It appears that Rationalist International is conflating Flew's 2001 statement with his 10-19-04 response to Carrier. I am not convinced that RI received confirmation from Flew before categorizing his 2003 statement as his "latest official position." On the contrary, that appears to be a technicality which will give RI an out if Flew contridicts them. Please compare the following items:
1) Flew's 2003 statement, in which he clearly indicates that while rational believers might take current scientific developments as supportive of their position, rational athesists might take these same developments as supportive of their positions.
2) Flew's early 2004 interview with Gary Habermas, a link to the full text of which was thoughtfully posted by BibChr in Post 54. This interview is to be published in the Winter 2004 edition of Philosophia Christi, but has not yet been published. This may be the basis for RI claiming that Flew's 2003 posistion is still his "latest official position." The interview, however, is enitled Atheist Becomes Theist, and the text claims Flew agreed to the title. Furthermore, in the article itself, Flew agrees that his view might be called Deism. Flew is very clear that he does not "believe in the God of any revalatory system," but seems comfortable with a philosophical concept of God akin to that of Aristotle.
3) The quote on the RI web-site from Flew's 10-19-04 letter to Carrier, which clearly states that Flew will not claim "God probably exists," because "any assertion" he is "prepared to make about God would not be about a God in that sense." This is an interesting statement. After reviewing statements Flew made in the interview with Habermas, I conclude that Flew is again alluding to the difference between a revealed God and a philosphic God. Any statement he might make regarding a First Cause would be philosophical in nature, and should not be confused with the traditional affirmation of a believer that "God exists."
Strictly philosophic assertions are different, however, from making no assertions at all. It seems clear that--at the very least--Flew is more favorably disposed toward the possibility of a [God, First Cause, Creator, Designer, Architect, take your pick] than he was when he wrote his 2003 statement.
I have not read the Habermas interview in its entirety, but what I read, combined with the timeframes of the other two statements, seem to support the conclusion that Flew has modified his philosophical position somewhat since 2003.
Please point out any flaws in my analysis.
Perhaps Rationalist International did not check with Flew before re-posting his essay (but/or perhaps Flew's interview will turn out to be mostly consistent with the essay). The situation merits further examination.
A point preliminary to later discussion: I don't have a clue as to what Aristotle's 'thought thinking about itself' might mean (see my earlier post #33 on this thread). In particular, I have zero acquaintance with thought or thinking which takes place apart from, or in the absence of, some physical substrate. So if Flew is taking an Aristotelian turn, he's turning into the wind, as it seems to me. But let me read the interview, ...
I just realized that I referred to the statement from Flew posted on the RI web-site as both his "2001" and his "2003" statement. Both are true, since he issue the statement in both 2001 and 2003, but referring to the statement by two different names is confusing. Henceforth, I will refer to it as his 2003 statement, since that was apparently the last time he officially released it. Sorry for the confusion.