How the World's Most Noted Atheist Changed His Mind

[sigmasix]

31. what did he write?

I know I have a book or two by him from back in the day- I wanna say he authored a text book as well, but I'm not sure.

The argument from complexity and the watch-maker critisism is old hat and really only considered interesting in introductory philosophy courses.
I was a confirmed, informed and aware atheist for my entire adult life(29 years) until 7 years ago. I had an experience that answered some outstanding questions I had in a way that was eminently truthful for me and a personal paradigm shift. The radical change in belief structure was not accompanied by a new, previously unconsidered argument or scientific proofs. The fact is that the faith experience is a highly subjective state of mind- not so very different from aesthetic considerations.
Atheistic assumptions should be part and parcel of the scientific endeavor, and anyone that would suggest that science speaks to faith, or vice-versa, has missed the point of the distinction between the personal and the public.

I have sufficient evidence to convince me that there is some sort of over-arching intelligence at work in our universe- however the evidence doesnt come from the same species of arguments that science is from. There is no inconsistency of beliefs or appeals to supernatural agencies to explain the physical universe; pragmatic aestheticism leaves the question of faith to the ministrations of the aesthetic judgement of the individual- making it a highly personal, subjective undertaking. It is this very personal aestheticism that makes the faith experience so very powerful. Of course it isnt repeatable in a lab; faith is not a creature that is subject to the same requirements, evolution or proofs as scientific articualtions about the state of the universe.
More often than not I will side with atheists because of the strength of science unshackled by theistic mistakes like the argument from complexity and the watch-maker critisism. Expecting science to adhere to the dogmatic implications of any religion is a threat to science and our future. Silly notions like ID and weather controlled by prayer are pre-enlightenment tribal and religious markers brought into our century by those that are still stuck there.
I know this isnt a popular viewpoint, but I believe it is perfectly conceivable to allow a rich life of faith while maintaining an honest, exhaustive allegiance to true science that discards all appeals to a creator and structural limitations that are based on dogmatic interpretations of the feelings of the faithful.

Mr. Flew is entitled to find worth in the faith experience whether he can explain the reasons with out relying on dead arguments or not. He probably ought to refrain from publishing those arguments and expecting people to respect them, though.

One thing I would add: since discovering an avenue to faith my life has taken a turn for the better in many ways- releaved anxiety, confidence, forgiveness and empathy are emotions that have been charged and looking for new challenges. I have discovered a "reason" in my life that I never felt before and the subjective fear of death has shrunk to a niggling itch of curiousity. No one should change thier beliefs because of the experiences of others- and no one should allow another person to convince them to change thier minds about this stuff. The faith experience is wholly subjective and completely dependent on the readiness of the individual. no science will ever prove or disprove God's existence and no amount of belief in God is going to change the objective proofs of science's implications. Find it for youself- therein lies complete understanding, if there ever will be.