Replies

Because several FR threads have been devoted to the widely reported story of Antony Flew's recantation of atheism, it seems reasonable to start a thread featuring Flew's own response to the story.

Because several FR threads have been devoted to the widely reported story of Antony Flew's recantation of atheism, it seems reasonable to start a thread featuring Flew's own response to the story.

Goes to show that not all on FR is as it seems.

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

Sounds like he's an agnostic - i.e. he can't say for certain whether God exists.

He wishes he could say God definitely does not exist, but he can't.

I've often laid awake at night, fretting and sweating, dying to know the status of Antony Flew's theological development.

He must be a John Kerry type of athiest...(was one before he wasn't)

IMHO, Cheers
Sharper Minds Daily

So, he responded to an article over a year before it was written?

There's proof of supernatural forces, right there!

OK, so the old fool is still in darkness.

Gods and their associated religions come and go like waves on the seashore.....each one a existing for a second, some a little longer- but not much, against the enormous time span of mankind.

Looks like the old guy will get his answer soon enough. ;)

I do not believe this re-cantation. It is a restatement of an old position and DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUES in last week's story.

Last week's story dealt with the origin of life and *not* with the big bang.

Flew is not that shoddy!

Anthony Flew?

There is no such person.

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

I saw this in a thread on the Boy Scouts. I thought is was worth repeating here.

There are two varieties of Athiest:
Variety One, or the True Athiest, is rational, polite, and maintains a "live and let live" philosophy. True Athiests are not perturbed by the outward displays of other peoples faiths, such as nativities, menorahs, or whatever. They simply don't care. They are more than capable of joining faith aligned organizations such as the Boy Scouts, usually doing so as ostensible Taoists or under the ever so useful umbrella of Unitarianism. They usually make excellent neighbors (and very good Scouts).
Variety Two, is a much noiser breed, and therefore easier to spot and more often mistaken as the genuine article. This is often called an Athiest, though it is really a False Athiest or, more technically, another term that starts with 'A' (and rhymes with 'Bass Hole'). This type has turned non-belief into a false religion in itself. It also never misses an opportunity to proselytize its belief in lack of belief, and always work hard to enforce its own non-belief on others. This variety finds it very difficult to become Boy Scouts etc., because the Boy Scouts themselves are smart enough to know trouble when they see it. These almost never make good neighbors.

Which sort do you suspect Mr. Flew is?

This is not Flew's current response! This post is from 2001. Flew now repudiates this.

But see Atheist Becomes Theist. Full interview.

Dan
Biblical Christianity web site
Biblical Christianity message board
Biblical Christianity BLOG
To Tell the Truth, Virginia...

We'll pray for you, professor. If we're wrong, what have we lost? If you're wrong what have you lost?

Jeez, he can't even make up his mind if he is an atheist or not.

Ping (in the interests of accuracy)

Here's an article by Richard Carrier linked as a Special Feature at www.infidels.org. This article seems to be the current state of knowledge of Flew's views (so to speak). I'll append it to this post for ease of reference. If somebody else on this thread has already referred or linked to it, I'm sorry to have missed the reference or link.

Just a remark or two: insofar as it's possible to speak of Flew's deity at all, it has virtually no resemblance to the God of Christianity and other religions. Indeed, Flew suggests that it might not even be conscious, has no interest in its creations, does not intervene in human affairs, does not save the souls of humans (whether they be believers or un-believers), ...

It's seems reasonable to suggest that Flew has simply lost a step or two. At age 81, he admits (see below) that his memory isn't what it used to be, and Carrier notes that a couple of Flew's arguments are straightforward to refute. But judge for yourselves...

Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of
by Richard Carrier

Antony Flew is considering the possibility that there might be a God. Sort of. Flew is one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th century, even making the shortlist of "Contemporary Atheists" at About.com. So if he has changed his mind to any degree, whatever you may think of his reasons, the event itself is certainly newsworthy. After hearing of this, I contacted Antony directly to discuss it, and I thought it fitting to cut short any excessive speculation or exaggeration by writing a brief report on, well, what's going on.

Once upon a time, a rumor hit the internet that Flew had converted to Christianity. The myth appeared in 2001 and popped up again in 2003. On each occasion, Flew refuted the claim personally, standing by his response to its first occasion with his own reply for publication at the Secular Web (Antony Flew, "Sorry to Disappoint, but I'm Still an Atheist!" 2001). So I was quite skeptical the third time around. But this time, things have indeed changed somewhat from where Flew stood in his 2001 article. Antony and I exchanged letters on the issue recently, and what I report here about his current views comes from him directly.

The news of his "conversion" this time came from a number of avenues, but the three I have good information on are an interview with Gary Habermas soon to be published by Philosophia Christi in which Flew appears to depart from his past views about God, a letter Flew wrote to a popular philosophy journal expressing doubts about the ability of science to explain the origin of life ("On Darwinism and Theology," Philosophy Now 47, August/September 2004, p. 22; cf. also Flew's Review of Roy Varghese's The Wonder of the World), and, just recently on national TV (the October 9 episode of "Faith Under Fire"), J. P. Moreland used Flew's "conversion" as an argument for supernaturalism.

