Paul Draper's edited E-Book God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence continues to deliver with substantial updates. The core arguments are probably familiar to most Prosblogion readers, but they provide a nice introduction to the newly initiated.
Section three, Science and the Cosmos, offers contributions from Quentin Smith, Robin Collins, and Draper himself. Collins paper opens on in a curious fashion.
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies writes that, when looking at the overall structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (1988, p. 203). I agree. And the famous atheist philosopher, Antony Flew, has also come to agree, citing the appearance of cosmic design as the main reason for his conversion to belief in some sort of intelligent designer.
I'm always wary of making appeals of this kind, but if the New York Times is to be believed, on might worry about marshaling Flew's reported conversion in support of your argument.
Section four, Faith and Uncertainty, features an exchange between John Schellenberg and Jeffrey Jordan. Jordan in replying to Schellenberg makes one point the bears repeating.
"John Schellenberg has presented an argument noteworthy in several respects. One interesting respect is that his "divine hiddenness" argument is a philosophically interesting innovation in a debate that has raged for millennia. Innovation in philosophy, especially an interesting innovation, is not an easy task, but Professor Schellenberg has accomplished it."
There is still time for you to weigh in on the debate with your questions for the various contributors.
Matt, the NYT piece was a hack job, a travesty. Even the non-exaggerated truth behind his wild claims does not support his conclusion Hell, the lacunae he cites are consistent with *my* current level of recall from what I was reading two years ago! The author of the article is clearly not a big reader. I've asked Hab and Brian for some comments on the part that involved them. Note that on Hab's website www.GaryHabermas.com you can listen to audio of him with Flew and people can read the transcript of a conversation on the subject at this link http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf. Best to stick with Flew's own words. Of course the NYT guy might accuse Hab of creating a Flew cyborg that he activates with remote-control...
*Sigh*
Do your research, Trent.
The man is clearly being manipulated.
I've been reading Antony Flew since at least 1978, and looking at "his" newest book, it is clear that it wasn't written by him. It was, in fact, ghost written Bob Hostetler, a Ohio pastor, directed by Varghese. Is it not suspect to you that Flew writes like a modern Midwesterner in the book?
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/12/craig-annoyed.html
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/11/antony-flew-bogus-book.html
http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369
Reading his interviews and apparent writings since 1999, he contradicts himself on multiple occasions, forgets things, people/names, and gives no thought for sentences uttered within minutes of each other. The Antony Flew of the past decade is an entirely different person from that of the 1960's, 70's and even 80's (especially, along with the likes of Penelhulm, in light of his Hume(!) scholarship).
I'm a Christian, and I'm appalled that a respected scholar like you would join the ranks of demagogues and sophists (Strobel, Johnson, Craig, Habermas, et al.) parading this man around in his cognitive decline--signs of dementia (including anomic aphasia, stammering, etc.) which exactly mirror that of my late grandfather. Do you have *any* idea how amazingly impressionable some octogenarians are?
"There Is a God?" is the hack job, Trent; and I'm baffled that an otherwise lucid, clear-thinker like you can't see that.
I remember back throughout the 90's, Christian apologists called Flew "demented," "old and senile," and "irrelevant;" vilified for his undoubtedly suspicious political and social views. It is rather funny now, in the past nine years since his quasi-deist inklings, he's suddenly the manifested reincarnation of C.S. Lewis to these people--now, to many, a "respected scholar of considerable brilliance." Pathetic.
If the history of pop-evangelicalism shows anything, it is that the pious love the faith-affirming, ego-stroking gravitas of a "dramatic" conversion story, and they'll get one even if they have to contrive and nurture one up themselves.
Laus Deo,
Ken
The evidence marshaled for Flew's 'clearly being manipulated' is from Secweb and the blog of a self-admitted atheist activist who comes across as, er.. ranting and a bit delusional himself, to say the least?
I've done the research on Flew as well, and his 'dramatic' conversion story was not only to deism, but a deism that he flaunted against christians at one point, asserting that 'no, I'm not on "their" side'. And all this talk about the criticism christians had for Flew pre-deism and the praise they have for him now, and none about the praise atheists had for Flew pre-conversion, and the fury that followed his favor for deism and (even worse) ID before these hackjob was started?
No one is denying a ghost writer was used. Varghese's name is on the cover of the book. The suggestions that Flew (who still stands by his book, despite all the hounding and complaining from atheists - apparently the man is manipulable, but only by christians, and only so far) is severely lacking his mental faculties are lacking in merit; Flew himself admits to his aphasia.
The controversy over Flew seems to have far more to do with riled-up atheist activists worried about the loss of an intellectual than with any real manipulation of the man.
Kenneth, the sigh came across more like a belch I'm afraid.
Richard Carrier's blog is *almost* as meaningful to me as 911 Youtube videos. Alas I've done too much "research" there already.
So, Ken-dawg, with which of the *sentences* I wrote do you disagree and which of the sentences you wrote count as an undercutting or rebutting defeater thereto. It's a nice little function, a set of ordered pairs, that's all.
Joseph's calm comments are welcomed and accurate (As usual I love a little alliteration.)
I've obtained a letter Brian Leftow wrote to the Times in response (which they refused to print) and will post it when I get some info from others I know personally who know Flew personally. And there remain, as I noted, the audio files and straight transcirpts available. I invite interested parties to consider the primary documents rather than blog-rants, pseudojournalism, or, even, Youtube videos (even if they have cool graphics and background music).
PS - Snarky is as snarky does. Grammatical flags: imperative mood, overuse of vocative case, use of weasel-words (i.e. "baffled," "paraded," "demagogues," "sophists").
PSS - You call my friend and mentor Gary "Hab" Habermas bad names. Bad mistake. I know Gary Habermas. Gary Habermas is a friend of mine. You are no Gary Habermas. (Those born after the earliest date at wish Kenner started reading Flew will probably not get that reference, sorry.) I remember vividly Hab taking about conversations with Flew back in the early 90's
Last paragraph: "wish" = "which" and "taking" = "talking"