, boring one at that.

I say it is a fascinating collection of 66 books.

yoss wrote:

Oh, and btw, do you have a literal interpretation of genesis?

The litmus test for sanity in the realm of the agnostics board? I think a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is an appalling warping of the text. I presume that is the portion of Genesis you refer to.

Yossie

The Atheist wrote:

Good. Somebody published 'witty' cartoons in Denmark recently which only cemented the notion that people don't always appreciate wit at the expense of their religion. And that 'witty' people should know better.

I don't think two or three of the obviously offensive cartoons should have been published. But hey, aren't we lucky that trekkies are not militant, considering the ridicule their strong beliefs get. It seems to me that "respect" is based on numbers and militancy.

The Atheist wrote:

My spidey senses detect a large post in the future...

Not from me:o Socio-economic materialist reasons dictate I've to "work" for a living. And besides they take too much out of me.

Nobody but the loony read the long ones anyway;)

Dades

Yossie wrote:

But hey, aren't we lucky that trekkies are not militant, considering the ridicule their strong beliefs get.

Get over the trekkie analogy. It doesn't work.

Yossie wrote:

It seems to me that "respect" is based on numbers and militancy.

You mean what qualifies as a religion is based on numbers. Let's face it we are in a minority here.