The fact of the matter is: Flew hasn't really decided what to believe. He affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by everything he argued in his 2001 book Merely Mortal: Can You Survive Your Own Death?). But he is increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs, nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a distant, impersonal "prime mover." It might not even be conscious, but a mere force. In formal terms, he regards the existence of this minimal God as a hypothesis that, at present, is perhaps the best explanation for why a universe exists that can produce complex life. But he is still unsure. In fact, he asked that I not directly quote him yet, until he finally composes his new introduction to a final edition of his book God and Philosophy, due out next year. He hasn't completed it yet, precisely because he is still examining the evidence and thinking things over. Anything he says now, could change tomorrow.

I also heard a rumor that Flew claimed in a private letter that the kalam cosmological argument proved the existence of God (see relevant entries in Cosmological Arguments). But he assures me that is not what he believes. He said that, at best, the kalam is an argument for a first cause in the Aristotelian sense, and nothing more--and he maintains that, kalam or not, it is still not logically necessary that the universe had a cause at all, much less a "personal" cause. Flew's tentative, mechanistic Deism is not based on any logical proofs, but solely on physical, scientific evidence, or the lack thereof, and is therefore subject to change with more information--and he confesses he has not been able to keep up with the relevant literature in science and theology, which means we should no longer treat him as an expert on this subject (as Moreland apparently did).

Once Flew gives me permission to quote him I will expand this article with more information about his views and the reasons for them. That will have to wait for when Flew himself has finally mulled things over and come to something like a stable decision about what he thinks is most probable, and that may not happen until the release of his 2005 edition of God and Philosophy. For now, I think his view can best be described as questioning, rather than committed. And there is much to criticize in his rationale even for considering Aristotelian Deism. He is most impressed, he says, by Gerald Schroeder's book The Hidden Face of God: How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth (2001), but Schroeder (a Jewish theologian and physicist) has been heavily criticized for "fudging" the facts to fit his argument--see Mark Perakh, "Not a Very Big Bang about Genesis" (1999); and my own discussion in "Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept?" (2000), as well as my peer-reviewed article "The Argument from Biogenesis," soon to appear in Biology & Philosophy. Flew points out that he has not yet had time to examine any of the critiques of Schroeder. Nor has he examined any of the literature of the past five or ten years on the science of life's origin, which has more than answered his call for "constructing a naturalistic theory" of the origin of life. This is not to say any particular theory has been proven--rather, there are many viable theories fitting all the available evidence that have yet to be refuted, so Flew cannot maintain (as in his letter to Philosophy Now) that it is "inordinately difficult even to begin to think about" such theories. I have pointed all this out to him, and he is thinking it over.

For now, the story of Antony Flew's change of mind should not be exaggerated. We should wait for him to complete his investigation of the matter and declare a more definite conclusion, before claiming he has "converted," much less to any particular religious view.

Update (December 2004)

Flew has now given me permission to quote him directly. I asked him point blank what he would mean if he ever asserted that "probably God exists," to which he responded (in a letter in his own hand, dated 19 October 2004):

I do not think I will ever make that assertion, precisely because any assertion which I am prepared to make about God would not be about a God in that sense ... I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations.

Rather, he would only have in mind "the non-interfering God of the people called Deists--such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin." Indeed, he remains adamant that "theological propositions can neither be verified nor falsified by experience," exactly as he argued in "Theology and Falsification." Regarding J. P. Moreland using Flew in support of Moreland's own belief in the supernatural, Flew says "my God is not his. His is Swinburne's. Mine is emphatically not good (or evil) or interested in human conduct" and does not perform miracles of any kind. Furthermore, Flew took great care to emphasize repeatedly to me that:

My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.

He cites, in fact, the improbability arguments of Schroeder, which I have refuted online, and the entire argument to the impossibility of natural biogenesis I have refuted in a forthcoming article in Biology & Philosophy.

So what of the claim that Flew was persuaded by the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Flew "cannot recall" writing any letter to Geivett claiming "the kalam cosmological argument is a sound argument" for God but he confesses his memory fails him often now so he can't be sure. Nevertheless, I specifically asked what Antony thought of the Kalam, to which he answered:

If and insofar as it is supposed to prove the existence of a First Cause of the Big Bang, I have no objection, but this is not at all the same as a proof of the existence of a spirit and all the rest of Richard Swinburne's definition of 'God' which is presently accepted as standard throughout the English speaking and philosophical world.

Also, regarding another rumor that Flew has been attending Quaker meetings, Antony says "I have, I think, attended Quaker meetings on at least 3 or 4 occasions, and one was at the wedding of a cousin," and thus hardly a religious statement on his part but a family affair. Nevertheless, for him and his family generally, he says "I think the main attraction" of Quakerism has been "the lack of doctrines." On the whole God thing, though, Flew is still examining the articles I sent him, so he may have more to say in the future.

What do you think? You can post your comments on this article in the Secular Web Feedback Forum.

Interested in publishing on the Secular Web? See the Submission Guidelines.

Disclaimer: Feature articles represent the viewpoint of their authors and should not be taken as necessarily representative of the viewpoint of the Internet Infidels and/or the Secular Web. Full disclaimer here.

Copyright 2004, Internet Infidels, Inc. Copyright info here.

Date published: 10/10/2004