Antony Flew - How the world’s most notorious atheist changes his mind

soterpisc

Hi. Has anyone here read the book How the world’s most notorious atheist changes his mind?


atheists claim the book is a result of declining mind.. (I think the opposite.

Onesimus

Who is Anthony Flew?

PDN

Antony Flew was a philosopher who was a prominent advocate for atheism. He was, in my opinion, much more thoughtful and able to engage with theologians than the new breed of self-publicising atheist cheerleaders. ISAW should like Flew in that he developed the One True Scotsman logical fallacy.

Anyway, he changed his mind towards the end of his life, flirting with theism and then declaring himself to be a deist.

There was a lot of controversy over the book mentioned in the OP. There is a strong suspicion that the co-author (Roy Varghese) had written most of the book and had exploited Flew's sad decline into dementia. Some key passages that purported to be written by Flew contained Americanisms that the real Antony Flew would never have used. Flew died of dementia in 2010.

Due to the controversy I haven't read the book, and probably won't. If the allegations are true then it would seem to me to be rather sordid to celebrate a change of mind that may simply be due to mental decline.

robindch

soterpisc wrote: »

atheists claim the book is a result of declining mind.. (I think the opposite.[/I]

I think you should examine the facts before posting an opinion.

PDN wrote: »

Antony Flew was a philosopher who was a prominent advocate for atheism.

He might have been prominent in the minds of the religious, but I don't believe that anybody in A+A had ever heard of him. I certainly never had, and I've never met anybody who'd ever said they've heard of him either. An advocate of atheism, probably; but prominent? Nope. Sorry. Even now, I've only ever heard of Flew in connection with his alleged conversion, and never as a philosopher, for atheism or otherwise.

PDN wrote: »

There was a lot of controversy over the book mentioned in the OP. There is a strong suspicion that the co-author (Roy Varghese) had written most of the book and had exploited Flew's sad decline into dementia.

It's generally accepted that it's far more than a suspicion. The NY Times examined Flew's alleged conversion and how it was played out by Roy Varghese, a cash-rich christian fundamentalist who, it seems, chose to play fast and loose with the honesty of what I must assume was a once-formidable mind. The last six or seven paragraphs of the following article the ones most relevant to this thread:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?pagewanted=all

PZ Myers was, typically, less polite about Varghese's activities.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

Antony Flew was a philosopher who was a prominent advocate for atheism. He was, in my opinion, much more thoughtful and able to engage with theologians than the new breed of self-publicising atheist cheerleaders. ISAW should like Flew in that he developed the One True Scotsman logical fallacy.

Ah but maybe he isnt a real true atheist

Anyway, he changed his mind towards the end of his life, flirting with theism and then declaring himself to be a deist.

See! Told ya!

There was a lot of controversy over the book mentioned in the OP. There is a strong suspicion that the co-author (Roy Varghese) had written most of the book and had exploited Flew's sad decline into dementia. Some key passages that purported to be written by Flew contained Americanisms that the real Antony Flew would never have used. Flew died of dementia in 2010.

I don't think Fasgnadh the unbeliever is demented but he may yet convert to believing in God. He certainly does not like atheism.

Due to the controversy I haven't read the book, and probably won't. If the allegations are true then it would seem to me to be rather sordid to celebrate a change of mind that may simply be due to mental decline.

Kinda suits the "brights" position

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

I don't believe that anybody in A+A had ever heard of him. I certainly never had, and I've never met anybody who'd ever said they've heard of him either.

Sorry to shake your beliefs:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57612045&postcount=77

Scientist can still be atheists if they want to or let the evidence convince them like Anthony Flew that there must be a creator/mind behind it all.

You posted same page 13 messages later. Several A&A denizens also posted in between.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

I think you should examine the facts before posting an opinion.He might have been prominent in the minds of the religious, but I don't believe that anybody in A+A had ever heard of him. I certainly never had, and I've never met anybody who'd ever said they've heard of him either. An advocate of atheism, probably; but prominent? Nope. Sorry.

Really?

Richard Carrier over at infidels.org describes Flew as "one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th century, even making the shortlist of Contemporary Atheists at About.com"

The Skeptics Society says, "For most of his career Professor Flew was one of the world’s most outspoken and prominent atheists". http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-04-21/

The guy who writes the Atheology blog says, "When I was a young atheist, the well-known British philosopher Antony Flew was perhaps the world’s most prominent advocate of atheism. " http://atheology.com/2010/09/16/antony-flew-is-dead/

Maybe they're all part of 'the religious'?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Maybe they're all part of 'the religious'?

