This ministry needs your financial support! Donate now!
Posted by Anthony on April 26, 2010
Readers of this blog know that I have an interest in Antony Flew, having even had the honor of corresponded with him. Click here for a list of posts I’ve written regarding Dr. Flew. The short story below may be understood better by some if you read this particular post of mine where I discuss the Flew-Wisdom parable.
In order to better get a sense of my overall picture of things, you might (after reading the story below) want to read my short story titled, to your surprise no doubt, “Mother Teresa Goes to Heaven.”
Antony Flew Goes to Heaven
When the man opened his eyes the first thing he beheld was a garden. It was the assault on his being that alerted him to this fact. His sensory scouts went out and scoured his surroundings and came back with the report- first from the nostrils: here were delicate scents of flowers and dirt; and then the eyes: there were well ordered paths with ivy crawling up rocky walls; now touch: he realized he was lying on his back with blades of grass tickling his ear and when he flexed his fingers into the earth there was that soft moistness you always associated with good soil; the ears came announcing: birds here, birds there, birds everywhere, and somewhere yet unspotted a fountain, detected by alternating gurgles and tinkling; taste came back disappointed, as it had nothing yet to disclose.
It was comforted soon enough. The man sat up and saw at once the hanging branches of a fruit-laden tree. While feeling no pangs of hunger he knew he was famished. He stood up and strode with purpose to the tree and helped himself liberally. In his subconscious a fear flickered that he may be plucking his lunch from Augustine’s orchard. He set the fear aside and ate his fill.
He returned to the patch of soft grass that he had been lying when he had first awoken. There seemed nothing else to do. So he sat. It was the cool of the day and he was content enough to enjoy the tender breeze that played on his cheeks. That breeze, the man couldn’t help but think, seemed to be made just for him each and every time. It was the cool of the day, and suddenly the man knew that he was not alone. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on April 16, 2010
I am happy to have had the honor to have corresponded with the recently deceased Antony Flew. This correspondence occurred after he had abandoned atheism and before it had become publicly known that he was going to write a book documenting his conversion.
This book has come under fierce attack, though not on its merits. Rather, it has been attacked through an assault on the author. On account of my correspondence, however, I had some tangible evidence in support of the contention that the book represented Flew’s real positions. I produced this material in this blog post here which has gotten a lot of attention. While I wait for a reply from Mr. Carrier, I thought it high time to produce the actual letters which I quote and display (from a distance) in that blog entry. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on January 19, 2010
It is not so common in philosophical debates to arrive at points of contentions where there really, truly, is indisputable refutation or demonstration. Usually, it is a question of interpretation and the argument can continue on. On my blog I have documented over the years a few points where the argument against the atheist was incontrovertible. The result: silence.
I would like to give free-thinking objective and even handed and mentally superior atheistic friends an opportunity to exhibit integrity by highlighting the three examples (plus a bonus one) that come to mind and calling upon the atheists and their defenders to own up to these refutations. If I had to make a prediction, it would be that they will exhibit all that they renounce in ‘religious fundamentalism’ and do essentially as Dan Rather did in Rathergate, standing by the story after the facts supporting it have been withdrawn.
1. Richard Dawkins. Not long after Dawkins released his Delusion, I tracked down a quote that he employed to further his argument that Christianity was against knowledge and stifled curiosity. The quote was from Augustine’s Confessions but the 45ish word quote was actually spliced selectively out of a longer section 750ish words in length. See my evidence. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on December 5, 2008
In the last week or so I had two exchanges where the debate turned on why the atheist/agnostic was demanding a higher level of scrutiny for ‘religious’ claims than other kinds of claims. In one of the cases, the really odd thing is that the person(s) had admitted that science, being limited as it is to the natural order, is unable to touch the supernatural and yet continued to say that science nonetheless remains the best way to learn about the world. This is not coherent. When pressed, in this case they again admitted that science couldn’t prove or disprove the supernatural but continued to insist that we use science to investigate the question. Truly, this world leaves me scratching my head.
In the course of this conversation I believe the real objection was expressed. I have heard this objection recently as well and it is not uncommon. Simply put: if the religious claims be true, then this entails a necessary change in attitude, beliefs, and behavior, and as such they demand higher scrutiny. If religious claims succeed on ‘ordinary’ scrutiny that is not enough. Ie, even if one could demonstrate on standard historical methods that it is more likely that Jesus really did rise from the dead than that Socrates existed and was poisoned to death, it wouldn’t matter.
