Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

[ylexot]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

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?"

The interesting thing (to me anyway) is that I was having the same thoughts when I heard that humans and some plants have approximately the same number of genes, but the arrangement is what differentiates us. IMO, even the simplest life form is too complex to have been formed by chance.

 

[tlatchaw]

I've never really understood the venom behind the religious and scientific communities assertion of one way or the other (yes, I know it's not always so venomous). It seems to me that just because we can figure how something was done, we haven't figured out yet WHY, and what started the whole thing or created the logic that makes the whole system work to begin with.

OK, Adam and Eve were created and we descended from them. Fine. So what's the big deal if we figure out some of the science that allowed them to be created?

Can't we all just get along?

 

[Club'nBabySeals]

Okay....going to play Devil's advocate here.

How does complication elicit intelligent design? At most it shows the limitation of our understanding of life on Earth--But our ignorance isn't proof of God's existence and we still haven't resolved the complexity of God. We can always argue that God was created by another God and so on and so forth but it doesn't take long for anyone with a shred of common sense to see how ridiculous it would be to assume an endless chain of ever more complex and ever more intelligent creators. If God was created by another God and he in turn by another God we haven't gotten to the root of who or what is the original creator.

That Flew or anyone else believes it is well thought out doesn't make it so. Winds can sculpt complex patterns into snow covered landscapes but that doesn't mean the wind is intelligent or purposeful. To assume complexity must imply intelligent design and therefore an intelligent creator makes as much logical sense as saying complexity implies madness and therefore an insane deity at the heart of creation. Being happy to accept the intelligent creator hypothesis one must also find the insane creator equally viable.

It often puzzles me how people percieve complexity as a sign of intelligence. Intelligence elucidates and clarifies. It answers questions and casts a light on hidden truths. It doesn't complicate things and neither does it seek the most complicated pathways to success. It's the notion that complexity derives from intelligence which allows fraud and charlatans like Crowley or Cagliostro to ply their trade. Perhaps its a natural human instinct to assume that where we are ignorant or confused a greater intelligence must exist.

Therein lies the problem with many theories of life on earth having such a small chance of happening by accident. Firstly, if life on earth has such a small chance of happening spontaneously then how much less of a chance is there of God existing? The conditions for God arising spontaneously must be even more unlikely. You can always argue that God has always existed but you can also say the Universe has always existed as well.

We have only examined a tiny portion of our own little solar system within a galaxy that contains millions of other solar systems within a universe which contains untold numbers of other galaxies. For all we know absence of life might be the exception.

Whether something has a one in ten chance of happening or a one in a billion chance of happening it still happens if it happens. You can't say that people who die of heart attacks are more likely to be really dead than people who die from choking on shrimp because there's a greater chance of dying from a heart attack. You can't say life could have arisen spontaneously if it was a one in ten chance of happening but not if its a one in a billion chance. One is still the absolute one.


If the odds of life occuring in the Universe is so phenomenally small then how much smaller is the chance of there being a deity with an intelligence and power great enough to create everything from nothing? It's just a plaguing question, and frankly neither creationists nor scientists have been able to answer yet.

Personally, I hope that answer never comes in my lifetime. There are just some things I'd rather find out on my own.




(Apologies for the long-windedness....)

 

[Tonio]

From what I've read, most of the religion-versus-science bashing goes on between the extremists on both sides. The Darwinists who see themselves as celebrities, like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, deliberately bait creationists just to get a reaction. That's sad because it only makes it harder to have a rational debate. Bad enough that some celebrity creationists claim that scientists and intellectuals are conspiring to wipe out religion.

I don't think religion and science post any inherent threats to each other. Each tries to understand and answer different questions. I read in Wired that physicists and theologians rarely have arguments about this stuff, unlike biologists and creationists.

 

[SoMDGuy1980]

It often puzzles me how people percieve complexity as a sign of intelligence. Intelligence elucidates and clarifies. It answers questions and casts a light on hidden truths. It doesn't complicate things and neither does it seek the most complicated pathways to success.

Evidently you've never sat in a business meeting of intelligent people, or listened to a supervisor speak. I don't know about you, most intelligent people I know create more questions than answers, and most projects I work on follow the most complicated pathways to success.

 

[Club'nBabySeals]

Evidently you've never sat in a business meeting of intelligent people, or listened to a supervisor speak. I don't know about you, most intelligent people I know create more questions than answers, and most projects I work on follow the most complicated pathways to success.

I'm a bit mystified as to how you think these people--who by your own admission go about accomplishing their tasks in the most roundabout, complicated manner possible--are intelligent.

Seems to me like a lapse in business methodology. The premise of most Cost and Efficiency programs is to find the most simple, direct path toward an end product....it saves money, and ups profits.

Creating unnecessary work and taking an uphill route when there's a nice road around the mountain doesn't seem very intelligent to me.

 

[SoMDGuy1980]

I'm a bit mystified as to how you think these people--who by your own admission go about accomplishing their tasks in the most roundabout, complicated manner possible--are intelligent.

Seems to me like a lapse in business methodology. The premise of most Cost and Efficiency programs is to find the most simple, direct path toward an end product....it saves money, and ups profits.

Creating unnecessary work and taking an uphill route when there's a nice road around the mountain doesn't seem very intelligent to me.

Well, there are many things that are mystifiying to me. First, your lack of a sense of humor, since I was making a joke. Two, your misunderstanding that I was using the term "intelligence" and "intelligent" to mean thinking beings, not as a judgement on whether they are smart or dumb. And third, the seemingly hostile and condescending tone of your posts.

 

[ylexot]

The premise of most Cost and Efficiency programs is to find the most simple, direct path toward an end product....it saves money, and ups profits.

This statement is incorrect. Cost and efficiency programs look beyond the end product and recognize that taking more time and spending more in development greatly reduces costs after the product is produced. The "most simple, direct path" often produces a POS that needs to be fixed at a much greater cost than if it was designed correctly in the first place.

 

[Club'nBabySeals]

Well, there are many things that are mystifiying to me. First, your lack of a sense of humor, since I was making a joke. Two, your misunderstanding that I was using the term "intelligence" and "intelligent" to mean thinking beings, not as a judgement on whether they are smart or dumb. And third, the seemingly hostile and condescending tone of your posts.

My apologies for not catching the jest in your original post, then. Sarcasm-o-meter must have been malfunctioning.....when you've got a vehicle like the message boards where information flies super fast, but there's no body language or tone-of-voice to apply to the message, misunderstandings go on the rise. Same can be said about the accusation that my posts are hostile or condescending----they are certainly not intended to be.

 

[Club'nBabySeals]

This statement is incorrect. Cost and efficiency programs look beyond the end product and recognize that taking more time and spending more in development greatly reduces costs after the product is produced. The "most simple, direct path" often produces a POS that needs to be fixed at a much greater cost than if it was designed correctly in the first place.

You're right. I should have said "successful end product." I assumed the notion was implied.