[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; C/E quotes: Unclassified, Classified] [CED blog]
The following are quotes added to my Unclassified Quotes database in December 2008. The date format is dd/mm/yy.
See copyright conditions at end.
[Index: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov]
1/12/2008 "Science qua science cannot furnish an argument for God's existence. But the three items of evidence we have considered in this volume-the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization, and the existence of the universe--can only be explained in the light of an Intelligence that explains both its own existence and that of the world. Such a discovery of the Divine does not come through experiments and equations, but through an understanding of the structures they unveil and map. Now, all this might sound abstract and impersonal. How, it might be asked, do I as a person respond to the discovery of an Ultimate Reality that is an omnipresent and omniscient Spirit? I must say again that the journey to my discovery of the Divine has thus far been a pilgrimage of reason. I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being." (Flew, A.G.N., "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," HarperCollins: New York NY, 2007, p.155) 1/12/2008 "Certainly, the existence of evil and Suffering must be faced. However, philosophically speaking, that is a separate issue from the question of God's existence. From the existence of nature, we arrive at the ground of its existence. Nature may have its imperfections, but this says nothing as to whether it had an ultimate Source. Thus, the existence of God does not depend on the existence of warranted or unwarranted evil. With regard to explaining the presence of evil, there are two alternate explanations for those who accept the existence of the Divine. The first is that of the Aristotelian God who does not intervene in the world. The second is the free-will defense, the idea that evil is always a possibility if human beings are truly free. In the Aristotelian framework, once the work of creation is completed, God leaves the universe subject to the laws of nature, although perhaps sometimes providing a rather distant and detached endorsement of the fundamental principles of justice. The free-will defense depends on the prior acceptance of a framework of divine revelation, the idea that God has revealed himself." (Flew, A.G.N., "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," HarperCollins: New York NY, 2007, p.156) 1/12/2008 "Where do I go from here? In the first place, I am entirely open to learning more about the divine Reality, especially in the light of what we know about the history of nature. Second, the question of whether the Divine has revealed itself in human history remains a valid topic of discussion. You cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence." (Flew, A.G.N., "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," HarperCollins: New York NY, 2007, pp.156-157) 1/12/2008 "Appendix B in this volume is an account of my dialogue on this latter theme with the biblical scholar and Anglican bishop N. T. Wright, with particular reference to the Christian claim that God became man in the person of Jesus Christ. As I have said more than once, no other religion enjoys anything like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. If you're wanting omnipotence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat!" (Flew, A.G.N., "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," HarperCollins: New York NY, 2007, p.157) 1/12/2008 "Up to this point I have discussed the data that led me to accept the existence of a divine Mind. Those who hear these arguments almost inevitably ask what I think about the claims of divine revelation. In both my antitheological books and various debates, I have taken issue with many of the claims of divine revelation or intervention. My current position, however, is more open to at least certain of these claims. In point of fact, I think that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. There is nothing like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. Virtually all the argument about the content of the religion was produced by St. Paul, who had a brilliant philosophical mind and could both speak and write-in all the relevant languages. If you're wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat." (Flew, A.G.N., "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," HarperCollins: New York NY, 2007, pp.185-186) 1/12/2008 "In early editions of God and Philosophy, I addressed the claims of Christianity to some extent. I argued that the enormous advances made in the critical study of the New Testament and other sources for the history of the origins of Christianity meant there is `no place to hide' for those who make wide and large historical claims. ... Today, I would say the claim concerning the resurrection is more impressive than any by the religious competition. I still believe that when historians professionally are looking at the evidence, they surely need much more than what is available. They need evidence of a different kind. I think