Unlikely, though your confusion is understandable.

As above, I've never met anybody who's told me they were aware of Flew, so I'm inclined to think that I may not have met the good Mr Carrier, anybody from the Skeptics Society or the "guy who writes the Atheology blog". Or, if I did, they certainly never mentioned Flew to me. Which is what I think I said above

However, I fully agree with you that if the allegations are true, and they seem to be, then Varghese's taking advantage of an elderly, sick man is a truly sordid act.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

As above, I've never met anybody who's told me they were aware of Flew, so I'm inclined to think that I may not have met the good Mr Carrier, anybody from the Skeptics Society or the "guy who writes the Atheology blog". Or, if I did, they certainly never mentioned Flew to me. Which is what I think I said above.

In fairness, Robin, you said a bit more than that; you denied that he was prominent. The implication is that if Flew hadn’t come to the attention of you and your circle, he couldn’t be fairly described as “prominent”, which perhaps implies a rather grand claim on your own behalf.

He was prominent, but “was” is the operative term. His principal writings on this subject were in the 1950s and 1960s, though he wrote into the 1970s. Some of his writings on theology and atheism were much reprinted, quoted and discussed, and some were reissued in the 1980s. He was a significant figure in the postwar English academic scene, and atheism - or, at any rate, intellectual enquiry into and debate about atheism, was mainly the concern of philosophers.

“The World’s Most Notorious Atheist” is definitely a bit of a stretch, but if you had mentioned his name to anyone interested in either atheism or philosophy thirty-five or forty years ago, they would certainly have recognized it. In the 1980s his interests became more political, and he wrote quite a bit about liberty and freedom (in the Conservative Monday Club sense of those words; he was le dernier cri in philosophy as far as Thatcherites were concerned). At other times in his life, he also wrote what became one of the standard works on Hume, and was an early and leading proponent of linguistic philosophy. He was chairman of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. In so far as academic philosophers ever become prominent, he was definitely prominent.

Whether and to what extent people took advantage of his declining mind is a judgment I’ll leave to others. However well-informed and autonomous his change of mind may have been, the mere fact that he - or anyone else - changed his mind doesn’t mean that his later opinion is any more reliable or authoritative than his earlier one. If I’m supposed to be impressed that Anthony Flew was - eventually - a theist, then I must also be impressed that Richard Dawkins is an atheist. And the truth is that neither of these facts impresses me greatly.

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

Or, if I did, they certainly never mentioned Flew to me. Which is what I think I said above

I was thinking more of the preceeding sentence. you know? "I don't believe that anybody in A+A had ever heard of him". While that may be your belief it took me less than one minute to locate the A&A reference where he is mentioned and where several A&A members posted( including yourself) to the same page of that discussion.

In addition to that above , it took me about 20 seconds to find this post by yourself:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58267277&postcount=13857

According to reports, Flew seems to be suffering from senile dementia or some other wasting disease.

Now, in the light of his declining ability to reason, you can make what you like of his "conversion" from atheism to deism (or theism or whatever at the hands of a christian fundamentalist named Roy Varghese), but Antony Flew does not appear to be a well man so I think it's unfair to call him a moron.

Funny how you actually discussed Flew's conversion and dementia over three years ago without anyone ever mentioning Flew to you or you knowing anything about him isn't it?

However, I fully agree with you that if the allegations are true, and they seem to be, then Varghese's taking advantage of an elderly, sick man is a truly sordid act.

Maybe you don't remember trying to turn the issue into religious fundamentalists taking advantage of flew before either?

Penn

ISAW wrote: »

Funny how you actually discussed Flew's conversion and dementia over three years ago without anyone ever mentioning Flew to you or you knowing anything about him isn't it?

In fairness ISAW, it was over three years ago. Don't you think it's possible that robindch heard of Flew then, looked him up, responded about him, then shortly afterwards, just forgot about him.

As for Flew, I can't saw I ever heard of him either (don't bother looking through my old posts, it's not that big a deal). Maybe he was quite big in the 50's/60's. Either way, people change religions and beliefs all the time. I mean, most of the people on the A&A forum were raised Catholic. Of course it happens the other way round, even to the most hardcore believers.

