In a recent article in About.com’s “Agnosticism/Atheism” blog, moderator Austin Cline wrote:
Have you read the news about Antony Flew abandoning atheism? This would be big news because Flew is one of the most prominent atheist philosophers of the 20th century. It would be big news, that is, if it were true. Evangelical Christians are all a twitter over the possibility, but as usual they are taking words out of context and misrepresenting them to suit their own religious prejudices.
Case in point is Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost:
Mr. Cline takes exception to my contention that Flew is “abandoning atheism for a Spinozian deism” and that his shift “lends an air of intellectual respectability to the blending of naturalism and deism, what I’ve previously dubbed ‘neism.’” To support his case, Cline refers to an article from 2001 in which Flew reaffirms his commitment to atheism:
I remain still what I have been now for over fifty years, a negative atheist. By this I mean that I construe the initial letter in the word 'atheist' in the way in which everyone construes the same initial letter in such words as 'atypical' and 'amoral'. For I still believe that it is impossible either to verify or to falsify - to show to be false - what David Hume in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion happily described as "the religious hypothesis." The more I contemplate the eschatological teachings of Christianity and Islam the more I wish I could demonstrate their falsity.
I can suggest only one possible source of the rumours. Several weeks ago I submitted to the Editor of Philo (The Journal of the Society of Humanist Philosophers) a short paper making two points which might well disturb atheists of the more positive kind. The point more relevant here was that it can be entirely rational for believers and negative atheists to respond in quite different ways to the same scientific developments. ...I recognize that developments in physics coming on the last twenty or thirty years can reasonably be seen as in some degree confirmatory of a previously faith-based belief in god, even though they still provide no sufficient reason for unbelievers to change their minds. They certainly have not persuaded me.
Though Cline took the quote from an article on the Secular Web site, he appears to have missed a more recent entry by Richard Carrier entitled, “Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of.” Carrier contacted Flew to get to the bottom of the “Internet rumors” and discovered:
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. [emphasis added]
Flew’s “evidence” for a deity is based on his examination of science as filtered through a naturalistic worldview. As I’ve argued before, I believe that an atheistic form of naturalism will become increasingly untenable and more philosophers and scientist will abandon it for a form of “neism.”
This paradigm shift, of course, will not be welcome by religious skeptics who believe science supports their viewpoint. Cline, for example, claims that since Flew is “of the most prominent atheist philosophers of the 20th century” that his abandoning atheism would be “big news.” I suspect, though, that Flew’s reputation will fall if after “thinking things over” he officially abandons atheism. Flew may be willing to “follow the argument wherever it leads” but he shouldn’t expect it to convince his fellow disbelievers. Examination of the evidence isn’t going to cause them to abandon atheism. They simply have too much faith.
See also: The Harbinger of “Neism”?: Antony Flew and the Flight From Atheism
1
That is very interesting. If this move by Flew is true, then he has obviously abandoned a previous view that God-talk is unintelligible.
posted on 10.17.2004 11:15 AM2
"Flew may be willing to “follow the argument wherever it leads” but he shouldn’t expect it to convince his fellow disbelievers. Examination of the evidence isn’t going to cause them to abandon atheism. They simply have too much faith."
Isn't that last little zinger a little tired by now?
posted on 10.17.2004 8:31 PM3
Jim,
Isn't that last little zinger a little tired by now?
Is it? I don't know, I thought I could still get some mileage out of it. ; )
Honestly, though, I truly believe (and I'm sure you will disagree) that even if I were to answer every argument and remove every last obstacle to disbelief, that some people would not turn away from atheism. At its root, its not really a matter of reason but a matter of the will.
Just my opinion. I could be wrong.
posted on 10.17.2004 11:59 PM5
Jeff,
So basically Flew believes in First Cause?
I think he takes it a few steps further than that. From what I understand, Flew also believes that life could not have developed on earth by purely undirected causes. I'm interested to see how it all comes together when his book comes out next year.
posted on 10.18.2004 11:21 AM6
A lot of atheists are much more convinced of their apparent ability to examine the entirety of the cosmos and supernature and find nothing than most theists are convinced of their own faith.
I remember when I first became a Christian that I thought atheists would be the most rational people around, not believing in faith. Instead, on the internet anyway, they tend to be knee-kerk ideologues that look like the stereotypical rude Evangelical Christian.
