In an earlier essay, I described Antony Flew’s apparent conversion from atheism to deism and took Professor Flew to task for accepting the arguments of the pseudoscientist Gerald Schroeder. I wished “that Professor Flew had read Mr. Schroeder’s work more carefully or had consulted critical references to Mr. Schroeder’s work before pronouncing Mr. Schroeder kosher.”
According to Richard Carrier (2005), who has become sort of an unofficial mouthpiece for Professor Flew, Professor Flew now admits that he has been “mistaught” by Mr. Schroeder and also, astonishingly, blames Richard Dawkins for his own misunderstanding of abiogenesis, or the development of life from nonliving matter.
Mr. Carrier adds further that Professor Flew appears to remain a deist but calls his new belief a “very modest defection from [his] previous unbelief.”
References.
Carrier, Richard, 2005, “Antony Flew Considers God - Sort of,” The Secular Web, http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369……. Scroll down to “Update (January 2005).”
Young, Matt, 2004, “Antony Flew’s Conversion to Deism,” Panda’s Thumb, http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000687.html….
9 Comments
Wedgie World · 9 January 2005
Nice see also Wedgie World for a look at how ID proponents are dealing with the news.
Great White Wonder · 9 January 2005
Stirling Newberry · 9 January 2005
Dawkins is not always right, but he is always clear.
Dave Thomas · 11 January 2005
Great White Wonder · 11 January 2005
Matt Young · 11 January 2005
Professor Flew is no dingbat; his essay, "Theology and Falsification," has been extremely influential and often reprinted. That Great White Wonder has never heard of him reflects more on Mr. Wonder than on Professor Flew.
Mr. Colson's essay is out of date. Professor Flew has admitted that he was misled by Mr. Schroeder into thinking that the Biblical account of the creation (the account in Genesis 1, not the other account in Genesis 2) paralleled the scientific account; it does not. He further admitted to Mr. Carrier that he had made a fool of himself and had not checked any of Mr. Schroeder's claims. Finally, he noted that, at 81, he was too old to engage in a major controversy. The clear implication is that his supposed conversion has not been well thought through. Unlike Mr. Thomas's creationist, who implies that he is impervious to argument, I would at least have paid attention to a cogent discussion by as well respected a philosopher as Professor Flew.
Finally, Professor Flew described his conversion as a "modest defection" from his previous atheism. At most, Professor Flew seems to consider the possibility of a Demiurge who created the world and then left it alone, not a personal god.
Anyone who thinks that he "is just a step or two away from the kingdom" must be willfully self-deluding, at best.
Great White Wonder · 11 January 2005
Bayesian Bouffant · 12 January 2005
Flew's Flawed Science
by Victor Stenger
For Free Inquiry
DaveScot · 13 January 2005
Antony Flew in 2004 simply arrived at the same tentative conclusion that I arrived at 15 years ago. The tentative conclusion is that the well observed and duly documented cellular machinery employed by living things is too complex to have come about through accidental happenstance.
This does not speak to an omnipotent God, to the bible, to revelation, to an afterlife, or to any religion at all. It speaks to common sense and sound reasoning. Thus Antony is not converted to a religion or even really to deism. He's converted to pragmatism.
All I have to say to Antony is "What took you so long?". LOL!