Antony Flew: A Brief Non-Philosophical Assessment

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You seem to have the inside clinical information of Anthony Flew's dementia. And you have to boldness to remind us "some serious questions have been raised."

Oh, so some serious questions have been raised. But some serious questions cannot be raised about Stephen Hawking ?

What does "serious questions" being raised conclusively prove except some people can raise them ?

Give me a break. An old atheist decides that DNA has finally persuaded him that some kind of intelligence was involved in the design of life. He decides that maybe he should espouse some kind of Deism as more reasonable than atheism.

And you have the unmitigated audacity to nudge everyone about his dementia and that, after all, "serious questions have been raised."


First of all, your sheer arrogance, even a person with dementia can be persuaded of a more likely truth than a less likely error.

Anyway, link us to your professional medical report on Anthony Flew's recent dementia if you have ready access to this information.

People change their minds.
Some people being very vocal about their anti-theism live long enough to reconsider their position and, like it or not, they may decide to change their mind about some things.

Explaining that away with innuendos about dementia and "serious questions" being raised by a few disappointed atheists, is lame.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The facts are that many former atheists and evilutionists have changed their mind because of the recent discoveries in science. There is no evidence of them being accused of having dementia. However, none of them are as old as Anthony Flew or had been known worldwide for being such an advocate for atheism and evilution.

Accusing an old person of dementia seems to have become a common ad hominem attack against older people when they disagree with the messge.

Obviously the Antony Flew of 27 was not privileged to the evidence of irreducible complexity, design, and information language programming in the cell that he gained later in life.

In fact, I can not see why any person with any intelligence could consider all this new evidence and come to any other conclusion than Antony Flew finally did, unless they had a personal bias against accepting the truth that there is a Creator.

Antony Flew on God and Atheism

YouTube

It was the integrated complexity and not the irreducible complexity that I had mentioned that was one of the factors that convince Antony Flew of God as he says on this video interview.

Antony Flew on Richard Dawkins claim he is senile

YouTube

The post that was quoted here has been removed

And I cannot comprehend why some people (who celebrate Antony Flew's presumed 'defection' from atheism) are acting as though a philosophical dispute between atheism and theism should be decided by comparing celebrity endorsements'.

I don't know what everybody wrote here about Professor Flew. But I know of no one who has claimed the argument between theism and atheism is decided on one changing of a position one way or the other.

Both sides point out, as they have every right to, that someone notable had a change of mind.

As Christians lots of us take it on the chin when it is pointed out that some "Been There Done That" X evangelical is now an atheist.

And it should not bother you if theists point out some change of position of a much hailed previous atheist.

"This fella changed his mind" is a perfectly legitimate contribution to the conversation on either side. So they got older and changed when their faculties were not as astute as their more youthful days ? I think that is largely irrelevant.

You and I both probably look back on things thought or said in our teen years or even 20s or 30s or 40s (don't know your age), and think now "What was I thinking ?"

Twenty years from now you could do the same thing.

As far as I know, Stephen Hawking (whom Sonship apparently would like to believe is afflicted by dementia)

Okay Duchess, we're talking about honesty now. Right?

I didn't say that. My intention was that it was just as easy for me to use that as an excuse for him perhaps being munipulated by propogandists. Publishers do like to sell million copy sellers. And titles are sometimes chosen by publishers with a mind to capture the most curious number of buyers.

I could just as easily imagine such excuses for Hawking as you do for Flew (if I wanted to).

Originally posted by RJHinds
Antony Flew on Richard Dawkins claim he is senile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MPne8NGgRE

He doesn't sound that demented to me. Old yes. Not clear minded? No, just slower talking as most people over 80 get.

In his later years, Antony Flew suffered from dementia, and his mind was obviously far from what it had been when he died in 2010. In my view,anything that he supposedly said, wrote, or thought in his later years
should be taken less seriously than what he said, wrote, or thought earlier.

I'll take issue with that point. How "later in life" is "later in life"?