the claim that God was incarnate in Jesus Christ is unique. It is difficult, I think, to realize how you are going to judge this other than by believing or not believing. I cannot quite see that there are general principles to guide you in this." (Flew, A.G.N., "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," HarperCollins: New York NY, 2007, pp.186-187) 1/12/2008 "I am very much impressed with Bishop Wright's approach, which is absolutely fresh. He presents the case for Christianity as something new for the first time. This is enormously important, especially in the United Kingdom, where the Christian religion has virtually disappeared. It is absolutely wonderful, absolutely radical, and very powerful. Is it possible that there has been or can be divine revelation? As I said, you cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence." (Flew, A.G.N., "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," HarperCollins: New York NY, 2007, p.213) 3/12/2008 "We might be seeing something similar today in the over-publicized tergiversation of the philosopher Antony Flew, who announced in his old age that he had been converted to belief in some sort of deity (triggering a frenzy of eager repetition all around the Internet). On the other hand, Russell was a great philosopher. Russell won the Nobel Prize. Maybe Flew's alleged conversion will be rewarded with the Templeton Prize. A first step in that direction is his ignominious decision to accept, in 2006, the `Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth'. The first holder of the Phillip E. Johnson Award was Phillip E. Johnson, the lawyer credited with founding the Intelligent Design `wedge strategy'. Flew will be the second holder. The awarding university is BIOLA, the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. One can't help wondering whether Flew realizes that he is being used. See Victor Stenger, "Flew's flawed science," Free Inquiry 25: 2, 2005, 17-18" (Dawkins, R., "The God Delusion," Bantam Press: London, 2006, p.82) 3/12/2008 "THE GOD DELUSION, by the atheist writer Richard Dawkins, is remarkable in the first place for having achieved some sort of record by selling over a million copies. But what is much more remarkable than that economic achievement is that the contents--or rather lack of contents-of this book show Dawkins himself to have become what he and his fellow secularists typically believe to be an impossibility: namely, a secularist bigot. (Helpfully, my copy of The Oxford Dictionary defines a bigot as `an obstinate or intolerant adherent of a point of view'.)" (Flew, A.G.N., "The Atheist Delusion Of Richard Dawkins," Quadrant, October 2008, pp.48-49, p.48) 3/12/2008 "The fault of Dawkins as an academic (which he still was during the period in which he composed this book, although he has since retired) was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine which he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form. Thus we find in his index three references to Einstein. They are to the mask of Einstein and Einstein on morality, to Einstein on a personal God, and to Einstein on the human situation and on how man is here for the sake of other men and above all for those on whose well-being our own happiness depends. But I find it hard to write with restraint about this obscurantist refusal on the part of Dawkins to make any mention of Einstein's most relevant report: namely, that the integrated complexity of the world of physics had led him to believe that there must be a Divine Intelligence behind it. (I myself think it obvious that if this argument is applicable to the world of physics then it must be hugely more powerful if it is applied to the immeasurably more complicated world of biology.) Of course many physicists with the highest of reputations do not agree with Einstein in this matter. But an academic attacking some ideological position which he or she believes to be mistaken must of course attack that position in its strongest form. This Dawkins does not do in the case of Einstein, and this failure is the crucial index of his insincerity of academic purpose and therefore warrants me in charging him with having become a secularist bigot." (Flew, A.G.N., "The Atheist Delusion Of Richard Dawkins," Quadrant, October 2008, pp.48-49, p.48. Emphasis original) 3/12/2008 "On page 82 of The God Delusion is a remarkable note. It reads: `We might be seeing something similar today in the over-publicised tergiversations of the philosopher Antony Flew, who announced in his, old age that he had been converted to belief in some sort of deity triggering a frenzy of eager repetition around the internet.' What is important about this passage is not what Dawkins is saying about Flew but what he is showing here about Dawkins. For if he had had any interest in the truth of the matter of which he was making so much, he would surely have brought himself to write me a letter of enquiry. (When I received a torrent of enquiries after an account of my conversion to Deism had been published in the quarterly of the Royal Institute of Philosophy I managed-I believe-eventually to reply to every letter.) This whole business