Of course, I'm sure there are plenty of rational and relaxed atheists in the world-in fact, I know there are and I read their blogs sometimes; it's just hard to miss the people who can't let a webcomic mention God without saying something nasty, etc.
Anyway, at least Flew is intellectualy honest enough to not take the aliens cop-out.
posted on 10.18.2004 12:34 PM7
Joe - looks like God can even be transforming the heart of a hardcore athiest (Hmmm... I'm sure I've heard of that happening before someplace! ;-) )
All I have to say is praise the Lord! If what he's saying in the above quote is true, that just shows you how much grace the Lord has!
I hope that this Flew fellow reaches the obvious endpoint of his current journey (and the beginning of the greatest journey a human being can ever take, in my humble opinion) before it's too late for him. Maybe we can pray for him?
posted on 10.18.2004 1:42 PM8
Analogy alert:
Whoa, hold on there, Emmaus, and all other interested Christians. Flew still strongly disbelieves in theism--and the leap is large. Think about it. You've got somebody at least willing to admit that baseball might exist, and you think that next he'll just start rooting for the Yankees?
posted on 10.18.2004 2:55 PM9
Jim - in short, yep. God is working in him and on him right now. The same way that he is in me, and in you. Someday, hopefully, Mr. Flew come around, and see the err of his thinking, with God's help.
posted on 10.18.2004 3:33 PM10
Oh, yes.. I forgot one other thing. Jesus has been knocking on Mr. Flew's door. It looks like Mr. Flew has decided to crack the door to see who's on the other side. The reason I know this is because Jesus said it himself, in Revalations 3:20:
"Listen! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and have dinner with him, and he with Me."
11
Analogy alert:
Whoa, hold on there, Emmaus, and all other interested Christians. Flew still strongly disbelieves in theism--and the leap is large. Think about it. You've got somebody at least willing to admit that baseball might exist, and you think that next he'll just start rooting for the Yankees?
C.S. Lewis? Dr. Allan Rex Sandage?
If you notice, his statements have an element of retreat in them. He is gradually moving back from or defending previous core positions, despite some errosion at the periphery; not adding to or reinforcing them in any evidential or rhetorical manner.
posted on 10.18.2004 9:56 PM12
Dang it. Edit: First paragraph is supposed to be in italics.
posted on 10.18.2004 9:57 PM13
Actually, I don't have a vested interest in defending Antony Flew's "neism" or his "atheism" or anyone else's ideology; I'm well aware that folks have converted from atheism to Christianity, and the reverse. (Disclosure: I'm an agnostic, sympathetic to "neism," and a former evangelical Christian, mostly by proxy, as the son of a minister.)
The only beef I had with the original post I noted above: that atheists have as much "faith" as theists, which I'm not even disputing, is a doddering cliche.
By the way, to make it interesting, if Flew converts to Christianity, I'll mail a hundred dollar check to Reasons to Believe, or the Christian proselytizing organization of Joe Carter's choice.
posted on 10.18.2004 11:12 PM14
Jim, I also want to thank you for having respectful debate, as I do Tgsirch. You're a good addition to the community.
posted on 10.19.2004 12:23 AM16
David,
Thanks. I almost gave up on this blog due to some persistent trolls (no need to name names), but have stuck with it because, for the most part, it's a haven of civility in the blogosphere. (Go ahead and quote me, Mr. Carter, if you must.)
posted on 10.19.2004 9:24 AM17
If you notice, his statements have an element of retreat in them.
Was this in reference to my post? If so, I would whole-heartedly disagree that my position is one of retreat. It would be better characterized as a position of hope, in my humble opinion. Beyond that, I actually wasn't attempting to make a statement at all about the post, really. I was simply trying to comment on the fact that it seems like there might be some hope for this fellow (with the very little that I know about him) to escape from the bounds of dark thinking and into the light of Jesus Christ. It's a long shot, I guess, but, I'd rather have hope for him then think that there is no hope for him. Do you know what I mean?
posted on 10.19.2004 2:51 PM18
Oh, also Jim, I'm neither a philosopher, nor a professional debater. I'm not here to try and win points, just to read other people's opinions, and Joe's often clever insight. I don't need to win points, debates, or anything else. I'm simply happy to have a place where I can express my views and opinions (albeit they may be wrong in some folks eyes), and can have some electronic fellowship with other Christians.
posted on 10.19.2004 2:54 PM