Flew's flawed science

[Urban Ranger]

This is an article written by Victor J Stenger on Antony Flew's recent "conversion."

Flew has not changed his mind on the inadequacy of the various philosophical arguments for God, which he very ably covered in his classic work, God and Philosophy.⁴ For example, he still does not buy into the moral argument, and remains unimpressed by the kalâm cosmological argument.⁵ However, he says he is impressed by recent claims that science has discovered evidence for God, although he admits to Carrier that he has not kept up with the scientific critiques of those arguments.⁶

Flew does not completely reject the theistic revelation of scientific facts. As he tells Habermas, “ I am open to it, but not enthusiastic about potential revelation from God. On the positive side, for example, I am very much impressed with physicist Gerald Schroeder’s comments on Genesis 1. That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate raises the possibility that it is revelation.”

I reckon this is pretty much a non-issue around here, though I think Stenger's article is a good resource for reference.

[Urban Ranger]

*bump*

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
*bump*

You mean troll bait? Methinks we've covered this one. Flews "conversion" is hardly that, but we've discussed the arguments and the issues at hand into the ground.

[Frozzy]

*bump*

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You mean troll bait? Methinks we've covered this one.

Yes, but I think some facts in Stenger's paper is interesting, such as, oh, "quark confinement" and the like.

[Agathon]

Any scientist who believes in any way that the Bible is literally true, or even reinterprets the evidence to make it so, should be hounded out of every university in the world.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Agathon
Any scientist who believes in any way that the Bible is literally true, or even reinterprets the evidence to make it so, should be hounded out of every university in the world.

I strongly disagree,
because this would make the scientific community not better than religious fundamentalists.

It´s nothing wrong if a scientist to believes the bible to be literal true.
He should only be fired, if he shows unscientific behavior in this manner.
For example by claiming to have undeniable proof of certain things written by the bible are true, but intentional ignoring evidences against his claims.
Or if he uses lectures to spread his beliefs among students.

But as long as he doesn´t show behavior which makes him a bad scientist and keeps his faith private I have no problems with it.