makes all too clear that Dawkins is not interested in-the truth as such but is primarily concerned to discredit an ideological opponent by any available means: That would itself constitute sufficient reason for suspecting that the whole enterprise of The God Delusion was not, as it at least pretended to be, an attempt to discover and spread knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God but rather an attempt-an extremely successful one-to spread the author's own convictions in this area." (Flew, A.G.N., "The Atheist Delusion Of Richard Dawkins," Quadrant, October 2008, pp.48-49, p.48) 3/12/2008 "A less important point which needs to be made in this piece is that although the index of The God Delusion notes six references to Deism it provides no definition of the word deism. This enables Dawkins in his reference to Deism to suggest that Deists are a miscellany of believers in this and that. The truth, which Dawkins ought to have learnt before his book went to the printers, is that Deists believe in the existence of a God but not the God of revelation. In fact, the first notable public appearance of the notion of Deism was the American Revolution. The young man who drafted the Declaration of Independence and who later became President Jefferson was a Deist, as were several of the other founding fathers of that abidingly important institution, the United States." (Flew, A.G.N., "The Atheist Delusion Of Richard Dawkins," Quadrant, October 2008, pp.48-49) 3/12/2008 "In the monster footnote to what I am inclined to describe as a monster book-The God Delusion-Dawkins reproaches me for what he calls my ignominious decision to accept, in 2006, the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth. The awarding institution is Biola, The Bible Institute of Los Angeles. Dawkins does not say outright that his objection to my decision is that Biola is a specifically Christian institution. He obviously assumes (but refrains from actually saying) that this is incompatible with producing first-class academic work in every department-not a thesis which would be acceptable in either my own university of Oxford or in Harvard. ... Finally, as to the suggestion that I have been used by Biola University. If the way I was welcomed by the students and the members of faculty whom I met on my short stay in Biola amounted to being used then I can only express my regret that at the age of eighty-five I cannot reasonably hope for another visit to this institution." (Flew, A.G.N., "The Atheist Delusion Of Richard Dawkins," Quadrant, October 2008, pp.48-49, p.49) 4/12/2008 "theism ... noun belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. Compare with DEISM. - DERIVATIVES theist noun theistic ... adjective. - ORIGIN from Greek theos `god'." ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 2008) 4/12/2008 "deism ... noun belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. Compare with THEISM. - DERIVATIVES deist noun deistic adjective" ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 2008) 4/12/2008 "atheism ... noun the belief that God does not exist. - DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective. - ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos `god'." ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 2008) 4/12/2008 "agnostic ... noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God. adjective relating to agnostics. - DERIVATIVES agnosticism noun." ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 2008) 5/12/2008 "In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, Paul indicates that the reason people are not to be startled is that two signs must be fulfilled before the Lord returns. `Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.' Paul is crystal clear. Two things must occur before the Lord returns. First, there must be a rebellion (apostasy). Second, there must be a revelation of the Man of Lawlessness. The question for us is, `Are these events still in the future, or were they fulfilled by the events of AD 70?'" (Riddlebarger, K.*, "The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2006, pp.124-125) 5/12/2008 "The Apostasy As for the rebellion (apostasia), the word Paul uses here is used throughout the Septuagint (LXX) and elsewhere in the New Testament to speak of a religious crisis of some sort facing God's people-a falling away from the faith in some sense. As Beale points out, `Such a meaning is apparent because of the immediate context of false teaching (vv. 1-2 and vv. 9-12) and the clear allusions to Daniel's prediction of an end-time opponent who will bring about a large-scale compromise of faith among God's people.' [Beale, G.K., "The Temple and the Church's Mission," IVP: Downers Grove IL, 2004, pp.271-272] This seems to connect Paul's comments to both John's and our Lord's warnings about false teachers and people who claim to be believers but who fall away and take a number of followers with them (see Matt. 24:10-12, 23-24; 1 John 2:18-19). ... The word means a rebellion against God; specifically an apostasy (a falling away from the truth) on the part of God's people. Thus professing Christians ... must be the ones who fall away. [Beale, G. K., "1-2 Thessalonians," IVP: Downers Grove IL, 2003, pp.207-209] While there were some apostates in the apostolic church just as there are in ours, God restrains false teachers and antichrists from gaining the upper hand until the appointed time. Because the final apostasy has not yet taken place, the Thessalonians can be assured that the Lord has not yet returned, nor has the day of the Lord already occurred." (Riddlebarger, K.