Not all appeals to authority are wrong, of course, when knowledge is not held. This is especially necessary in areas of philosophical and scientific expertise. But given that Flew displays neither in citing a very basic version of the argument from design -- one so well-known that there is no real need to "prop it up" with some specialist, this seems unreasonable. Contrariwise, the heart of the interview with Flew is about biological complexity, an area in which he is spectacularly unqualified and unathoritative. Now let's consider authorities in that area: I find it quite humorous that those most familiar with the details of biology are most likely, among all scientists, to be atheists. It is well-known that Ph.D. Biologists are more atheistic than professors of physical sciences or social sciences.
Flew makes exactly the opposite argument here -- that the complexity of biology is so astoundingly high compared to the complexity of physics, that we ought to take for granted Einstein's words as a tacit admission that if physics reveals God...how much more so does biology?
I would first point out that Einstein's every word on God has been abused since nearly the day he uttered them. People desperate to validate their faith via "well hey, there's a really smart guy who also believes," have conveniently overlooked the details of the sort of belief that he actually had -- it was not belief in the God of any theism. Einstein was a committed determinist in the vein of Spinoza:
I have to wonder if Einstein were alive today, and knew the progress and powerful evidence for indeterminism on the quantum scale, whether he would maintain his position stubbornly against the tide. I have to believe he would not. But it is clear that Einstein held some antipathy towards militant, intolerant, "bigoted" atheists. It seems to me that he would be quite unlikely, even if shown the evidence for indeterminism and accepting it, to immediately become a sort of Richard Dawkins. His sense of awe and mystery of the universe seems too great.
However, he might admit that there is no good reason to look at the laws and forces of our universe as evidence of any greater Mind or Cause.
Moving on from Einstein, Gary Habermas did an interview with Flew, in which Flew admitting to having come to a worldview aptly described as Deism. From the interview:
Just a few months back, the Media Complaints Division says,
I agree with Carrier's conclusion [quoting Flew] that,
In the end, we all must examine the evidence and develop our worldviews based upon it. Using gaps in our own knowledge as a place to build faith is poor theology and philosophy. Einstein used a false position on quantum indeterminacy to maintain his deterministic beliefs. Flew used a false position on the plausibility of abiogenesis to maintain his. In the meanwhile, sloppy agenda-driven people will continue to tout Flew and Einstein as some sort of proof that a god exists and/or that solid evidence exists which can convince very intelligent people that god does -- that faith is almost unnecessary.
The agenda here is clear--a brilliant intellectual was convinced by the evidence for ID, and a brilliant physicist invoked the word "God" when describing the workings of our universe: therefore, God exists! Unfortunately, the truth reads differently -- a brilliant intellectual trusted some authorities' conclusions on the evidence without examining it for himself, and came to a faulty conclusion, which he later refuted after examining the evidence first-hand; a brilliant physicist made remarks which were completely taken out of context.
Don't believe me? Go practice exactly what I'm preaching: read for yourself.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Discovery Institute, Einstein, Antony Flew, Atheism
Flew makes exactly the opposite argument here -- that the complexity of biology is so astoundingly high compared to the complexity of physics, that we ought to take for granted Einstein's words as a tacit admission that if physics reveals God...how much more so does biology?
I would first point out that Einstein's every word on God has been abused since nearly the day he uttered them. People desperate to validate their faith via "well hey, there's a really smart guy who also believes," have conveniently overlooked the details of the sort of belief that he actually had -- it was not belief in the God of any theism. Einstein was a committed determinist in the vein of Spinoza:
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.He might best be described as a Deist, not a true Spinozan pantheist. His comment about "God does not play dice with the universe," was direct confirmation of both of these two things -- although we know now that Einstein was wrong about quantum physics. Einstein was also wrong about the cosmological constant in general relativity -- the universe does extrapolate backwards in time to a singularity. Too often theists overlook the fact that Einstein did make mistakes in science; would they concede, given his mistakes in his own field of expertise, that it is just as plausible, and more so, that he also made mistakes in this field so outside of the possibility of anyone's expertise (whether God exists or not)?