ISAW

Penn wrote: »

In fairness ISAW, it was over three years ago. Don't you think it's possible that robindch heard of Flew then, looked him up, responded about him, then shortly afterwards, just forgot about him.

In fairness Penn it was not I who stated above in message 4 "I think you should examine the facts before posting an opinion." Was it?

As for Flew, I can't saw I ever heard of him either (don't bother looking through my old posts, it's not that big a deal).

If it isn't extraordinary then why claim it?

Maybe he was quite big in the 50's/60's. Either way, people change religions and beliefs all the time. I mean, most of the people on the A&A forum were raised Catholic. Of course it happens the other way round, even to the most hardcore believers.

Not a very convincing statistical argument.
1. the A&A forum is for atheists so it is likely Atheists will post there
2. Most of Ireland is catholic so it is likely most of the posters have Catholic backgrounds.

It does not really say anything convincing about the likelihood of people to "convert" to atheism.

By the way china was atheist and a much greater percentage are now religious. And the numbers are comparable to the entire population of Europe let alone the actual numbers of a tiny single digit percentage of Ireland.

Penn

ISAW wrote: »

In fairness Penn it was not I who stated above in message 4 "I think you should examine the facts before posting an opinion." Was it?

All I'm saying is that there's no need for "AHA! What about this thing you said over three years ago?!" when it's likely robindch just doesn't remember it.

ISAW wrote: »

If it isn't extraordinary then why claim it?

If what isn't extraordinary then why claim what? I just meant that to my recollection, I've never heard of Flew, but if by chance I quoted someone who mentioned him 4 years ago or posted on the same thread as someone who mentioned him, there's no need to bring it up because I have absolutely no memory of it, so it would be a waste of time.

ISAW wrote: »

Not a very convincing statistical argument.
1. the A&A forum is for atheists so it is likely Atheists will post there
2. Most of Ireland is catholic so it is likely most of the posters have Catholic backgrounds.

It does not really say anything convincing about the likelihood of people to "convert" to atheism.

By the way china was atheist and a much greater percentage are now religious. And the numbers are comparable to the entire population of Europe let alone the actual numbers of a tiny single digit percentage of Ireland.

You misunderstand my argument. All I was saying is that people change religions, or from religion to no religion (and vice versa) all the time. Yes, this man was a very prominent atheist, but it doesn't mean there is anything special about him changing his beliefs. I'd be hugely surprised if Dawkins ever becomes a Catholic, but it's not impossible. Same with this man. Same with any priest or bishop who renounces their faith and becomes an atheist. Less likely to happen than the average person, but can still happen.

robindch

ISAW wrote: »

I was thinking more of the preceeding sentence. you know? "I don't believe that anybody in A+A had ever heard of him". While that may be your belief it took me less than one minute to locate the A&A reference where he is mentioned and where several A&A members posted( including yourself) to the same page of that discussion.

Thanks muchly for grepping through A+A for that post. However, the vital word you missed in my post above was "had". Have a read of that post again, paying particular attention to that single word. That's the pluperfect tense/aspect, the prior event being Flew's conversion and the crowing amongst a certain segment of christians that attended it.

Cutting aside the grammar fetishism, here's a shorter version of the above: "Prior to his alleged conversion, I don't believe that anybody in A+A had ever heard of him". I trust this clears up the matter to your satisfaction.

Penn wrote: »

Don't you think it's possible that robindch heard of Flew then, looked him up, responded about him, then shortly afterwards, just forgot about him.

No, as above, I'd never heard of Flew prior to the energetic leaping up and down of various religious fundamentalists concerning his conversion. However, the leaping was sufficiently high, and sufficiently sudden, that it was as suspicious as hell and -- lo! -- turns out that this suspicion was justified.

Not the first time that one of the religious had been found to be somewhat economical with the truth, eh, soterpisc?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Cutting aside the grammar fetishism, here's a shorter version of the above: "Prior to his alleged conversion, I don't believe that anybody in A+A had ever heard of him".

And yet, despite your assertion to the contrary, a multitude of non-religious sources do indeed view Antony Flew as having been a prominent advocate of atheism. So the fact that nobody on A&A had heard of him seems to say more about them than it does about Flew.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

And yet, despite your assertion to the contrary, a multitude of non-religious sources do indeed view Antony Flew as having been a prominent advocate of atheism.

??



