11/04/2007 07:33:00 PM
How sad. Though it's not clear just which contentions are closest to the truth of the matter. It could be a lot more complex than the story of a bunch of evangelicals exploiting a failing philosopher but it's unlikely we'll ever know. The trophy aspect of this seems to go both ways, though. Flew, like Ayer and Ingersol and a few others besides, seem to be useful to either side. The best way to handle the situation is for everyone to stop using people like this as poster boys for their side and give up the futile pursuit of an intellectual solution to an essentially unanswerable question. There is no science or philosophy that can answer the "existence of God" question because if there is a one, God is not part of the physical world that science and philosophy were invented to discover. If there is a God it's obvious that for reasons not given to us, she doesn't want to be observed objectively, though people report subjective knowledge of God. Subjective knowledge isn't transferable through logic or science, it's personal.Flew's current belief should not have any effect on anyone else anymore than his previous belief did. It's meaningful for Flew, it shouldn't matter for anyone else. They should consult their own experience and draw their own conclusions.
Post a Comment