_(english).jpg)
On Sunday November 4, 2007, The New York Times Weekend Magazine featured an article, The Turning of an Atheist, written by Mark Oppenheimer. It describes the conversion of arch-atheist, philosopher, Antony Flew into a believer. In the article I am cited 21 times by name as the arch-offender in the abominable act.
Flew had authored an article in the mid-1950's, "Theology and Falsification" and presented this thesis at the Socratic Club of Oxford University, presided over by none less than C. S. Lewis. Many felt it was a brilliant and invincible proof for a godless world. Over the decades that have followed it became the consistently cited landmark confirmation for atheists
And then, a few years ago, Antony Flew met Roy Varghese, a successful high tech entrepreneur who spaces his time between Dallas, Texas and India. Roy had written several books on the magnificence of creation and urged Antony to read his book "The Wonder of the World" and my third book, "The Hidden Face of God." Those two books were Antony's undoing.
In 2004 Flew announced that the discoveries of modern science have made it abundantly clear that the creation of the universe must be the work of an infinite Intelligence.
In 2004 Flew announced that the discoveries of modern science have made it abundantly clear that the creation of the universe and of life and consciousness from non-living inert matter must be the work of an infinite Intelligence and not the result of random acts of an unguided nature. This revelation, in which Flew also apologized for having misled so many souls over the decades since his "Theology and Falsification," was extraordinary news. Yahoo, in its daily news summary, even listed Flew's recantation as one of the five major events of the day. Roy released a DVD titled "Has Science Discovered God?" In it, Flew and I discuss the facts of nature, not speculations, that had such an impact on Antony. Here in a bit of irony, Flew tells us that he follows the creed of Socrates, "I go to where the truth leads me." Recall that his original argument was presented at Oxford's Socratic Club.
In October 2007, Flew's book, "There Is a God: How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind," was published by HarperOne. This was already too much for Oppenheimer and also so it seems for The New York Times. In a scathing article, Oppenheimer attempts to portray Flew as a duped and senile philosopher, unaware of the ways of the scientific world. Yet Oppenheimer brings no arguments against the science. Because he can't. The science is fine. So his only approach can be against the veracity of Flew and me.
The supposedly senile Flew sums up brilliantly Oppenheimer's vitriolic attack on him and me, "If you can't disprove the message, then try to discredit the messenger."
For me, this has been an awakening of the obsessive lengths to which the anti-God community will go to maintain its control over what is taught in schools. My reply, edited by the Times to the 150 word limit, appeared a few weeks later:
Mark Oppenheimer [NY Times 4 November 2007] mentions me as a source for "the science" that "turned" Antony Flew from skeptic to believer. Some people may believe that Flew, being old and therefore possibly senile, was duped by this "pseudoscience." Let's look at just one aspect of our cosmic genesis. As Antony Flew realized, as does any objective evaluation of this cosmic genesis reveal, the wonder is not whether it took 6 days or 14 billion years, or even an eternity. The wonder is that it happened. The energy of creation became alive, sentient, learned the emotions of joy, love, boredom. There is not a hint of sentience in the electromagnetic radiation that marked the creation or in the 92 elements that the radiation eventually formed. But in an exotic combination of these elements we discover the self-awareness of life.
Gerald Schroeder
Jerusalem
And that is truly the wonder of the world, our world. By a micro-second following God's creation of the world, the Big Bang Creation, the material world was composed almost exclusively of electromagnetic radiation, in simplistic terms, super powerful light beams. According to the Ramban, this was the only physical creation. All other creations were spiritual. Our bodies, not our souls, are made of the light of creation. No wonder that God, upon expelling Adam and Eve from the Garden dresses them in oahr spelled with the Hebrew letter ayin, which means "skin" in Hebrew. Before that while in the Garden they were dressed in oahr, but spelled with an aleph, meaning "light."
The most powerful challenge to an atheist's view of the world lies within the world itself: the simple reality of existence.
The most powerful challenge to an atheist's view of the world lies within the world itself: the simple reality of existence. Why is there existence? Forget things as complex as life. Just consider the being of anything: space, time, matter in any form. Is there some "law," some axiom, that demands there be existence independent of an underlying force that brought it into being? Even if we posit that the universe and all existence is eternal, the question remains: why is there an "is"? It's a question that calls out for an answer. Of course the facile response is if there were not existence, then we could not ask the question. True, but we do exist and so it is a puzzle that demands probing. The greatest self-revelation of a Creator is the creation It brought into being.
Moses, in his closing message to the Jewish people, tells us that if we want to discover the Creator, "Remember the days of old; consider the years, generation by generation" (Deuteronomy 32:7). "Remember the days of old" -- the Ramban relates this to the six days of Genesis, the wonder of the flow of nature. If that is not enough to convince one of a God active in this magnificent world, then consider the years, generation by generation -- the flow of social history. In every age there are miraculous wonders that reveal the hand of our Creator active within the creation. We don't have to go deep into history. The past 60 years are more than adequate to show God's hand. As David Ben Gurion is quoted, "If you live in Israel and you don't believe in miracles, then you are not a realist." We live in a land of miracles. Just look around.
(30) Victor , February 22, 2008
simply put
View One: Hydrogen plus time equals the complexity of the human brain.
View Two: God plus His Word or Decree equals the complexity of the human brain.
You decide which is reasonable for you.
