AN
Continuing from my Re: what would happen if I lived to 2037 and Jesus has not come? with your next question:
[Left: Former atheist philosopher Antony Flew's book, "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind" (2007).]
2. Regarding Anthony Flew leaving Atheism. You stated : "Victory of Theism". I think it's more accurate to state "Victory of Deism", since Flew didn't subscribe to any particular religion.
I never claimed that Flew did subscribe to any particular religion. And I maintain an up-to-date copy of every blog post I have made, and a search of those does not find where I stated that Antony Flew's conversion from atheism to deism was a "victory of theism."
Although since atheism, "the belief that God does not exist," is the negation of theism:"
atheism ... noun the belief that God does not exist. - DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective. - ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos `god'." ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 2008),
then "leaving Atheism" by Flew, who was one of the world's leading atheists, was in that sense a "victory of theism."
And even if I had stated that Flew's leaving atheism was a "victory of theism," since deism is a form of theism, because theism in the broadest sense is the view that there is a God:
"theism Belief in the existence of God." (Blackburn, 1994, "The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy," p.375).
"theism ... is the view that there is such a thing as GOD." (Vesey & Foulkes, 1990, "Collins Dictionary of Philosophy," p.283).
"theism ... the belief that there is one God, a personal being with every perfection ... existing entirely separately from the world ... the view that God interacts with the world is rejected by deism, which ascribes to God a decisive role in originating the world, but none in keeping the world going ..." (Mautner, 2000, "The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy," p.561).
and deism also affirms there is a God, but denies that God is concerned with human affairs and/or intervenes in His creation, including in giving special revelation like the Bible:
"deism Historically, a term referring to the doctrine of `natural religion' ... according to which while reason ... assures us that there is a God, additional revelation, dogma, or supernatural commerce with the deity are all excluded. ... God may only be thought of as an 'absentee landlord'." (Blackburn, 1994, Ibid., p.110).
"deism ... belief in God as a perfect personal being; differs from THEISM by not accepting doctrines that require belief in revelation. ... there is one supreme God; .... True religion is identified with Christianity-but a reinterpreted `rational' Christianity which has no place for any special revelation." (Mautner, 2000, Ibid., pp.126-127).
"deism ... a line of rationalistic religious thought that affirms that there is a GOD but denies that he should be understood in any mystical way. The antecedents of deism go back to ARISTOTLE'S First Mover, who ...is otherwise unconcerned with human affairs." (Vesey & Foulkes, Ibid., 1990, p.76).
But even if theism is defined in a narrower sense of "belief in the existence of ... a creator who intervenes in the universe":
"theism ... noun belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. Compare with DEISM. - DERIVATIVES theist noun theistic ... adjective. - ORIGIN from Greek theos `god'." ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," 2008).
and deism is then defined in the sense of "belief in the existence of ... a creator who does not intervene in the universe":
"deism ... noun belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. Compare with THEISM. - DERIVATIVES deist noun deistic adjective" ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," 2008)
then Flew's position is not deism but theism, because he believes that there is a God who intervened in the Universe to create the first living organism (see below).
Flew had claimed his version of deism affirmed that "God was not actively involved in people's lives":
"A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century ... now believes in God ... Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives." (Ostling, 2004, "Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God," Livescience).
and he later defined his God as "not the God of revelation":
"... Deists believe in the existence of a God but not the God of revelation." (Flew, 2008, "The Atheist Delusion Of Richard Dawkins," pp.48-49).
But Flew also affirms that God intervened supernaturally in the already existing Universe to create the first life:
"Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said ... biologists' investigation of DNA `has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,' Flew says ... `It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,' he wrote." (Ostling, 2004, Ibid.)
"... when asked if recent work on the origin of life pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence, I said: `Yes ... because ... the DNA material has ... shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It's the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.'" (Flew, 2007, "There Is a God," pp.74-75).
Therefore, according to the Oxford Dictionary above, Flew's position is actually "theism ... belief in the existence of ... a creator who intervenes in the universe".
Moreover, Flew's version of deism (which is actually theism) cannot logically deny that God could also intervene in the Universe at strategic points in life's history, as my Progressive Creation position maintains:
"Progressive creationism accepts much of the scientific picture of the development of the universe, assuming that for the most part it developed according to natural laws. However, especially with regard to life on earth, PCs hold that God intervened supernaturally at strategic points along the way. On their view, Creation was not a single six-day event but occurred in stages over millions of years..." (Pennock, R.T. , 1999, "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism," MIT Press: Cambridge MA, Fourth printing, pp.26-27).