The title of the book is "How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind?", suggesting that at the time of publishing, Flew was the world's most notorious atheist. Now your original post talked about "a philosopher who was a prominent advocate", and Flew does seem to have been a well-known atheist at a time when it was far less socially acceptable than it is now, and I've never doubted that (though you do appear to think incorrectly that I do or did).

The point I was making, and reiterated last night, was that by the time the book was published, presumably after his "conversion", that was no longer true. So, in addition to taking advantage of a sick man who appeared to have lost the use of most of his faculties, Varghese also chose to lie about Flew's popularity (or notoriousness, depending on one's taste).

The book could have been titled "There appears to be some merit to certain religious arguments: How somebody who used to be a well-known atheist many years ago updated his views following the onset of dementia". And while it wouldn't have tripped off the tongue quite so easily, it would have had the benefit of being significantly more honest.

PDN wrote: »

So the fact that nobody on A&A had heard of him seems to say more about them than it does about Flew.

A comment that equally well applies to here, since I don't recall Flew ever coming up here either. And even now, his alleged conversion is the only topic that's of interest. His arguments have not been discussed, and they have not been refuted.

Hell, I don't believe that even Alistair McGrath found the time to sling together together a book, peevish or otherwise, concerning Flew!

.

robindch

Hey, if McGrath ever does want to write something refuting Flew's arguments -- or (if history is anything to go by) something in the general vicinity of Flew's arguments, but nothing generally that Flew actually claimed -- he could stick with alliterative titles and call it "Flew's Flaws".

I await it with as much interest as I can muster.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

??



The title of the book is "How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind?", suggesting that at the time of publishing, Flew was the world's most notorious atheist. Now your original post talked about "a philosopher who was a prominent advocate", and Flew does seem to have been a well-known atheist at a time when it was far less socially acceptable than it is now, and I've never doubted that (though you do appear to think incorrectly that I do or did).

The point I was making, and reiterated last night, was that by the time the book was published, presumably after his "conversion", that was no longer true. So, in addition to taking advantage of a sick man who appeared to have lost the use of most of his faculties, Varghese also chose to lie about Flew's popularity (or notoriousness, depending on one's taste).

The book could have been titled "There appears to be some merit to certain religious arguments: How somebody who used to be a well-known atheist many years ago updated his views following the onset of dementia". And while it wouldn't have tripped off the tongue quite so easily, it would have had the benefit of being significantly more honest.A comment that equally well applies to here, since I don't recall Flew ever coming up here either. And even now, his alleged conversion is the only topic that's of interest. His arguments have not been discussed, and they have not been refuted.



.

Gosh, your inability to admit when you make a mistake really provokes a lot of fudging and dancing doesn't it?

You didn't challenge the book title - you used the quote function and clearly challenged my claim that Flew was (past tense - and I clearly contrasted his role with that of modern atheist cheerleaders) a prominent advocate of atheism. You also claimed that he was only a prominent advocate of atheism in the eyes of the religious.

Flew was, in his day, indeed a prominent advocate of atheism, and not just in the eyes of the relligious. Of course many modern atheists (such as the ones who engage in discourse in A&A) are not well paticularly well-read in philosophy or in the history of atheism - but that doesn't alter the fact that Flew was a prominent atheist.

Hell, I don't believe that even Alistair McGrath found the time to sling together together a book, peevish or otherwise, concerning Flew!

While your estimation of McGrath's importance is indeed impressive - I don't think I can follow you in redefining "a prominent advocate of atheism" as meaning "someone who had a book written about them by Allister McGrath".

Probably best to stop digging. Your hole is deep enough already.

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

Thanks muchly for grepping through A+A for that post. However, the vital word you missed in my post above was "had". Have a read of that post again, paying particular attention to that single word. That's the pluperfect tense/aspect, the prior event being Flew's conversion and the crowing amongst a certain segment of christians that attended it.

The "Might have been" in the prior clause is subjunctive pluperfect and not indicative.
So it isn't a claim about reality but about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_mood

various states of irreality such as wish, emotion, possibility, judgment, opinion, necessity, or action that has [/or in this case had] not yet occurred.

I don't want to get into a "people called Romans they are the house" issue.

You clearly stated that people didn't know. I pointed out they did know. You now use the "pluperfect" argument to say what you meant was at the time you mentioned it i.e. they didn't know before that time
1. you or anyone else in A&A hadn't heard of Flew.
2. Flew was not a "prominent" atheist

He might have been prominent in the minds of the religious, but I don't believe that anybody in A+A had ever heard of him. I certainly never had, and I've never met anybody who'd ever said they've heard of him either. An advocate of atheism, probably; but prominent? Nope. Sorry. Even now, I've only ever heard of Flew in connection with his alleged conversion, and never as a philosopher, for atheism or otherwise.