(29) rmp , February 22, 2008
6 days, 400 years, 40 days, 70 years, 5768 start caring
7 days Creation physical universe from nothing. Take Hashem's word (Torah), or ask how science confirms until lagging 'scientists' will reach high enough level to be able to admit true.
Why important?
if old universe, creation far removed, easy to obscure truth, hard to prove, casts doubt on Torah.
If recent complex Creation how can one deny Creator and confirms Torah as only origins theory 100% consistent with factual science.
Ask those who left Egypt early who were off by just 30 years and perished thinking 400 years from Covenant between the parts vs Birth of Isaac as intended.
40 days, how even 1-3 day mistake of Moses time on Sinai allowed golden calf tragedy.
70 years,
Read handwritting on wall or recall Belshazer who did not last another 24 hours after error in calculating end of Galut Babel.
In addition to accepting truth of recent 5768 years since 7 day complex Creation appears to be opportunity given us to atone for Golden Calve by not accepting other appolgists who allow for mistated time frame.
Another major failure w/ Tanin in Gan Eden also attoned for by not being misled by those who say dinosaurs were from millions of years ago. We coexisted till Mabul. Isn't it great we have this test we can pass before obious and no opportunity for effort once Mahiach clarifies?
It is 5768, start caring.
rmpcta@aol.com for proof and sources
(28) Avram , February 21, 2008
Science and Religion
As an Orthodox Jew and a scientist, when I examine the debate between those advancing "Intelligent Design" or "Creation Science" and atheists who attempt to use science to attack religion, I see flaws in both sides' standard arguments. One the one hand, pure science, being the investigation of our universe through observation, experimentation, and analysis, will obviously not point directly to a Creator of the universe. Our universe is finite, and therefore everything within the universe in which our science operates is also finite. G-d, according to Judaism, however, is infinite, which is beyond a finite perception. Therefore, G-d is hidden. Imagine, for example, that you are a cartoon character in a newspaper's comic strip. The cartoonist creates the comic strip character and its cartoon world, defining all of the parameters and boundaries, yet the character itself has no awareness of any world outside of its created world. Any tools or science it uses to examine its world will operate solely in that world, and thus the cartoonist who created and maintains that world will remain hidden. I, as a religious person therefore, do not lose sleep over the notion that a scientific analysis of our universe fails to directly find G-d.
On the other hand, it is extremely arrogant to assume that our human capability to observe, theorize, and experiment accounts for everything there is and can be, and that nothing outside the bounds of what we can observe affects us. The more one truly studies the universe using science, the more he or she realizes how little we know about it. Indeed, some may say that if there are things out there that we cannot possibly perceive, then we shouldn't be concerned about them. I dispute the notion, however, that we are incapable of perceiving them. They may lie outside of science, but we have the ability to ask questions, and our questions are unfettered by the boundaries of science. Many atheists, however, seem to bristle when these types of questions are asked. It is perplexing why they should be threatened by such questions; if it doesn't matter, if we're all going to die anyway, then why get so angry if someone believes in G-d? One answer, I think, is that the atheist does not want to be `enslaved' by a moral code that he or she believes to be man made but peddled as G-d's. Deep down, the objection does not stem from the believing, it stems from the doing. The questions, therefore, become critically important, because just as a painter cares about his painting, if we are living in a universe created by G-d, then it's highly likely that G-d cares about this universe and has opinions on how things should be run.
So, if G-d is beyond our physical senses, how do we get off the fence? How can we possibly answer such questions? Personally, I have arrived at two different solutions. The first solution is to ask specific questions, since vague questions yield vague answers. For example--
Just for the sake of argument, let's say that over billions of years, molecules through random processes did successfully coalesce and become a functioning cell. Why did that cell divide? Fundamentally it is a drive felt by all life from the single cell organism to the human being. I'm not asking why it is necessary. Reproduction is the bread and butter of development, of evolution. Without it there would be no life. Why though is it here?
Suppose I was a newly born sea turtle, emerging for the first time out of my sandy nest to look upon the open beach. I observe the sand and its properties, the water and its properties, the air, the sky, but nobody else is around. I have never seen a human being, and do not know that they exist. I then look and see a footprint in the sand. How did that footprint get there?
The second solution relates to the idea that if we are indeed living in a universe created by G-d, then G-d would care about how this universe should be run. We do have access to a moral code, the Torah. Is it from G-d, or is it man made? By studying it closely, we can perhaps answer that question. We may not be able to detect G-d's `fingerprints', but we can detect man's. Man is finite, after all. In my own personal study of Torah, I have yet to come across any fingerprints of man.
(27) Rabbi Pinky Schmeckelstein , February 21, 2008
6 Days? Who Cares
The notion of six literal days of creation is so insignificant in the broader scheme. One should not deny the scientific history of the world, of the basics laws of physics -- that is idiotic. The debate, as eloquently highlighted by Dr. Schroeder, is truly one of theology and belief. By the same token, force-fitting science to conform to a religious world view is counterproductive. As new science is discovered, the real challenge is to see the hand of the Divine in the more complex understanding of the world, rather than to dismiss the complexity itself.
(26) Ian , February 20, 2008
Embaressingly low for argument 'the Times'
The salient point is: why do people feel so compelled to discredit arguments for G-d's existence so as to use petty arguments like character assasination?
Other than believing in G-d is there any 'other' evidence that a man who yesterday was their oracle is today dubbed senile?
Some reporters should review their Socrates: wherever truth may lead!