The matter of acknowledging goes to the level of human conscience. Some people can suppress the intuition of their conscience for most of or even their whole life.

Some people with aging can come to a point where they just do not want or cannot suppress what their conscience has told them for a long time. To the world they present a display. Within their deepest awareness they may know something different. And they may decide to express their truer feelings late in life.

The New Testament says that no one is with an excuse to not believe in God because of the things created. The things created reveal the eternal power and divine characteristics of God. I expect atheists to object.

If a man decides he will not longer suppress what his conscience has told him for awhile, he may confess late in life that now he has reason to change his mind. It could be that before he considered the DNA molecule he already intuitively knew deep down in his conscience that created life spoke of an intelligent Creator of some kind.

With regard to his supposed last book_There is a God_ (2007), it was
written by Roy Abraham Varghese, an American Christian with no academic
credentials. Varghese makes arguments referring to minor philosophers
whom Antony Flew had not mentioned in his previous work.

I don't know the book. That it ceased opportunity to do such things would not susprise me. This is where I first entered into this discussion.

Indeed, it seems questionable that Antony Flew had read, comprehended, and remembered all, or perhaps even most, of the words that Roy Varghese
was writing in his name. Antony Flew had grown to trust Roy Varghese
(who has been ready to give his money freely to promote Christianity),
however, and he probably accepted whatever Varghese told him was in
the book without reading it carefully, if much at all.

Okay, you found some sensational book and suspect money making promotion of Christianity was the only motive.

So the videos of Flew discussing his change of mind should be dismissed as not representing his true thoughts ?

To sum up, the most likely case seems to be that Roy Varghese (and/or
some other American Christians) had convinced Antony Flew, who was
suffering from dementia, to trust him. [ /quote]

Your "most likely case" may be simple conspiracy theory and paranoia.

[quote]
An 84 year old man would not
have been the hardest target to seduce.

So we should not believe that Dr. Flew changed his mind about an intelligent source of DNA design ?

He is being fed cards to read and being directed by Christians what to say? I never heard him say he was a evangelical believer in a personal God, let alone Christ as Savior. I simply heard him say from his own mouth that he was now convinced that intelligence was responsible for DNA.

So some happy theists put up Youtubes who maybe never took as many philosophy classes as you. So what.

Lee Strobel, journalist atheist once become Christian, interviews Dr. Flew.

YouTube

What would you expect ?
Listen to the man's own words.
I am suppose to think he is being munipulated.
He says the evidence since Einstien's day was stronger now for intelligent design for life.

"Well, he's demented now" sounds a lot like sour grapes on your part.

Lee Strobel asks him if this intelligence is a "personal force or being?"
He is emphatic that he does not believe this being is personally involved with the affairs of people. He casts his disdain for the thought of punishment. He takes a swipe at Islam. He shows his skepticism toward any belief teaching punishment for not having the right religion. He says he has no respect for Islam as a system of thought. He says Christianity had two things - a first rate philosophical intellect (ie. Paul knowing all relevant languages and knowledge of the ancient world and ancient civilization) and "the defining instance of a charismatic figure in Jesus Christ."

These words are heard about 7:30.

The video seems presented in multiple sections of discussion. But no sense of putting words in his mouth or dishonest editing is detected by me. And it does not leave me with the impression of someone so unable to think clearly that he cannot reflect on his own intellectual shifts. He remembers and he states where he has changed views from before.

I don't presume to think Dr. Flew names the discussion as it is seen -
"Antony Flew on God and Atheism".
Personally, I don't pay that much attention to the titles of YouTubes which someone wishes to attract attention to. I listen to content.

YouTube

This seems to be an interview before he planned to write some book.

So a book was produced,
and Antony Flew was persuaded or manipulated to put his name on it.

There is no reason for me to think he is insincere in his interview.
He said he has no view on Jesus - a defining case of a charismatic figure which he says could be compared to the major figures of other religions.

He says that he hopes there is no afterlife.
He says he does not want to live on forever and certainly does not want to be tortured. When asked about a Savior he says he still does not want it. He finds continuous praising of God would not be wanted, he's is after all not musical.

