Comments on: 10-04-21

By: Roland Paraschiv - Romania

Roland Paraschiv - Romania — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:29:46 +0000

I read the article on Professor Flew with my heart beating hard. I discovered this man years ago when reading about Philosophy in articles / dictionaries. But only this year (2010) discovered that he became a deist, stating that he believed in God / intelligent design and creation. This article is well written and insightful. But I admire Flew because he had the nerve to say it loudly: I BELIEVE IN GOD. Former interviews, letters and other traces leave no doubt about his changing mind from ateism to believing in God. We should be honestly enough to capture the light that led this man entire life: “Follow the argument wherever it leads”. And the argument led him to acknowledge God. I believe this is a miracle and since the complexity of the genetic code was revealed, many scholars, like Flew, were led to believe that the origin of life required a ‘creative intelligence. For me as a Christian and active pastor in the Seventh day Adventist Church in Romania, Anthony Flew had a powerful evangelistic role on any religion. And I believe that God revealed Himself through Flew. Didn`t he write parts of his book? Could be, but I doubt. True, history will retain Flew as a believer in God. And this is important for the final judgement before God.

By: Peter Morgan

Peter Morgan — Sat, 01 May 2010 19:18:30 +0000

Thank you for this fine and interesting article, and for your responses to an interesting series of comments.

Your quote from The Presumption of Atheism, “If it is to be established that there is a God, then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so. Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing.”, seems to be a focus of many atheist manifestos, to which I find myself always agnostically skeptical, just because the logic is unchanged if we replace “a” by “no”.

Your response to a previous commenter, that Flew was indeed very classical in his thought, is rather strongly put in the sentence before, “The onus of proof lies on the proposition, not on the opposition.” Does this mean that questions about the nature of “truth” would not much have detained Flew as an academic? On at least some interpretations of logic, true and false are formally equivalent, which makes this beginning of this argument for atheism interpretation-dependent, even in 1976; it certainly makes a gargantuan claim for the applicability and relevance of classical logic, whether to terrestrial or to theological matters. I wonder, in line with my prejudices and far beyond my knowledge of Flew, whether his conversion to deism might be attributed to a reaction in old age to a realization of the tremulous weakness of classical thought in the face of now such commonplace, decidedly non-classical skepticism.

I knew Professor Swinburne a little at Oriel College, Oxford. I would say that he is a slightly more independent witness than your somewhat mixed vignette, “famed Christian apologist and long time friend of Flew”, might suggest. He is, I believe, a thoughtful Christian, whom a confirmed atheist might well be happy to call a friend, and a sympathetic choice for a near deathbed interrogation of a victim of dementia. His statement that “Flew’s position was “most of the way toward Christianity.”” seems perfectly judged to be usable by all sides.

By: Frank S. Robinson

Frank S. Robinson — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:13:09 +0000

I don’t have enough information to judge the “truth” about Flew’s relationship to this book. In so many human situations — and unlike in science — “truth” can be an elusive concept. But I do think the whole episode highlights the fundamental intellectual disingenuousness of religious apologists in general. I often wonder how many of them truly believe what they argue, or whether they do it for other reasons. (Of course, the meaning of the word “believe” in this context is itself problematical.)

By: Kenneth Grubbs

Kenneth Grubbs — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:35:37 +0000

shiranaize,

Thank you for your very positive remarks. I hope, and actually believe, that you are correct; that Antony Flew will be remembered in the context of his life’s work. And of course I wrote this story specifically to encourage anyone to always follow the argument, not the person, as you so perfectly restated.

By: shiranaize

shiranaize — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:15:52 +0000

After reading the article and the comments by other readers, it seems to me that Flew’s reputation should not be tainted by this book. In fact, maybe it should be enhanced by it. While I am not familiar with Flew’s arguments, it seems like this book acts as a lesson for what he wanted to teach: “follow the argument wherever it leads.” By presenting two different and inconsistent opinions, it forces us to not merely revere an argument because of the man attached to it, but critically examine both arguments for ourselves. It invites people to participate in the Socratic dialectic, like we have here, whenever they discuss his work. Like J.S.Mill said about the collision of adverse opinions, this ensures that these arguments do not become mere profession, but instead reminds us of the vital and heartfelt reason behind the arguments. In this way, I think that the professed change of heart may be more powerful than if he had died an athiest. Beside, worse comes to worse, he will be remembered like all other philosophers who have more than one distinct period (Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Nietzsche, etc.), and the arguments of his youth will remain as strong as they always were.

These are just some thoughts, but I hope it allows people to ease some of their anxiety or tensions over this event.

By: Kenneth Grubbs

Kenneth Grubbs — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:23:16 +0000

Nathan,

The point you’re raising is incredibly important. Antony Flew was as “classic” as it gets in philosophy; a purist. And although I am hardly qualified to speak professionally with regard to philosophy, I think your supposition has merit.

Thank you for your comment.

By: Kenneth Grubbs

Kenneth Grubbs — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 01:20:45 +0000

Russ, Sorry for not responding sooner. Though technically acceptable the way its written, inserting “not” works just fine, as well as “yet to be acquired”. Thanks Russ.

By: Nathan Phillips

Nathan Phillips — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:32:53 +0000

I have had Mr. Flew’s name tossed at me in conversation when I mention the secularization of academia. I am not particularly familiar with Flew’s work, but I have read a debate in which he seemed to have lost to a Christian apologist. His arguments weren’t of the Bertrand Russell or Daniel Dennett variet, being full of current science, but rather from classical philosophical stances. I cannot help but think that philosophy separated from science is not strong enough to produce realistic views on the world. I’m not ruling out the possibility that Mr. Flew’s debate that I read could have been biased or fabricated, but this is the impression that I have gotten.

By: Russ Stevens

Russ Stevens — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:07:40 +0000

I’d welcome a brief “yes” or “no” from Mr. Grubbs concerning my insertion of “not” in one of his paragraphs (the 4th comment registered today). I intend to circulate his article with or without that insertion, as he prefers, and am not perfectly confident that, at age 85, I’m actually on the right track. Thanks again for a great article!

By: Kenneth Grubbs

Kenneth Grubbs — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 22:17:38 +0000

Yes … curious isn’t it. As long as the author of this letter betrayed his classical Oxford education and writing style; as long as the author escaped the debilitating grasp of dementia long enough to write it; and as long as the postmark is from a hospital bed in England, then this December 2008 “reply” is probably genuine.

Thank you for your insight.