Counter argumwen t 1 - i posted TWO examples one from you
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58267277&postcount=13857
14-12-2008
One p[osted by Soul Winner
17-10-2008,

TWO months prior to your claim he had ( not e the word with "not " after it) not been mentioned in A&A up to the pluperfict deixis of Flews mental decline been mentioned above on 14 December

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57612045&postcount=77
[/quote]
Scientist can still be atheists if they want to or let the evidence convince them like Anthony Flew that there must be a creator/mind behind it all.
[/quote]

Stated two months earlier!

counter argument against 2 I refer you to the posts PDN has already made about his publication record and prominence.

Cutting aside the grammar fetishism, here's a shorter version of the above: "Prior to his alleged conversion, I don't believe that anybody in A+A had ever heard of him".

Fine. You are saying you never heard of Flew before his conversion. So you never heard of him before you discussed him in July 2008?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56455197&postcount=7


But that draws you into the mire of A&A elitism regarding yourselves as some sort of authority over academics Not for the forst time either.

When PDN and Fanny first raised flew they already knew about him but you dismissed hinm then with

No doubt it did,[crop up regularly in philosophy of religion courses] but the atheism that you see 'round here matured a long way from the religious and philosophical departments of the universities of this world.

This is just argument from ignorance.

I trust this clears up the matter to your satisfaction.No, as above, I'd never heard of Flew prior to the energetic leaping up and down of various religious fundamentalists concerning his conversion. However, the leaping was sufficiently high, and sufficiently sudden, that it was as suspicious as hell and -- lo! -- turns out that this suspicion was justified.

But just because of your ignorance of him does not change you admission that before you knew about him he was regularly referred to ( as an atheist) in philosophy of religion courses?

So you substitute your ignorance of standard academic knowledge of the day with a "pluperfect" academic elitism of "A&A never heard of him" dismissal?

Not the first time that one of the religious had been found to be somewhat economical with the truth, eh, soterpisc?

An example of a sockpuppet asking the same questions twice is somehow saying "zero examples of child abuse by clergy in the last ten years" is untrue?

Look that has nothing to do with you claiming Flew was not to be taken seriously.

Although i do accept your admitted ignorance of him prior to his mental illness.

ISAW

Actually robin when did you first hear about Flew?
It would seem it was about 2004? Would that be correct?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50601539&postcount=5

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Probably best to stop digging. Your hole is deep enough already.

Digging? Yes, but only trying to shovel away the mud that's being slung around.

To clarify, rather than continue the silly bickering: As ISAW helpfully points out, I'd never heard of Flew before Varghese wrote his book.

Maybe Flew really was the "world's most notorious atheist" at one time and maybe he wasn't. I strongly doubt he was, but then again, back when religion was far more powerful than it is now, perhaps even somebody as thoroughly respectable as Flew appears to have been, could honestly have been described as "notorious". And likewise, maybe somebody who spent most of his life not discussing god, really was a "prominent advocate of atheism". What's not in question is that by the time Varghese got involved, Flew was largely unknown amongst atheists, the non-religious and the general population, and Varghese's title was, frankly, dishonest. And that's aside from his fairly obvious taking-advantage of an elderly, sick man.

You suggested yourself some years ago that Flew was a regular on Philosophy of Religion courses, and I've no doubt he probably was. But I can't imagine that many atheists, or members of the general public, would attend those courses or make their way through Flew's academic output -- useful and all as the religious no doubt feel it is -- any more than I'd imagine that geographers would attend a course which studied the philosophical groundwork required to sustain a belief that the earth was flat.

As for the book that soterpics/alex63 mentioned, well, I think we can both agree it's dishonest.

Doctor DooM

Can I politely suggest that dragging up each others 4-6 year old posts (which no doubt none of you even remember ever writing) is a wee bit of a exercise in futility?

robindch

^^^ Oddly enough, I do remember writing them

ISAW

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Can I politely suggest that dragging up each others 4-6 year old posts (which no doubt none of you even remember ever writing) is a wee bit of a exercise in futility?

Yes you can. And can I suggest you are wrong.
Look up "citation" and the idea of developing a concept based on past research or knowledge.