April 11, 2005

WHERE THE EVIDENCE LEADS:

Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famous atheist now believes in God. (James A. Beverley, 04/08/2005, Christianity Today)

Antony Flew, one of the world's leading philosophers, has changed his mind about God. And he has agnostics worried. [...]

Flew's U-turn on God lies in a far more significant reality. It is about evidence. "Since the beginning of my philosophical life I have followed the policy of Plato's Socrates: We must follow the argument wherever it leads." I asked him if it was tough to change his mind. "No. It was not hard. I've always engaged in inquiry. If I am shown to have been wrong, well, okay, so I was wrong."

The Impact of Evangelical Scholars

Actually, Flew has been rethinking the arguments for a Designer for several years. When I saw him in London in the spring of 2003, he told me he was still an atheist but was impressed by Intelligent Design theorists. By early 2004 he had made the move to deism. Surprisingly, he gives first place to Aristotle in having the most significant impact on him. "I was not a specialist on Aristotle, so I was reading parts of his philosophy for the first time." He was aided in this by The Rediscovery of Wisdom, a work on Aristotle by David Conway, one of Flew's former students.

Flew also cites the influence of Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli physicist, and Roy Abraham Varghese, author of The Wonder of the World and an Eastern Rite Catholic. Flew appeared with both scientists at a New York symposium last May where he acknowledged his changed conviction about the necessity for a Creator. In the broader picture, both Varghese and Schroeder, author of The Hidden Face of God, argue from the fine-tuning of the universe that it is impossible to explain the origin of life without God. This forms the substance of what led Flew to move away from Darwinian naturalism. [...]

What Holds Him Back from Christianity?

Flew's preference for deism and continued dislike of alleged revelation emerge from two deep impulses in his philosophy. First, Flew has an almost unshakable view against the supernatural, a view that he learned chiefly from David Hume, the 18th-century Scottish philosopher. Flew, a leading authority on Hume, wrote the classic essay on miracles in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

What is rather surprising in Flew's dogmatism is that he believes Hume did not and could not prove that miracles are, strictly speaking, impossible. "If this is the case, why not be open to God's possible intervention?" I asked. He replied by saying that the laws of nature are so well established that testimonies about miracles are easy for him to ignore. He is not impressed by people who hear regularly from God. He did concede, reluctantly and after considerable discussion, that God could, in principle, puncture his bias against the supernatural.

Of more significance, Flew detests any notion that a loving God would send any of his creatures to eternal flames. He cannot fathom how intelligent Christians can believe this doctrine.


At the end of the Age of Reason the rationalists have discovered, to the dismay of many, that belief in Design is more reasonable than the belief in Nature. Everything after that initial leap to one or the other is gradations of faith.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 11, 2005 12:00 AM
Comments

Your self-discipline is improving, oj. I don't think I could have posted that w/o some allusion to the Kesey novel.

No atheists in the temporal foxhole, perhaps, but the tale still impresses. I'm with Flew.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 11, 2005 1:17 AM

We're all Keseyans now....

A.k.a, won't it be funny when years from now, someone (perhaps a Judd scion--OJ IV?) "discovers"---and prosyletizes---that there be no essential incompatibility between belief in God and the theory of evolution.....

Posted by: Barry Meislin at April 11, 2005 5:16 AM

evolution, not Evolution.

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2005 7:20 AM

Not quite so fast fellers. See this article from Butterflies and Wheels.

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=98

Posted by: Ligneus at April 11, 2005 9:15 AM

A hoax. Flew is still an atheist.

But everyone hears what they want to hear.

Posted by: at April 11, 2005 10:16 AM

A deist.

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2005 10:50 AM

Spiritual maturity takes a lifetime.

Posted by: Gideon at April 11, 2005 1:29 PM

Anon -

Flew has already conceded what he is. Now he's negotiating the terms.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 11, 2005 2:58 PM

Even if he is, his arguments against the decency of Number One (his name for the Big Spook) in 'Atheistic Humanism' remain valid.

I always thought that his atheism was too negative and specific, just a rejection of the deities he was brought up among. However, there are other kinds of deities (at least 7 million of them), and his arguments against Number One were irrelevant to most of them.

Most gods we have invented made no claims to moral stature. So it is not entirely surprising that he has decided, evidently, that he cannot exclude non-moral deities.

It does not matter a great deal whether you worship a deity or not; but it if you do worship one, it matters a lot what kind you invent.

You should pick a good one.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 11, 2005 3:23 PM

Harry:

Yes, it's not that you're an atheist, just that you think you'd be a better god.

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2005 3:45 PM

Of course I would. But I don't claim to be one.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 13, 2005 3:14 PM

Of course you do.

Posted by: oj at April 13, 2005 3:16 PM
« A GREAT INSIGHT: | Main | WHY AMERICA IS RIGHT TO DESPISE INTELLECTUALS: »