Sorry to Disappoint, Still an Atheist! [Antony Flew sets the record straight]

Rationalist International ^ | December 12, 2004 | Antony Flew

[spinestein]

" where does the world come from if God was not its author? "

If God was the author, then who wrote God?

:^)

[spinestein]

Anyone who missed him.

[snarks_when_bored]

Yesterday's Rationalist International posting of Flew's response refers to Flew's letter of October 19, 2004 (about two months ago). I'll have to check again, but I think that the recent stories about Flew's rejection of atheism are based on that letter. I'll check after I post this.

[wideawake]

Aristotle recognized the eternity of the world as a question unresolvable by scientific observation, not as a satisfying answer to the question of the world's existence.

The existence of a world that has no internal principle or constituent power that explains its own existence is problematic.

[jwalsh07]

But, as a 'negative atheist' (or, if you will, agnostic), he comes down on the side of seeking a physical explanation for the Big Bang.

LOL, newspeak from the Godless.

[snarks_when_bored]

Yes, it was Flew's October letter to Richard Carrier that set off this latest round of stories. Here's a link to the Newsday story:

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

[snarks_when_bored]

I agree with you on that...dumb.

[N. Theknow]

Anthony Flew?

There is no such person.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Wrong, an agnostic thinks the whole question of whether Good is unknowable under any circumstances. A negative atheist merely has a "lack of belief." He would potentially believe if proof could be provided.

[B Knotts]

The article I linked to was from Sunday, and said he had said these things "yesterday" (Saturday).

[Terabitten]

He's an agnostic, An Atheist is sure he "knows" there is no god, while an agnostic believes there could be.

Ya nailed it, Lauralee.

[TexasGreg]

A negative atheist merely has a "lack of belief." He would potentially believe if proof could be provided.

That's the "weak-atheist" concept. It's sophistry. A weak atheist is no different than a strong one ... both do everything AS IF there was no God; all assumptions, actions, and conclusions follow from the PRESUMPTION that deity does not exist. A Weak Atheist simply refuses to assert "God does not exist" ... while, nevertheless saying, "I do not believe God exists." The difference is semantics ... nothing more.

[snarks_when_bored]

Aristotle recognized the eternity of the world as a question unresolvable by scientific observation, not as a satisfying answer to the question of the world's existence.

Aristotle's physics is impressively developed (and it became the basis of the Catholic view of the world as enshrined in the teachings of Aquinas), but it's wrong. Even so, Aristotle resorted to metaphysics to explain the ground of the physical world. His deity was 'thought thinking about itself', and it was responsible for the great circular motions of the heavens. This 'thought thinking about itself' was, of course, eternal, without beginning or end.

The existence of a world that has no internal principle or constituent power that explains its own existence is problematic.

That certainly appears to be the case.

[jwalsh07]

I agree with you on that...dumb.

Well, that definitely accrues to your favor. I was expecting an argument. :-}

[snarks_when_bored]

Yes, I understand, but the web posting on Rationalist International is from Sunday (and is clearly responding to the stories that hit the press around the world).

Perhaps I'm mistaken on this, but I don't think so at the moment.

[snarks_when_bored]

Nah...I'm for speaking plainly. Calling things what they're usually called is okay by me (as long as there's no dangerous unclarity involved).

[Tribune7]

This article appears to a 2003 statement by Flew republished by Rationalist International.

[snarks_when_bored]

Yes, but Rationalist International wrote the first few paragraphs of the post and referenced Flew's October, 2004, letter. Also, the last sentence of that preface reads as follows:  "It is still now his latest official position in this regard."

I take that last sentence to mean that Flew was consulted before the piece was re-published Sunday. I don't know this for a fact, of course, but that's the way the web-posting presents itself.

[Aeronaut]

He's an agnostic, An Atheist is sure he "knows" there is no god, while an agnostic believes there could be.

And as Dr. Schuller says: "You know the agnostic is wrong, because either there is or there is not a God."

[Tribune7]

I think the rational thing to do would be to wait until Flew writes a letter to AP, the Telegraph etc. saying they got the story screwed up and that he's still an atheist.

Otherwise, I'm going to be inclined to believe he's really no longer an atheist.