I would not say that Stobel's questions are not meant to explore how close he has come to a Christian faith. They obviously are. But he obviously expect that Flew does not understand himself as doing anything which would be endorsed by Christians.

He says people praying for him is not something he thinks about.
If there is some hidden agenda to appear on the good side of Christianity I cannot detect it.

Even if it's true that by that time Antony Flew had come to agree with
Roy Varghese's 'thoughts' (many of which Flew seemed not to remember),
how seriously should one take the 'conversion' of an 84 year old man
suffering from dementia?

So the bottom line here is that you portray an old man, no longer too clear minded being exploited.

And I do not hope dementia on anyone as I have seen its effects in my own family. I don't wish dementia on Stephen Hawking and did not claim he was so. If I wanted to, which I do not, I could say Hawking's lattest book The Grand Design (which seems to have a reputation for denying intelligent design) also shows a marked decline in his intellectual powers from decades ago, and is likely being enfluenced by some money hungry propagandists.

How exemplary of astute analysis was it for Hawking to pronounce that "philosophy is dead" ? Do you think that that statement from him might display some declining intellectual wisdom also ?

You know you can simply link us to your thread if you intend to repeat.

Again Sonship continues his disingenuous path of ignoring the evidence of what already was written.

What is the evidence that I am ignoring?

Is the evidence I am ignoring that Antony Flew never had a change of position in which he now views some sort of intelligent deism is more believable to him than his former atheism ?

You don't have evidence that he did not change his mind.
You presented some arguing evidence that he was perhaps exploited by some shadow author of a book with his name.

What is your evidence that Flew never changed his mind ?

Look at the interview provided which I understand is before some book he was hoping to write.

4) As far as I can infer, Sonship might be (though I don't know for certain) under the impression that Stephen Hawking used to be a theist and then changed to atheism.

Why don't you answer my question.

Stephen Hawking announced in his latest book that "philosophy is dead".

Do you think that opinion could indicate some declining intellectual clarity compared to his work of 20 years ago ?

Well if you don't want to address it, another Cambridge professor regarded it as pretty ludicrous seeing the philosophy department of the same educational institution that Hawkings occupies, is quite strong.

John Lennox the mathematician comments on Hawking -

YouTube

I note with disdain that while Sonship has been searching through the entire internet for anything to support his preferred view of Antony Flew, he acts as though he's unable to look up the very recent thread in this RHP forum that kicked off everything written about Antony Flew here.

Don't know what duchess is talking about.

I simply re-visited an interview which I have seen long ago with Flew, looked it up, and made it available for anyone to see him talk about later opinions he had.

I am not "acting" as if I am unable to do anything.

It's a waste of time to attempt to help someone as extremely close-minded
and disingenuous as Sonship.

That's Duchess's decision.

I note that even GrampyBobby, a zealous
Christian who created the thread about Antony Flew (mentioned above),
has stopped harping about Antony Flew to the extent Sonship has done.

Antony Flew - 1923 - 2010 discusses live with interviewer (Christian apologist and professional journalist, former atheist, Lee Strobel)

I will continue whenever I feel it significant to mention that a well read Atheist Dr. Antony Flew later in life had a change of mind moving towards Deism and intelligent design of biological life, as the video indicates, and which I have no reason to discount regardless of other events Duchess wants to discuss.

Decide for yourselves -

YouTube


GrampyBobby, am I missing something here ?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

On the video Antony Flew said he was not going to write the book, not that he could not write it on his own.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

"1) On 22 January 2014, GrampyBobby (a Christian apologist) created a thread,
"How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind"..." -Duchess64
______________________________________

”How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind” Thread 157557

“I now believe there is a God...I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.” -Antony Flew

“Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature. But it is not science alone that guided me. I have also been helped by a renewed study of the classical philosophical arguments.” -Antony Flew, There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind"

"I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science." -Antony Flew (Page one)