And therefore neither could Flew logically claim that "God was not actively involved in people's lives", because a God who can and did intervene supernaturally in the Universe to produce "that first reproducing organism," could also be "actively involved in people's lives" (as uncountable millions of people - including me - have claimed down through the ages and still claim today).
And in fact Flew's position is that the God he believes in is "a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being":
"I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being." (Flew, Ibid., 2007, p.155).
who he admits is God:
"The last of my public debates, a symposium at New York University, occurred in May 2004. .... To the surprise of all concerned, I announced at the start that I now accepted the existence of a God." (Flew, 2007, "There Is a God," pp.74-75).
But "self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient" are attributes of the Christian God who "intervenes in the universe" and is "the God of revelation." And Flew admits that "You cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence ... Everything else is open to omnipotence":
"... the question of whether the Divine has revealed itself in human history remains a valid topic of discussion. You cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence." (Flew, 2007, Ibid, p.157).
Is it possible that there has been or can be divine revelation? As I said, you cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence." (Flew, 2007, Ibid., p.213).
which means that the "omnipotent, and omniscient" God that Flew believes in, could have supernaturally intervened in His Universe, in progressive creation, special revelation and "in people's lives."
In fact, while Flew has in the past has "taken issue with many of the claims of divine revelation or intervention" his "current position ... is more open to at least certain of these claims."
"In both my antitheological books and various debates, I have taken issue with many of the claims of divine revelation or intervention. My current position, however, is more open to at least certain of these claims." (Flew, 2007, Ibid, p.185).
Moreover, Flew regards Christianity, among all "other religions" as "the one to beat":
"As I have said more than once, no other religion enjoys anything like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. If you're wanting omnipotence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat!" (Flew, 2007, Ibid, p.157)
"... I think that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. ... If you're wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat." (Flew, 2007, Ibid., pp.185-186)
In particular, Flew admits that, "the claim concerning the resurrection [of Christ] is more impressive than any by the religious competition":
"... I addressed the claims of Christianity to some extent. ... Today, I would say the claim concerning the resurrection is more impressive than any by the religious competition." (Flew, 2007, Ibid, p.187).
Indeed, Flew has not ruled out the possibility of him becoming a Christian, and he even suggests the problem of unbelief in Christianity is on his side, i.e. he has not "made contact with this Mind. ...yet" but "Someday I might hear a Voice that says, `Can you hear me now?'":
"The discovery of phenomena like the [fine-tuned] laws of nature ... has led scientists, philosophers, and others to accept the existence of an infinitely intelligent Mind. Some claim to have made contact with this Mind. I have not-yet. But who knows what could happen next? Someday I might hear a Voice that says, `Can you hear me now?'" (Flew, 2007, Ibid, pp.157-158).
As I have previously pointed out, Flew is actually more theistic than most theistic evolutionists I have debated, because most of them, even though they claimed to be Christians, denied that God supernaturally intervened even to produce the first life:
I pointed out in my debates with atheists on my (now terminated) list CED that Antony Flew, although now he calls himself a "deist", is more theistic than most of the "theistic evolutionists" I have encountered, in that few of them would concede that God supernaturally intervened, even at the origin of life. ("Roman Catholic Church's `wedge'", July 15, 2005).
So although Flew claims he is a "deist" his position actually is already theism (in that he accepts that there is a God who has intervened supernaturally in the Universe to bring about the origin of life) and he is moving towards Christian theism!
Continued in "Re: Christianity has no future and is in decline."
Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: , TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!
"deism Historically, a term referring to the doctrine of `natural religion' emerging in England and France in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, according to which while reason (particularly the argument to design) assures us that there is a God, additional revelation, dogma, or supernatural commerce with the deity are all excluded. Supplication and prayer in particular are fruitless: God may only be thought of as an 'absentee landlord'. Leading deists included Herbert, John Toland (1670-1722), whose Christianity not Mysterious (1696) was an influence on Berkeley, and Anthony Collins (1676-1729) as well as Shaftesbury and, arguably, Locke. The belief that remains is abstract to vanishing point, as witnessed in Diderot's remark that a deist is someone who has not lived long enough to become an atheist." (Blackburn, S., 1994, "The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Reprinted, 1996, p.110).
"theism Belief in the existence of God. Theism is also a morbid condition brought on by excessive tea-drinking, but this is a different sense of the word, or an instance of homonymy. See also deism, monotheism, polytheism, and different topics within the philosophy of religion." (Blackburn, 1994, p.375).
