11.04.07
Interesting reading
And by interesting, I mean infuriating.
Mark Vernon writes some utter guff in the Graun about the burden of proof being on atheists (brilliant, next we’ll have to conclusively prove that there’s no such thing as the Loch Ness monster or bite the bullet and become Nessie believers). He champions Antony Flew’s latest book, saying variously, “he explores intricacies with admirable clarity”, “This is a wholly rational discovery of the divine for him” and “He does not pull his punches” in this book that sets out his new position. Then there’s a bunch of the standard ‘fine-tuning’ arguments.
Now here’s a turn up. Via Pharyngula, an article in the New York Times regarding Mr Flew, and the creationist types that appear to be exploiting him, such as Roy Varghese, who apparently thinks bees are proof of the divine. Remember Mark Vernon’s comments above when you read this extract.
“When I asked Varghese, he freely admitted that the book was his idea and that he had done all the original writing for it. But he made the book sound like more of a joint effort — slightly more, anyway. “There was stuff he had written before, and some of that was adapted to this,” Varghese said. “There is stuff he’d written to me in correspondence, and I organized a lot of it. And I had interviews with him. So those three elements went into it. Oh, and I exposed him to certain authors and got his views on them.”
A heartwarming tale, God is Back indeed.
David Duff said,
November 6, 2007 at 9:41 am
“the burden of proof being on atheists”
But surely, Ben, the burden of proof is on *anyone* who makes a definitive claim concerning anything. Of course, it is not always possible to offer precise and exact proof, but the least we can expect is an argument in favour so that we might judge. That is why, on this particular dispute, I remain a firm, if craven, ‘don’t know’ agnostic.
Ben said,
November 6, 2007 at 10:57 am
Without wishing to get into the endless atheist or agnostic debate, can I briefly point out that “I don’t believe in god” and “I definitively state that there is no god” are entirely different statements, and that the former is consistent with atheism.
David Duff said,
November 6, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Not quite! “I don’t believe in God” is consistent both with believing in atheism and with agnosticism. When used by the former it begs a follow-up clause beginning with ‘because’, and by the latter, with a clause beginning with ‘neither’.
Ben said,
November 6, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Hope I didn’t give the impression it wasn’t consistent with agnosticism either, wasn’t the intention. Just making the point that – unfortunately for those that like to write lazy opinion pieces about it – atheism isn’t a definitive claim, or the state of utter certainty they’d like it to be.
David Duff said,
November 6, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Ah, well now you *do* confuse me. It seems to me that if you are an atheist you might begin a proposition thus: ‘I do not believe in God’ but end it thus: ‘because I do not believe God exists’, followed by your reasons. You can’t, it seems to me, *half* believe, or disbelieve. If like me, you haven’t a clue and can see no prospects of ever gaining a clue then it is entirely proper to shrug and retreat to agnosticism. As I have said before (and sorry for being tedious) both theism and atheism are faith-based beliefs because there is no definitive proof either way.
Ben said,
November 6, 2007 at 10:31 pm
That’ll be that endless atheist or agnostic debate I mentioned starting to build up steam, thanks for your comments David.
David Duff said,
November 7, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Excuse me for interrupting your thoughts.