Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

[u/snapdigity]

What do you guys make of Antony Flew’s 2007 book “There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”

I haven’t finished it yet, but he makes a strong case. He really ties together many different arguments together. Some of the arguments are as follows:

1. Universe had a beginning and cannot cause itself. God as the “uncaused cause” is more plausible than other explanations.

2. Fine tuning of constants and laws of the universe for life.

3. Encoded information in DNA and the mechanism for self replication.

4. The failure of naturalistic processes to account for the emergence of life.

5. The alignment between the rationality of human thought and the rational order of nature is unlikely to be a product of blind chance. This suggests a rational mind behind both.

6. The failure of naturalism and materialism to explain human consciousness, the ability to reason, and think abstractly.

7. Complexity and interdependence of biological system, such as DNA, cells and proteins, cannot be fully explained by random processes or natural selection alone.

8. Influential scientists whose belief influenced him such as Isaac Newton, Francis Collins, Arno Penzias, Paul Davies and Albert Einstein.

9. The assumptions upon which science itself is based are better explained in a universe created by a intelligent source. Such as the idea that there is an objective truth that can be ascertained through scientific inquiry, and the assumption that the universe functions in a reliable and consistent way that can be discovered and understood by humans.

[u/AtotheCtotheG → u/snapdigity]

1) unproven.

2) survivorship bias.

3) doesn’t require god. And in fact DNA is pretty clearly not designed by an intelligent being, given how disorganized genes are. Evolution didn’t lay our code out in nice orderly packets; it threw stuff at the wall to see what would stick. Genetic code is basically a game of pick-up sticks.

4) “god of the gaps.” We don’t know EXACTLY how nonliving materials first began to behave as living systems. Plenty of solid hypotheses and interesting experiments on the subject though; like the one where they simulated early earth conditions and produced some interesting amino acids.

5) the irony here is too good.

6) again, god of the gaps. Not actually evidence for god. Not even a good logical argument, in fact. “We don’t know how X happens so it must be god”? Come on now.

7) yes they can.

8) absolutely meaningless.

9) no they’re not.

In conclusion: what I make of this book is that I have absolutely no inclination to read it, because it sounds like it says nothing even slightly interesting or thought-provoking. I’ve seen versions of each of your points here and there in this sub and the similar ones, and I’ve only been a member for like a month. It’s just bad logic.

[u/snapdigity → u/AtotheCtotheG]

Another thing that Flew considered instrumental in his changing his mind was being open and willing to consider the various arguments for God.

In a way his book is a summary of the arguments that convinced him. Entire books have been written on each of the arguments.

One of the themes I have come to realize is all too common in this sub and others like it is that most most atheists here have seem to have one intention, to destroy the theistic or deistic arguments rather than give them any consideration. And when that fails attack the person themselves.

When taken in long form formats, the arguments above are far more compelling than 99% of atheist would give them credit for. When presented as a two sentence comment on Reddit, it’s far easier to dismiss them. The DNA argument in particular.

[u/Mkwdr → u/snapdigity]

most most atheists here have seem to have one intention, to destroy the theistic or deistic arguments rather than give them any consideration.

This seems entirely dishonest especially considering the detail people have gone into responding to your post to which your residence is generally limited to .. ‘thanks’.

And when that fails attack the person themselves.

My guess is that this is you go to accusation when criticised instead of a thoughtful response.

When taken in long form formats, the arguments above are far more compelling than 99% of atheist would give them credit for.

They most certainly are not , in the multiple ways that have been pointed out - to which your response is …practically nothing.

[u/AtotheCtotheG → u/snapdigity]

Doesn’t matter how many words you put into it, bad logic is bad logic. You gave us the salient points; we’re all more or less aware of how those discussions go (in fact, given that the book came out in 2007, I’m sure its talking points have not only resembled but inspired arguments in this very sub), and the conclusions you described just aren’t logically sound.

Just because I’m dismissive now doesn’t mean I haven’t considered the arguments. It can also mean I’ve considered them before, and don’t need to consider them again.

[u/snapdigity → u/AtotheCtotheG]

Okay, thank you for the reply.

[u/TheBlackCat13 → u/snapdigity]

One of the themes I have come to realize is all too common in this sub and others like it is that most most atheists here have seem to have one intention, to destroy the theistic or deistic arguments rather than give them any consideration. And when that fails attack the person themselves.

Have you considered any of the responses you have gotten? If so it doesn't look like it. What I see here is lots of people considering the points and responding to them, and you ignoring those responses entirely. Seems like you are projecting pretty hard here.