"The last of my public debates, a symposium at New York University, occurred in May 2004. The other participants were the Israeli scientist Gerald Schroeder, author of best sellers on science and religion, notably The Science of God, and the Scottish philosopher John Haldane, whose Theism and Atheism was a debate on God's existence with my friend Jack Smart. To the surprise of all concerned, I announced at the start that I now accepted the existence of a God. What might have been an intense exchange of opposing views ended up as a joint exploration of the developments in modern science that seemed to point to a higher Intelligence. In the video of the symposium, the announcer suggested that of all the great discoveries of modern science, the greatest was God. In this symposium, when asked if recent work on the origin of life pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence, I said: `Yes, I now think it does ... 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 are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It's the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.' This statement represented a major change of course for me, but it was nevertheless consistent with the principle I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life-of following the argument no matter where it leads." (Flew, A.G.N., 2007, "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," HarperCollins: New York NY, pp.74-75).
"Science qua science cannot furnish an argument for God's existence. But the three items of evidence we have considered in this volume-the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization, and the existence of the universe--can only be explained in the light of an Intelligence that explains both its own existence and that of the world. Such a discovery of the Divine does not come through experiments and equations, but through an understanding of the structures they unveil and map. Now, all this might sound abstract and impersonal. How, it might be asked, do I as a person respond to the discovery of an Ultimate Reality that is an omnipresent and omniscient Spirit? I must say again that the journey to my discovery of the Divine has thus far been a pilgrimage of reason. I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led meto accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being." (Flew, 2007, p.155).
"Where do I go from here? In the first place, I am entirely open to learning more about the divine Reality, especially in the light of what we know about the history of nature. Second, the question of whether the Divine has revealed itself in human history remains a valid topic of discussion. You cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence .... As I have said more than once, no other religion enjoys anything like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. If you're wanting omnipotence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat!" (Flew, 2007, p.157).
"The discovery of phenomena like the [fine-tuned] laws of nature-the communications network of the parable-has led scientists, philosophers, and others to accept the existence of an infinitely intelligent Mind. Some claim to have made contact with this Mind. I have not-yet. But who knows what could happen next? Someday I might hear a Voice that says, `Can you hear me now?'" (Flew, 2007, p.158).
"Up to this point I have discussed the data that led me to accept the existence of a divine Mind. Those who hear these arguments almost inevitably ask what I think about the claims of divine revelation. In both my antitheological books and various debates, I have taken issue with many of the claims of divine revelation or intervention. My current position, however, is more open to at least certain of these claims. In point of fact, I think that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. There is nothing like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. Virtually all the argument about the content of the religion was produced by St. Paul, who had a brilliant philosophical mind and could both speak and write-in all the relevant languages. If you're wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat." (Flew, 2007, pp.185-186).
"Today, I would say the claim concerning the resurrection is more impressive than any by the religious competition. I still believe that when historians professionally are looking at the evidence, they surely need much more than what is available. They need evidence of a different kind. I think the claim that God was incarnate in Jesus Christ is unique. It is difficult, I think, to realize how you are going to judge this other than by believing or not believing. I cannot quite see that there are general principles to guide you in this." (Flew, 2007, p.187).
"I am very much impressed with Bishop Wright's approach, which is absolutely fresh. He presents the case for Christianity as something new for the first time. This is enormously important, especially in the United Kingdom, where the Christian religion has virtually disappeared. It is absolutely wonderful, absolutely radical, and very powerful. Is it possible that there has been or can be divine revelation? As I said, you cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence." (Flew, 2007, p.213).
"A less important point which needs to be made in this piece is that although the index of The God Delusion notes six references to Deism it provides no definition of the word deism. This enables Dawkins in his reference to Deism to suggest that Deists are a miscellany of believers in this and that. The truth, which Dawkins ought to have learnt before his book went to the printers, is that Deists believe in the existence of a God but not the God of revelation. In fact, the first notable public appearance of the notion of Deism was the American Revolution. The young man who drafted the Declaration of Independence and who later became President Jefferson was a Deist, as were several of the other founding fathers of that abidingly important institution, the United States." (Flew, A.G.N., 2008, "The Atheist Delusion Of Richard Dawkins," Quadrant, October, pp.48-49).
