Posted on 07/20/2008 3:48:33 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
So he became an atheist at about age 30? So in his real prime, he was presumably a Methodist, like his father (not necessarily, of course, but it seems most likely; in any case, by his own account, not an atheist).
Unless you and Dawkins have strong backgrounds in gerontology and have examined and tested Flew, claims of senility are a really cheap shot!
btt
Usually true, except when the ad hominem charges are those pertinent to a moral issue, i.e. Mt. 23
Antony Flew-- 2001
Flew wasn't just an atheist; he was professional philosopher who based is atheism on a rational system that he constructed. He accepted this system for more than fifty years and in the last few years of his life he changes his mind based on the demonstrably flawed logic of Behe. He, in effect, now denies his entire life's work.
He has done so, not to accept Christ, but simply to accept Deism, the vague notion that there is an "intelligence" behind the mechanisms of the universe.
The Discovery Institute has captured a talking point, but lost a soul.
It is a small victory, however. As a philosopher, Flew saw himself as a "negative atheist". In other words he was never an atheist at all. He was agnostic. He never denied the existence of God, just that there was no evidence for His existence. Somehow, the "watchmaker" argument that he had argued against for decades somehow became compelling based on his new belief fhat DNA couldn't form naturally. He is a philosopher and not a biologist. Behe takes my old friends advice; "When you can't dazzle 'em with diamonds, baffle them with bulls**t".
Now, a reasonable hypothesis for all this is mental degredation: "It is estimated that up to one third of adults will experience a gradual decline in cognitive function known as mild cognitive impairment as they age (Low LF et al 2004; Busse A et al 2003). Less severe than dementia, mild cognitive impairment is defined as cognitive defects that do not interfere with daily living. It may include slower thinking, a reduced ability to learn, and impaired memory. While many conventional physicians view these defects as an inevitable consequence of aging, newer research has uncovered possible reasons for mild cognitive impairment and has also identified potential therapies that may enable people to battle age-related mental decline more effectively than ever before. Minimizing cognitive defects will become even more important as the average life span continues to lengthen and hundreds of thousands of people head into their 80s and 90s, when the risk for cognitive decline is greatest." http://www.lef.org/protocols/neurological/mild_cognitive_impairment_01.htm
Actual dementia affects another 15% on average, but increases in prevalence with age.
Flew was an atheist for more than fifty years when his health was in his prime. An 85 year old man has better than a 50% chance of suffering from some form of mental impairment. Dawkins doesn't claim that Flew is senile, he just suggests it is possible. He was right.
Flew is agnostic on the number of god's. He believes in some form of intelligence, single or plural.
So Christianity is a jewish heresy but Deism is only blasphemy?
1: a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth
2: one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine : nonconformist
Apparently Deism is only blasphemy to Catholics, but is a heresy to others denominations according to Mirriam-Webster.
Usually true, except when the ad hominem charges are those pertinent to a moral issue, i.e. Mt. 23
........
Well . . .
1. The example you give is from the Bible and has God (Jesus) speaking. He isn’t debating points with the Pharisees. He is proclaiming and judging, which he can do as God. God is the ultimate authority on the moral law that he himself created and since he sits as judge over everyone (and everyone belongs to him as he is creator) relative to that law, he isn’t debating here in order to seek truth. He actually IS truth.
2. In a court of law you can destroy the factual testimony of a witness by impeaching the witness, usually on the basis of character or competence. But you don’t get to just make charges. You must clearly demonstrate (usually involving the introduction of valid evidence) that the allegations made against the witness’ character or competence were accurate.
In this case, critics of Mr. Flew must demonstrate with evidence that Mr. Flew is senile, that he was controlled by his co-author, etc. Mr. Dawkins, for example, didn’t do that. If he could have, he would have. His failure to do so in speaks massive volumes about himself and his own motivations. And character.
One major rule of life is that when Person A criticizes Person B (regardless of whether the criticism is favorable, unfavorable or mixed; accurate or inaccurate; civil or mean-spirited, etc.), Person A reveals far more about himself that he does about Person B. That is true about every single one of us.
On FreeRepublic you see people commenting on all different types of issues from all different types of positions. The MANNER is which they do it exposes their character and true motives almost every time.
Usually we don’t realize how transparent we are in our writings and, especially, in person. A surprisingly small percentage of people are capable of deceiving others effectively. And no one can deceive people all the time.
Thus, the adage: You can fool all of the people some of the time. And you can fool some of the people all the time. But you can’t fool all the people all the time.
Even the most brilliant people tend to be far more open books that they ever realized — open to relatively easy interpretation by others with far lower IQs. But their hubris feeds their own denial.
You don’t actually read anything I post do you?
A lot of elderly find religion again later in life as fear of death increases. He didn’t accept Christ however, so theoretically he’s still going to hell.
aruanan said: Actually, studies have shown that most people who make a religious commitment do so earlier rather than later in life. And the longer they wait, the less likely they are to do so.
. . . . .
aruanan, you're correct, of course. But please don't confuse this discussion with facts. You'll only gum up the process.
Hm. Thanks for the diagnostic tool.
Now, when you stop spouting foolishness and start talking sense in however many years, we'll know you're senile, too.
How do you account for him changing his mind when the argument has been the same for 50 uears.
Oh, gee, I don't know ... maybe he finally had enough evidence/experience to convince him that he just couldn't justify those old arguments anymore, and was honest enough to say so.
I can say with some authority that it happens, as that's what happened to me ... though admittedly I only had about 20 years of those sorts of arguments to undo.
I would go further, and venture to guess that Mr. Flew had been having his doubts for quite a while before he "came out," and that his pride made it difficult to admit his conversion.
But of course, it's much easier to dismiss Mr. Flew as senile. And, of course, ad hominem claims of senility are also much less dangerous for those who might begin pondering their own doubts about their atheist beliefs.
(I suppose it's mere coincidence that the Soviets were similarly prone to questioning the mental capacity of those who dared to question Soviet orthodoxy....)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.