As I said before, I don't have a stake in this one either way, since I'm not an atheist and don't much care what Flew believes. But I do think it's important not to misrepresent the views of others, and in light of the long and storied tradition of fundamentalist Christians distorting the views of their opponents, from the absurd "Darwin recanted on his deathbed" story to the more recent claims concerning Daniel Dennett, I think it's worth taking a closer look. Here is Flew in his own words, putting the lie to this enormous campaign of "ding dong the atheist is dead" that is sweeping the fundie corners of the internet.
Hat tip to UTI.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
You may have heard that Michael Ruse has been caught out of school, sharing a private spat between himself and Daniel Dennett with the William Dembski. This isn't too terribly surprising—Ruse's reputation has been spiralling downwards rather rapidly, what with all his sucking up to the Intelligent…
Robert Wright has written an article about what he characterizes as a rather dramatic admission by Daniel Dennett, one of our foremost minds and also a prominent atheist, that life on earth shows signs of having been the product of intelligent design. This would come as quite a shock to those who…
Since I'm criticizing my SciBlings today, permit me a few words about this post from Orli over at Neurontic.
Orli is unimpressed with the recent glut of atheist books. She begins by reproducing a segment from a previous post:
Dawkins and Dennett simply cannot understand the impulse to cling to an…
Timothy Sandefur has once again taken me to task, this time about my post concerning the Bush campaign's consistent distortions of things said by John Kerry. It hardly needs to be said that I have enormous respect for Sandefur. Not only do I think he's one of the best bloggers around, I also think…
It's hard being an atheist in the society we now live in. Of course, being a member of one of the smallest minorities (if not the smallest) is never easy.
I get so sick of people who have known me for a long time asking if I've found god yet every time they talk to me (relatives mostly)!
I do find it amusing that any time any marginally well known atheist makes any kind of statement that can be misinterpreted, crispies are jumping out of the wood work to gloat. I've known a few people in my life who have gone from being religious to not religious, and i don't gloat over it. Funny how that works.
I am an atheist - and I had never heard of Flew before last week. Who cares what he believes? I think that most atheists believe what they believe because they have examined the evidence and found that evidence for a god was wanting.
You don't see a lot of fundies whooping it up when someone goes from theist to atheist ..
BTW if I had to guess, being the cynical bastard that I am (Although no where near as cynical as our humble host Ed), I'd say Flew is doing a little promotion for his next book release.
The stuff reprinted at the site you link to is from an earlier 2001 article at the Infidels, and does no represent Flew's current view.
The stuff reprinted at the site you link to is from an earlier 2001 article at the Infidels, and does no represent Flew's current view.
Really? It certainly doesn't indicate that at all in the linked page. In fact, it dates it as December 12, 2004 and has no indication that it's a reprint of something earlier.
This is what it says at the linked page:
"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."
The last statement is a little misleading. It sounds as though Flew has reissued the same statement this year. That is not likely as his views really have changed. He has not joined any religion and does not seem likely to but he does now believe in some sort of God. Richard Carrier at the Secular Web site describes what Flew has told him about his new position.
I want to add my agreement to Mist and Cheeto. I, too, am an atheist. I, too, have to put up with shit from people (i.e. "You really believe in God, you just don't realize it"). I, too, never heard of Flew before now. And I too agree- who cares? So what? Even if he does believe in a god, so what? If Einstein had believed in Unicorns, would all these xians be arguing that we, too, should believe in unicorns because Einstein was so smart in other areas? Please.
And though I don't care if flew now believes in a god (It doesn't threaten me), I do care that this episode is going to cause us atheists to put up with a period of stupid comments and gloating from xians who don't know better. It's just gonna be a hassle is all.
Anyway, I think I read this in a comment on a thread over at the James Randi message boards- someone speculated that Flew might just be trying to generate more interest in his upcoming book. He has said that people should withhold drawing conclusions until they read his new book. So, who knows.
It appears that Mr. Flew flew into the cuckoo's nest. Quite frankly, who gives a tinker's damn what an obscure scribbler professes to profess? I guess some people do, when it suits their religio-political purposes, but I doubt that most people do.
That said, something in Chris Berez's post gives me pause. It's an issue that I've raised a couple of times on a few message boards. He (or she--beg pardon) writes "If Einstein had believed in Unicorns..." (emphasis added). "Believe in" is religious language. "Believe that" (unicorns exist, etc.) is what I believe "science language" should be. There is a difference. The problem I have with more than a few people who defend Darwinian evolution is that they adopt the religious phraseology, something like "believe in Darwinism," instead of something like "believe that Darwin's theory best explains the evidence." When you adopt the language of your adversary, you give him at least an advantage in the discussion.
"Really? It certainly doesn't indicate that at all in the linked page. In fact, it dates it as December 12, 2004 and has no indication that it's a reprint of something earlier."
The page you linked to just stole the Sec Web article, slapped a new date on it, and said this was his "latest official position." How dishonest can "bulletin" be? The text they copied from clearly says "Date published: 08/31/2001" at the bottom.
Flew's actual "latest official position" can be found in the journal Philosophia Christi, Winter, 2004 (http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew).
You'd think a bulletin that calls itself "Rationalist" would look into this just a little bit before publishing.
Robert,
Rationalist International did take the article from the Secular Web but they did not put a new date on it. Their introduction to the article quite clearly states that Flew wrote it in 2001 and reissued it in 2003. It is misleading to refer to it as his latest official position although I expect Rationalist International did not know about the interview with Habermas.
I don't know whether they knew about it or not, but they easily could have if they had taken the time to browse the blogosphere for five minutes (the very people they were responding to).
It is good to know that there are fundamentalists on both sides that are distorting the views of their opponents, though. And it is worth "taking a closer look" at everybody's claims. I'm suprised Ed didn't do so with this "Rationalist" article.
This one is my fault. I didn't read it close enough, mostly because I don't really care one way or the other. It turns out that Flew has in fact become something of a deist, strangely based upon what he perceives as the impossibility of abiogenesis. That strikes me as a false premise, and if I cared any more about his views I might take the time to detail why it's wrong. At any rate, place the blame for jumping the gun on me for this one. If I'd read more closely and taken the time to do a little research, it might have been avoided.