"deism... (Lat. deus god) n. belief in God as a perfect personal being; differs from THEISM by not accepting doctrines that require belief in revelation. Post-Reformation religious conflicts led many thinkers to attempt systems of NATURAL RELIGION which would be based on rational insight, independently of any revelation, and therefore universally acceptable. They were also driven in this direction by the difficulties arising from the attempts to reconcile reason and religion. The word deism, which can be traced back to French writings in the 1560s, was used for many of these systems. (So was the word theism: its modern sense is quite recent.) Herbert of Cherbury is commonly regarded as the first English thinker to have provided a formulation of deism, in the 1620s. He held that there are five basic tenets or common notions of natural religion: (1) there is one supreme God; (2) God ought to be worshipped; (3) worship consists in virtue and piety; (4) wrongdoing should be repented; (5) there are divine rewards and punishments in this life and the next. These tenets are rationally knowable and constitute the basis for a true universal religion. The main thrust of deism comes to expression in the titles of works like John Toland's (1670-1722) Christianity not mysterious: or a treatise showing that there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason, nor above it: and that no Christian doctrine can be properly called a mystery 1696, and Mathew Tindal's (c. 1657-1733) Christianity as old as the creation: or, the Gospel the republication of the religion of nature 1730. True religion is identified with Christianity-but a reinterpreted `rational' Christianity which has no place for any special revelation. A classical formulation of a deistic view is Rousseau's `The profession of faith of the Savoyard vicar' in Book 4 of his Emile 1762." (Mautner, T., ed., 2000, "The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy," [1996], Penguin: London, Revised, p.126-127).
"theism ... (Gr. theos god) n. the belief that there is one God, a personal being with every perfection (perfect power, perfect knowledge, perfect goodness, perfect justice, etc.); creator of the world, manifested in the world, interacting with the world, but nevertheless existing entirely separately from the world; a being that is the one and only proper object of worship and obedience. Theism is common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Theism can be contrasted with a variety of views: (1) the view that there is one God is rejected by polytheism, which claims that there are many gods; in contrast, traditional Western religions are also said to be monotheistic; (2) the view that God is a personal being is rejected as anthropomorphic in some philosophical systems, which rather conceive of God as an absolute, nonpersonal being; (3) the view that God is distinct from the world is rejected by pantheism, which identifies God and the world; (4) the view that God interacts with the world is rejected by deism, which ascribes to God a decisive role in originating the world, but none in keeping the world going; (5) the denial of the existence of any divine being is called atheism; (6) the suspension of judgement on the question whether theism is true is called agnosticism. Many of the teleological, cosmological, ontological, moral, etc. arguments for the existence of God are intended to establish theism." (Mautner, 2000, p.561).
"A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God -more or less -- based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives. ... Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates. There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife. Yet biologists' investigation of DNA `has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,' Flew says in the new video, `Has Science Discovered God? .... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. `It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,' he wrote." (Ostling, R.N., "Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God," Livescience/Associated Press, 10 December 2004).
"deism, n. (from Latin deus god) a line of rationalistic religious thought that affirms that there is a GOD but denies that he should be understood in any mystical way. The antecedents of deism go back to ARISTOTLE'S First Mover, who moved `the first heaven' at the circumference of the universe but is otherwise unconcerned with human affairs. Deism proper arose with the RENAISSANCE and particularly the ENLIGHTENMENT. It is not a school in any sense, but rather typifies a general approach to religion: individualistic, non-mystical, non-institutional and often anti-clerical. To mention only two great philosophical figures, both LOCKE and KANT took a deist position. As an anti-authoritarian way of thinking, deism in modern times is one of the results of the Protestant REFORMATION. Insofar as it implies a general spirit of tolerance (witness Frederick the Great's dictum that in his realm everyone could save his soul in his own fashion), deism remains in effect a living force today. Besides, toleration in religious matters tends to spread to other human concerns, particularly social and political." (Vesey, G. & Foulkes, P., 1990, "Collins Dictionary of Philosophy," HarperCollins: Glasgow, Reprinted, 1999, p.76).
"theism, n. (from Greek theos god) is the view that there is such a thing as GOD. Depending on how many of them one takes there to be, we have monotheism (one god), polytheism (many gods) and appropriate compound terms for numbers in between. Theistic views may be based either on simple faith, or on attempts at accounting for what happens in the world. For the latter case, a whole range of arguments for the existence of god has been considered by philosophers over the ages. All of these proofs have been rejected by some philosophers, but the question remains controversial in that some others may accept them. Much here depends on what the god in question is taken to be like, and what his existence must account for: some regard god as the creator of the universe, as a giver of moral laws, as a source of universal benevolence, as an ultimate judge, or as several of these at once. Whether the proofs carry weight depends on whether one accepts the premisses. Where the only ground for admitting the existence of a god is unexamined belief, argument is of course ineffective either way. Some arguments have been conclusively refuted. Thus, the notion that there could be no morality without a god has been quite undermined by PLATO in the Euthyphro. That the thought of a powerful being who can put things to right offers comfort to many, is indubitable. VOLTAIRE, with tongue in cheek, says that if God did not exist one would have to invent him." (Vesey & Foulkes, 1990, p.283).
Posts
