|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A review of "There is a God" by Antony Flew | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
totally disgusting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Omnivorous
The really sad thing that presents itself from this is how the fight over having Flew on one side or another is. Since the people making the argument are irrelevant to the validity of the issue one must wonder what the fuss is. That Anthony Flew switched sides due to failing faculties or from being convinced is completely besides the point. What matters is the arguments made and whether they are valid or not. The Christians involved in the matter are in error if they think that the authority of the people on their side is of any matter. If the thing they would try to establish is wrong then no amount of Phd's or masters or lifelong studies makes a wit of difference. As was demonstrated in the Shuttle Challenger investigation reality wins out over fantasy every time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That Anthony Flew switched sides due to failing faculties or from being convinced is completely besides the point. No, I actually think the fact that theism can only be defended by behaving in the most dishonest possible manner - or by refusing to defend it at all - is quite germane. GDR seems to think that this book is a blow against atheism, but it simply highlights the well-funded, well-coordinated attack machine that considers no tactic too underhanded in the fight against free thought. Or, you know, something like that. Believers acting like assholes because the mere existence of atheists threatens them. What the hell else is new?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
crashfrog writes: No, I actually think the fact that theism can only be defended by behaving in the most dishonest possible manner - or by refusing to defend it at all - is quite germane. GDR seems to think that this book is a blow against atheism, but it simply highlights the well-funded, well-coordinated attack machine that considers no tactic too underhanded in the fight against free thought. I do not think that this book is a blow against Atheism, any more than it is a blow to Christianity when a Christian converts to Atheism. The truth is still the truth no matter what either of us belive. I posted it without comment for the purpose of discussion. I do happen to think that the arguments raised in the OP make sense.(Not rational as it turns out. ) You don't. As often seems to be your approach you resort to insult, ridicule and name calling. I am all for free thought and have freely come to the opposite conclusion that you have. By the way, I don't feel threatened by Atheists in the least and as a matter of fact I contend that the strident Atheism that we see in people like Dawkins and yourself actually is helpful. It causes people to think, and in my view the more people think on these things the better. It is my intention to purchase a copy of the debate between Dawkins and Lennox and show it in our church so that people do have the opportunity to come to their own conclusions. Other readers can read through your posts and come to their own conclusions about who is feeling threatened. In love GDR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I do happen to think that the arguments raised in the OP make sense. If the arguments are so great, why couldn't Varghese have simply made them under his own name? Why was he, apparently, so ashamed of them that he had to fraudulently ascribe them to a completely unrelated person? I just don't understand the dishonesty. It's characteristic of things that are true that you don't have to lie to convince people.
As often seems to be your approach you resort to insult, ridicule and name calling. I don't know what you think you're talking about. Is any disagreement an insult to a believer like you? It must be. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
crashfrog writes: I don't know what you think you're talking about. Is any disagreement an insult to a believer like you? It must be. Right. I guess I just don't understand friendly contsructive discourse.
crashfrog writes: Or, you know, something like that. Believers acting like assholes because the mere existence of atheists threatens them. What the hell else is new? Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I was talking about Varghese, not you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Flew is known to be suffering from age-related dementia, with the result that he is actually not the author of "There is a God", merely listed as author of a book by Varghese. So, yes, Flew was deluded - by Varghese, who manipulated a man of increasigly infirm mental condition into signing papers he didn't understand. Your source itself is completely suspect. Its interesting what you will swallow without the least bit contemplation, so long as it conforms to the random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal. I've read some of Flew's works, particularly his treatise on his subsequent conversion. It was quite lucid, and it was authored by Flew himself. Any evidence to the contrary requires, well, evidence. If Varghese is the little birdy on the shoulder of Flew (which is pretty ridiculous given Flew's 40 year tenure with staunch atheism) then it would require something beyond the ramblings from a horribly biased blog. As GDR has mentioned, Flew isn't a Christian. Not by a long shot, according to him. The single persuasive argument that brought Flew from atheism to theism came from an impersonal, teleological understanding. In my estimation, Flew simply traded in one hat for another. In my estimation, he really didn't make that large of a leap. If we are to momentarily agree that the Judeo-Christian concept of God is true, then believing that God exists is a small step. According to the biblical God, He seeks relationships. Being persuaded by natural arguments is fine and good. That's what ID is all about. But it makes Flew no different than any other pagan religion that looked at nature with an obvious intent. At most, Flew is comparable to Einstein or Spinoza at this point. I don't see atheists in an uproar over these influential figures, so I hardly see the need in flaming Antony for making the same deductions they did. “This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
If Varghese is the little birdy on the shoulder of Flew (which is pretty ridiculous given Flew's 40 year tenure with staunch atheism) then it would require something beyond the ramblings from a horribly biased blog. What about the lengthy article in the NY Times magazine from which much of the material quoted in the Pharyngula article derived? Do you not believe that Flew said what he was quoted as having said? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Your source itself is completely suspect. A national newspaper conducted an interview with a man who couldn't remember a single person he either worked with or drew from in writing his book? What's suspect about that? The only suspicion it raises is the suspicion that a senile man was manipulated to put his name on a book he didn't have any involvement in.
I've read some of Flew's works, particularly his treatise on his subsequent conversion. It was quite lucid Of course it was lucid, Varghese wrote it for him.
it was authored by Flew himself. How do you know? Did you see him write it?