*, "The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2006, p.125) 7/12/2008 "[Mt 24:]9-12. These verses similarly speak in general terms of the sufferings to come, not now in relation to the world at large, but more with reference to Jesus' disciples. They will, as he has predicted already, be persecuted and hated. (Cf. 10:17-22, a passage closely related to this, and closer in wording to the parallel passage in Mk. 13:9-13. It is interesting that here, in contrast to both 10:17-22 and Mk. 13:9-23, the persecution is to come from all nations, not just from the Jews; in ch. 10 a mission to Jews only was in view (10:5-6, 23), but now an international involvement of the disciples is envisaged, as 28:18-19 will spell out.) This persecution will take its toll, in that many will fall away ('be tripped up', the same verb as in 5:29- 30; 13:21; 18:6-9; etc.; here it echoes particularly Dn. 11:41), and the disciple group itself will be the scene of betrayal, hatred, false prophecy and wickedness (lit. 'lawlessness'). And lawlessness will lead to the cooling off of love, a connection to be noted. Most men's love is literally 'the love of the many', which could mean disciples' love for 'the many' outside; but the sequence of thought in these verses, where it is the disciple group itself which is under pressure, suggests that it means that 'the majority' (of the disciples) will cool off in their love, whether for God or for their fellow-men. It is a sombre picture of a church in decline. All this, the context indicates, is part of the history which must run its course before 'the end' comes; but there is no indication as to the temporal relation between such a situation and 'the end'." (France, R.T.*, "Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, 1985, pp.338-339. Emphasis original) 7/12/2008 "[Lk 18:]8. Vindication will be done speedily, but we should understand this in terms of God's time (in which one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day, 2 Pet. 3:8). Jesus is speaking of the certainty of speedy action when the time comes. When He asks whether the Son of man will find faith on earth, he is not suggesting that there will be no believers. He is saying that the characteristic of the world's people at that time will not be faith. Men of the world never recognize the ways of God and they will not see His vindication of His elect." (Morris, L.L.*, "The Gospel According to Luke: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press Leicester UK, 1974, Reprinted, 1986, pp.263-264) 8/12/2008 "[2Th 2:]3. Let no man beguile you. In order to keep from vainly promising themselves the glad day of redemption within so short a period, he gives them a gloomy prediction concerning the future dispersion of the Church. This discourse corresponds in every respect to that which was addressed by Christ to His disciples when they had asked Him about the end of the world. ... The day of Christ, he says, will not come until the world has fallen into apostasy, and the rule of Antichrist has held sway in the Church. ... Paul, therefore, uses the term apostasy to mean a treacherous rebellion from God. This would not be confined to a single individual or even a few, but would spread far and wide among a considerably large number of persons. When the word apostasy is used without any addition it cannot be confined to a few individuals. Now the word apostates can be understood only of those who have previously enlisted in the service of Christ and His Gospel. Paul, then, is predicting a general defection on the part of the visible Church, as if he were saying, `The Church must be reduced to a ghastly and horrifying state of ruin, before its full restoration is achieved.' From this we may at once conclude how useful this prediction of Paul's is. For it might have seemed that a building which was suddenly destroyed, and which lay for so long in ruins, could not have been the work of God, had Paul not warned them long before that this would take place. " (Calvin, J., "The Epistle of Paul to the Romans and Thessalonians," , Mackenzie, R., transl., Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1960, Reprinted, 1980, pp.398-399)
* Authors with an asterisk against their name are believed not to be evolutionists. However, lack of
an asterisk does not necessarily mean that an author is an evolutionist.
Copyright © 2008-2010, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. These my quotes may be used
for non-commercial purposes only and may not be used in a book, ebook, CD, DVD, or any other
medium except the Internet, without my written permission. If used on the Internet, a link back
to this page would be appreciated.
Created: 1 December, 2008. Updated: 17 October, 2010.