It is a twist on the old ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ gambit except here we aren’t talking about something intrinsic to the claim (which is subjective) but rather intrinsic to the response if the claim be accepted.
Using techniques like this, atheists can escape any argument. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on October 26, 2008
The Athanatos Online Apologetics Academy is enrolling now. It is almost too late to enroll in the “Introduction to basic Biblical Greek” course but it can be downloaded as an e-book in expanded fashion from here. (Good for home schoolers, self-study, small groups, Bible study groups, etc)
Beginning on Nov. 3 is the course on “The Reliability of the New Testament Documents.” This course is useful for those who want to understand why we believe the books we have in the New Testament are what was really written.
Beginning on Nov. 17 is the follow up course, “The Formation of the New Testament Canon.” This course goes the additional step of describing how the books in the New Testament came to be included and how others were excluded. No conspiracy theorist or skeptical nonsense here. Get the facts in this course.
Also beginning on Nov. 17 is the course “Studies in Atheism.” This survey of atheistic thought starts in Greek philosophy and charts its way through Hume, Bertrand Russell, Antony Flew, Ayn Rand, etc, before culminating in an examination of the so-called ‘New Atheists’ such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Dan Dennett. This course is excellent for those wishing to understand the atheistic/secular/humanistic threat to Christianity and the Christian worldview.
Direct inquiries to admissions@academyofapologetics.com.
Enroll in the Athanatos Online Apologetics Academy Today!
Posted by Anthony on September 15, 2008
This essay makes the assertion that atheists fail to distinguish between ‘natural revelation’ and ‘special revelation’ but they are not entirely to blame. Arguments for the existence of God tend to be in the realm of ‘natural’ theology. Then, Christians speak of the Bible as revelation without qualification. Unfortunately, atheists almost uniformly believe they are smarter and more well informed than every other person on the globe, so we would expect that they would be able to see past these factors to Christianity’s toughest arguments instead of attacking the weakest links.
It is not my purpose today to offer one of those toughest arguments but to draw this distinction and explain its relevance.
Simply put, ‘natural’ revelation, or ‘natural theology,’ is what one can learn about God running exclusively on your own steam without any assistance from God. Aristotle’s Prime Mover arguments and Aquinas’s ‘Five Ways’ are such efforts. Intelligent Design, when the inference is made that God is the Designer, is ‘natural’ theology at work. ‘Special revelation’ concerns that which is known and can only be known because God himself reveals it. Indeed, by the very definition of God according to Christian theists, there is a great deal that could only be known if God told us. We may be able to infer using our senses alone that there exists an unmoved mover which we call God but we cannot on the same basis infer that God has this or that preference regarding human behavior.
One of the confusions here is the treatment of the Bible as revelation. It certainly is revelation. However, when it concerns God, it is strictly speaking revelation about revelation. So, the ‘special revelation’ would be what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus. He then reveals what was revealed to him. In other words, the accounts of this incident are Paul’s revelation. Also, all that we know about Jesus is revealed to us through his disciples.
Atheists at this point are probably scratching their heads because from their perspective I will not have made the situation any better. What many of them are specifically looking for is their own ‘Road to Damascus’ experience. Short of that, no evidence will persuade. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on September 12, 2008
Last weekI blogged on some observations about how conservatives and liberals and nonChristians perceive the abortion debate. As if to prove my point, an atheist friend rose to the bait, and illustrated the problem nicely.
Essentially, I observed that the primary difference in outlooks hinged on exactly who was the final, or ultimate, or only authority on what a ‘person’ was, and why at all we would value a ‘person.’ Since atheists do not believe there is a ‘higher’ authority, like God, then obviously ‘personhood’ is decided by the individual or, at best, the collective declaration of a group of individuals. I contend that on that logic, it should follow that an individual could just as easily declassify any other individual, removing their ‘personhood’ status, and be operating legitimately. As can be expected, atheists have no desire to extend their logic that far. The gulags and the concentration camps stand as a check yet the logic should follow. On the other hand, conservatives and Christians in particular believe that the question of ‘personhood’ and the value we ascribe to ‘persons’ is determined by the maker of everything, namely, God. Since God is the ultimate frame of reference, if an embryo is a person, it is a person whether we humans think it the case or not. That’s the summary.
Based on these observations, one conclusion would be that the best way to get people to oppose abortion would be to get them to believe that there is a higher authority. In a word, convert them to Christianity. Read the rest of the entry… »
