Alden Swan dot com

Since the attempts to give Anthony Flew the brush-off will continue for a while, I thought passing along a link to his interview with Dr. Benjamin Wiker was appropriate. He certainly doesn’t seem senile in this interview. In response to a question about what motivated his rejection of atheism, Flew stated:

There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins’ comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a “lucky chance.” If that’s the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.

Flew makes a couple of interesting points: One is that as the Universe gives the appearance of design, the burden of proof is on the atheists, not the other way around as he used to claim. He also made the point that scientists cannot speak to philosophical questions as scientists; they must address them as philosophers. This is a nice interview; I only wish it appeared on a site that didn’t seem so … odd. But, ignore the ads and the rest of the site and enjoy the interview.

As we’re on the topic of philosophy, I’ll direct you to a very nice post on epistemology (how we know what we know) by BarryA at Uncommon Descent, where he does a very nice job of explaining how philosophy and science differ in their approach to what we know and the limitations of what we can know. He uses Ptolemy’s cosmology as an example:

Ptolemy’s system was so good that it was the basis upon which celestial predictions were made for over a thousand years. Copernicus first published his theories in 1543. Forty years earlier, armed only with his knowledge of Ptolemy, Columbus was able to awe the Indians on present day Jamaica by predicting the lunar eclipse of February 29, 1504.

Importantly, note that Ptolemy’s system has every attribute of a sound scientific theory, and if the scientific method had been around in his day, scientific experiments would have supported his theory.

Ptolemy, as we now know, was wrong. However, BarryA already pointed out that we can never be 100% certain of anything:

Keep in mind that our beliefs can never be justified in an absolute sense. You have a justified belief that you are sitting at your computer reading this scintillating post. Even though this belief is highly justified and almost certainly true, you cannot rule out that you are dreaming or that you are in the Matrix are that you have been deceived by one of Descartes’ demons.

As he also explains, Berkeley’s proposal that nothing material really exists is irrefutable, and Samual Johnson’s stubbed toe could really have just been written into The Matrix. However, from a practical standpoint, Berkeley’s thinking is literally immaterial. As an old philosophy professor of mine once remarked about Berkeley’s proposition, “just because he was a philosopher doesn’t mean he wasn’t stupid.” If the scientific method results in theories that work whether in the real world or in The Matrix, what does it matter to us? Science is practical, and cannot by any stretch of the philosophical or scientific imagination answer the question of whether matter is real or not, or whether a non-material world exists. Unless, of course, you are given knowledge from outside the system.

BarryA’s overview of epistemology and his thoughts on our current state of “knowing” is well worth reading, and I believe the question of what we really know is important and, if nothing else, fun to think about.

But then, what do I know?

My friend Mike recently linked here, to 2 extended video clips of four of the top “New Atheists,” Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins, discussing the interplay of the “New Atheism” and religion (mainly Christianity) as well as the criticism that has been leveled against them that they are rude and offensive. I’ve only had time to watch the first video, and I found it very interesting; if you have an hour or two to kill, I think it’s worth hearing what these guys have to say.

Now, I don’t say this because I think what they had to say has any merit. On the contrary, I found them all incredibly naive when it comes to religion, and this is one of the things which I find so interesting, and even surprising. These are four very intelligent individuals, yet they really don’t “get” the concept of what it is that they are railing against. I could understand it if they would say, “I really don’t understand this” or “I think I understand what you are saying, but I can’t come to the same conclusions.” However, they appear to have become foolish in their attempts to be intelligent, and perhaps have become unaware of what they do not understand.

Another interesting thing about the discussion is that you can see the differences in their beliefs (or non-beliefs). Hitchens seems to have the most understanding of religion – he just doesn’t like it. One reason why I like him is that he tries to be even-handed, and at times corrects the misstatements of the others. Dawkins still strikes me as someone who is perhaps just foolish. He has apparently tossed aside the need for logic or reason in dealing with the issue of religion, and is quite happy believing whatever he wants about what Christians believe; he has judged religion as loony, and beneath any sort of honest evaluation. Harris simply seems out out of his league, and Dennett seems content to play the grumpy philosopher. But, watch the clips and judge for yourselves. Each has some interesting things to say, and occasionally they do have some valid complaints.

In contrast to this is another discussion, between Anthony Bloom, who was a Russian Orthodox Archbishop, and atheist novelist and critic Marghanita Laski, which is found in Anthony Bloom’s book God and Man, where it is found as chapter 1, entitled The Atheist and the Archbishop. The discussion was televised in July of 1971 for the BBC. Bloom (1914 – 2003) was a Russian who was educated in Paris as a scientist and became a physician prior to becoming an Orthodox monk. He later served as the Archbishop (Metropolitan) of England & Ireland. Laski (1915-1988) was a professed atheist who, like our esteemed New Atheists, was intrigued by religion – although she was not nearly as offended by it as the aforementioned four. The Bloom-Laski discussion is, among other things, much more respectful than what I often see today in similar discussions.

Laski is an atheist of a different sort than our contemporary quadriad, who would probably toss out many of her thoughts as archaic. In response to a question by Bloom about what she thinks about the experiences and assertions of the millions who would say they are certain there is a God, Laski replies, “You lead me to the besetting sin of the atheist which is arrogance, so I think I have to say I don’t know.” She also acknowledges that atheism, as a lack of something rather than having something, is certainly lacking:

… since the Renaissance for instance, it’s been all too sadly apparent that in all the arts there has been no inspiration comparable with the inspiration that religion gave. There have been no words for secular music that compare with the music of a Mass. I certainly think that belief in God and the religions that arose from belief in God did give a shaping and a pattern to life for which I can see co conceivable substitute and to that extent I would certainly grant to you that my life is poorer than that of a believer.

She then says,

I probably haven’t made atheism seem at all rich and I don’t think it is. I think it’s a very Protestant, very puritanical faith that, as I say, does tend towards arrogance because we lack authority. But there is one thing I would say for atheism, as against religion, and that is this: if you try to practice it, it trains you in a virtue that I value highly which is endurance without whimpering …

Again, the “New” atheists would probably toss her out on her ear, and certainly she speaks with no authority other than her own opinions. However, it’s an interesting contrast in attitude, and the whole conversation is worth reading, if you can track down a copy.