Any evidence to the contrary requires, well, evidence. For instance, the evidence that a few weeks later, Flew can't remember a single detail from the book, nor recall working with any of the sources he supposedly drew from, nor explain why he was apparently convinced by the exact same arguments he's demolished in the past. And, of course, there's the little matter of his previous false "conversion", which of course turned out to be a complete fabrication by believers. What's your evidence that Flew was involved with this book? Does he have any of the notes from writing it, for instance?
then it would require something beyond the ramblings from a horribly biased blog. The investigation of a national newspaper is insufficient to you?
If we are to momentarily agree that the Judeo-Christian concept of God is true, then believing that God exists is a small step. I guess I don't understand. If you already assume that God exists, then assuming that God exists isn't a step at all; you're already there.
I don't see atheists in an uproar over these influential figures Because Einstein and Spinoza were atheists. "Spinoza's God" is atheism with a candy coating. In Spinoza's time it was the most atheist you could be without being persecuted by the church.
I hardly see the need in flaming Antony for making the same deductions they did. Nobody's flaming Flew; we're attacking Varghese for manipulating a senile old man. That he is grappling with senility is abundantly obvious from his interviews. That he didn't write "There Is a God" is abundantly obvious from the quality of the work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EighteenDelta Inactive Member |
The publisher has acknowledged that 'ghost writers' are a common thing in the industry.
-x Edited by EighteenDelta, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
What about the lengthy article in the NY Times magazine from which much of the material quoted in the Pharyngula article derived? Do you not believe that Flew said what he was quoted as having said? First of all, the NY Times is notoriously slanted towards Leftist ideals. There is no shortage of controversy with them, as they are one of the worst offenders in this arena. So, you should probably take what they say lightly and with a grain of salt. Secondly, Mark Oppenheimer has a few quotes from Flew himself, but is sure to include what is sensationalist. No telling what he decided to exclude. He mentioned Flew's age on a couple of occasions so as to support the tacit claim that he's just an old dingbat parroting what his Christian buddies are squawking in his ear. Of course, it doesn't seem to make much sense for skewering Flew. He still maintains that Christianity is not within his framework. Instead, he argues for the existence of his impersonal creator, the one that seemed to make sense to Aristotle, Spinoza, and Einstein. It should look all the more suspect when Oppenheimer has about three quotes of Flew during an interview. He conveniently construes Flew to have lost his mind. But I found an interview with the BBC (a more respectful and respected journal than its American counterpart, IMO). And this has a full transcript of the conversation. Flew seems quite lucid and in no uncertain terms came to his deism as the result of a sort of Paleyian approach who is still not persuaded by Christianity. But really, what difference is there between Flew and any number of our resident deists? Yes, I believe that some evangelical Christians have attempted to capitalize off of Flew's semi-conversion because there is a deep rift between those of staunch atheism and those of staunch evangelical Christianity. And I believe it to be wrong to do that for either side. I don't concern myself with those things because neither side is doing any justice for the other. Its becoming more and more of an "US vs Them" game, where the only goal is to joust just for the sake of jousting, rather than jousting for one's own mind/soul. The reason for the jousting seems to have been lost upon those of either side. Flew has never seemed much of a charismatic atheist and he doesn't seem like he'll be much of one in the theistic realm either. He just looks to me to be a man on an honest quest for Truth®. I pray that he finds it. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit to add and fix typos Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given. “This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
First of all, the NY Times is notoriously slanted towards Leftist ideals. Oh, for God's sake. Who told you that? Fox News?
And this has a full transcript of the conversation. Flew seems quite lucid and in no uncertain terms came to his deism as the result of a sort of Paleyian approach who is still not persuaded by Christianity. This conversation is from more than two years ago - and after the interview with the BBC, he repudiated his supposed "conversion" and announced that it had all been his misunderstanding of the actual science behind his claims. Theist? Atheist? Flew's position seems to depend on whose doing the asking. That's not consistent with someone operating from a sound frame of mind.
Yes, I believe that some evangelical Christians have attempted to capitalize off of Flew's semi-conversion because there is a deep rift between those of staunch atheism and those of staunch evangelical Christianity. Indeed - to the extent that Roy Varghese authored a book of shoddy arguments for God and then manipulated Flew into agreeing to be named as author. You're just proving our point, NJ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Here's what I don't understand about this. Why do people of faith think that what Anthony Flew said or didn't say about atheism will make any difference to any other atheist?
Atheism, quite unlike most religions, doesn't depend on authoritative statements by particular individuals, even if they are the "most influential" atheist. So someone else nearing the end of his life may have changed his mind. It doesn't invalidate my own conclusions based on my reasoning, particularly since the argument doesn't seem to be based on anything new, but it merely a rehash of the same old arguments that have been going around for years. What if the situation were reversed? Imagine that the Pope were to come out tomorrow and say, "I've rethought things and now conclude that there is no god." Do you think that every catholic in the world would abandon their faith? I recognize that there's a great deal of reason to suspect that this book isn't really the work of Flew himself. But even beyond that, why should anyone care if in fact he did change his mind? Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Imagine that the Pope were to come out tomorrow and say, "I've rethought things and now conclude that there is no god." You mean, kind of like Mother Theresa did. Yeah, I didn't exactly see the Catholics turning from their faith in droves.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024