-- The quotation above may be Einstein's most familiar statement of his beliefs. These words are frequently quoted, but a citation is seldom given. The quotation can be found in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp (The Open Court Publishing Co., La Salle, Illinois, Third Edition, 1970) pp. 659 - 660. There the source is given as the New York Times, 25 April 1929, p. 60, col. 4. Ronald W. Clark (pp. 413-414) [source]
I have to wonder if Einstein were alive today, and knew the progress and powerful evidence for indeterminism on the quantum scale, whether he would maintain his position stubbornly against the tide. I have to believe he would not. But it is clear that Einstein held some antipathy towards militant, intolerant, "bigoted" atheists. It seems to me that he would be quite unlikely, even if shown the evidence for indeterminism and accepting it, to immediately become a sort of Richard Dawkins. His sense of awe and mystery of the universe seems too great.
However, he might admit that there is no good reason to look at the laws and forces of our universe as evidence of any greater Mind or Cause.
Moving on from Einstein, Gary Habermas did an interview with Flew, in which Flew admitting to having come to a worldview aptly described as Deism. From the interview:
HABERMAS: Once you mentioned to me that your view might be called Deism. Do you think that would be a fair designation?Now, what kind of response does Biola give this? Well, it dishonestly titles the interview, "Atheist Becomes Theist". This is a blatant lie. Period. From this intial interview, publication, and Biola lie, Flew "became a theist" in the media. In the aftermath of this conclusion, Flew was touted as a sort of victory object for the power of apologetics, and recently, for the power of ID.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.
Just a few months back, the Media Complaints Division says,
Judge John Jones swallowed this claim despite the many scientists and scholars outside of Christianity who have embraced ID (like British philosopher Antony Flew). They illustrate the obvious: A theory (ID) that makes no appeals to Scriptural authority, but instead bases its arguments on scientific evidence, is a theory that anyone from a deist to Deepak Chopra could embrace.Well, Disco Institute, sorry to hurt your feelings, but Dr. Flew then says,
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. [January 2005]It was in fact abiogenesis, and not evolution, which led Dr. Flew to believe in something which had to seed the first forms of reproductive life on earth. He believed in some sort of "front-loading", like Krauze, not a guided evolution. It is for this reason Flew pointed out he did not believe in miracles, that evolution was sufficient to explain the diversity and complexity of life on earth...after the first reproducing form:
...the non-interfering God of the people called Deists--such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.Flew admitted that he was ignorant of the scientific literature, and after speaking with Richard Carrier, who prodded Flew to examine it, he made the above confession. Flew does not dismiss the idea of a deity, but obviously admits that there is no need to invoke a deity to explain life's origins. He also holds no belief about an afterlife of any sort. For more, see here.
I agree with Carrier's conclusion [quoting Flew] 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.Flew put out a new preface to his book, before examining the evidence and the arguments, as he now admits, and calls himself "a fool" for doing, in which he states:
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.”Indeed, we must. And this is why Flew calls himself a fool--for declaring a position without seriously scrutinizing it. And I call myself one at times for the same reason. It seems that more recent developments have seen Flew reiterating his Deistic position. One point to bring up to people using both Flew and Einstein is that neither man, possessing Deistic beliefs, denies the common descent of all life via natural evolution. Neither man, possessing Deistic beliefs, denies the Big Bang. Neither man, possessing Deistic beliefs, denies the most basic principles of science, which falsify huge portions of the Bible and render the idea of a Resurrection laughable. Remember, Deism is a God removed from Its Creation, not one which steps in and tinkers and breaks the laws It set up.
In the end, we all must examine the evidence and develop our worldviews based upon it. Using gaps in our own knowledge as a place to build faith is poor theology and philosophy. Einstein used a false position on quantum indeterminacy to maintain his deterministic beliefs. Flew used a false position on the plausibility of abiogenesis to maintain his. In the meanwhile, sloppy agenda-driven people will continue to tout Flew and Einstein as some sort of proof that a god exists and/or that solid evidence exists which can convince very intelligent people that god does -- that faith is almost unnecessary.
The agenda here is clear--a brilliant intellectual was convinced by the evidence for ID, and a brilliant physicist invoked the word "God" when describing the workings of our universe: therefore, God exists! Unfortunately, the truth reads differently -- a brilliant intellectual trusted some authorities' conclusions on the evidence without examining it for himself, and came to a faulty conclusion, which he later refuted after examining the evidence first-hand; a brilliant physicist made remarks which were completely taken out of context.
Don't believe me? Go practice exactly what I'm preaching: read for yourself.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Discovery Institute, Einstein, Antony Flew, Atheism
