Prof. Antony Flew
Posted on 12/13/2004 2:08:55 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
In a sensationalist campaign in the internet, it is alleged that Professor Antony Flew, British philosopher, reputed rationalist, atheist and Honorary Associate of Rationalist International, has left atheism and decided that a god might exist.
The controversy revolves around some remarks of Prof. Antony Flew that seems to allow different interpretations. Has Antony Flew ever asserted that "probably God exists"? Richard Carrier, editor in chief of the Secular Web quotes Antony Flew from a letter addressed to him 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."
This is not the first time that Professor Antony Flew's atheist position is attacked. In reaction to an internet campaign in 2001 that tried to brand him a "convert" to religious belief, Professor Antony Flew made the following statement. In 2003 he answered yet another campaign in this direction with the same statement. It is still now his latest official position in this regard.
Richard C. Carrier, current Editor in Chief of the Secular Web, tells me that "the internet has now become awash with rumors" that I "have converted to Christianity, or am at least no longer an atheist." Perhaps because I was born too soon to be involved in the internet world I had heard nothing of this rumour. So Mr. Carrier asks me to explain myself in cyberspace. This, with the help of the Internet Infidels, I now attempt.
Those rumours speak false. 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 first argued the impossibility in 'Theology and Falsification', a short paper originally published in 1950 and since reprinted over forty times in different places, including translations into German, Italian, Spanish, Danish, Welsh, Finnish and Slovak. The most recent reprint was as part of 'A Golden Jubilee Celebration' in the October/November 2001 issue of the semi-popular British journal Philosophy Now, which the editors of that periodical have graciously allowed the Internet Infidels to publish online: see "Theology & Falsification."
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.
We negative atheists are bound to see the Big Bang cosmology as requiring a physical explanation; and that one which, in the nature of the case, may nevertheless be forever inaccessible to human beings. But believers may, equally reasonably, welcome the Big Bang cosmology as tending to confirm their prior belief that "in the beginning" the Universe was created by God.
Again, negative atheists meeting the argument that the fundamental constants of physics would seem to have been 'fine tuned' to make the emergence of mankind possible will first object to the application of either the frequency or the propensity theory of probability 'outside' the Universe, and then go on to ask why omnipotence should have been satisfied to produce a Universe in which the origin and rise of the human race was merely possible rather than absolutely inevitable. But believers are equally bound and, on their opposite assumptions, equally justified in seeing the Fine Tuning Argument as providing impressive confirmation of a fundamental belief shared by all the three great systems of revealed theistic religion - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. For all three are agreed that we human beings are members of a special kind of creatures, made in the image of God and for a purpose intended by God.
In short, 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.
We may well see something like that if the story continues to circulate.
The internet is awash in rumors that it's Emotional Rescue.
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?
Good explanation.
Yes, they do, but if God did create the world then where did God come from? Using the scientific method, unless there is evidence to the contrary you always go with the simplest explanation. In this case it is simpler to postulate that the universe was always there than that God created the universe and that God was always there.
Only in the same sense that he's "agnostic" about Elvis currently zipping around the galaxy in a flying saucer eating Krispy Kremes. Some claims, even if recognized as physical possibilities, are too unbelievable to be labelled with just "agnostic".
"Atheist" can refer both to someone who *lacks belief* in a god (soft atheist, negative atheist), AND to someone who *believes* there is no god (hard atheist, positive atheist).
Negative atheists probably usually have as much passion for atheism as they do for religion, and would prefer using the word "agnostic" as it seems less offensive to their religious friends.
He chooses to try to explain things in terms of what can be observed.
Only if he's wrong.
Good point. If it has always existed, then it was never created, and there is no creator.
This is not Flew's current response! This post is from 2001. Flew now repudiates this.
Definition problems here. I suspect Flew knows the definitions better than we do. I always thought the agnostic couldn't take a position at all, because he was unable to decide the matter. The atheist comes in two flavors. Flew's kind of "negative atheist" decides that he doesn't believe. That's not the same as saying that there definitely are no gods to believe in. There's the "positive atheist" (using Flew's term, I suppose) who declares that gods do not exist. That's the most extreme position, and quite different from Flew's non-belief. Presumably, Flew is open to the presentation of argument and evidence.
The difference between "not (X believes Y)" and "X believes not Y" is real, if subtle. Not recognizing the difference leaves one vulnerable to sophistry of all sorts.
Except you may run into the obstacle of infinite physical quantities (time, in particular). Infinity is only understood as a result of abstracting AWAY physical quantities. Actual infinite physical quantities cannot be observed, or even imagined.
Dan
Biblical Christianity web site
Biblical Christianity message board
Biblical Christianity BLOG
To Tell the Truth, Virginia...
I don't think there is a nice neat explanation for the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life either. Whatever the explanation it's sure to be mind bending.
When you consider that space and time are linked one another and to mass, and that reverse-projecting the expanding universe eventually brings you down to quantum scales, I think you are right.
I've lost all respect for the man.
We'll pray for you, professor. If we're wrong, what have we lost? If you're wrong what have you lost?
Best regards...
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.