One Flew over the Theist's Nest

Theism seemed to have scored a major victory almost 20 years ago when respected English philosopher Antony Flew, for decades the leading academic atheist and author of God and Philosophy and other important works, announced he was a deist, although he was inconsistent on this point. (For example, his draft of a new introduction to the 2005 edition of God and Philosophy contained a declaration of deism--but he deleted it just before the book went to press.)

At this time Flew was in his last years and would soon be known to be suffering dementia. All of this culminated in a book, There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, published in 2009 and actually ghostwritten by Christian apologist Roy Abraham Varghese (some of whose work was re-ghostwritten at the publisher's direction by another Christian apologist). 

To this day Christians who keep up with such things hail the "conversion" of Flew, with much help from obituarists and other newspaper writers.

But we have much reason to take the story with a 10-pound sack of salt. As one reads about it, one detects the strong stench of something decidedly unkosher, including the possibility of the cynical exploitation and manipulation of an eager-to-please, impressionable, and too-trusting man on the cognitive decline. It all adds up to a very sad tale.

One thing needs to be said from the start. In an important sense, no believer or disbeliever should care. As Flew himself understood throughout his long career--he died in 2010 at the age of 87--what matters is the argument, not the espouser. That should hardly be controversial. If a famous logician suddenly announced that he was convinced that A can be not-A at the same time and in the same respect, we would not take him seriously. The argument from authority has both legitimate and illegitimate senses. The first holds that if reputable authority says X, that is enough to warrant taking his argument seriously in order to see if his argument makes sense. The illegitimate sense holds that if an authority says X, then X must be true. So if lifelong atheist Antony Flew suddenly says he sees a scientific case for a god, we would be justified in putting his argument on our to-read lists, but that's as far as his reputation would take us. The rest depends on the argument. Would anyone argue with that?

As you read about this controversy, it quickly becomes clear that Flew never claimed to have come up with a new scientific argument for the existence of a god. From Flew himself and other sources, it's clear that what led to his deism (and not revealed religion)--his belief in an Aristotelian unmoved mover--were just old, long-rebutted scientific assertions: the complexity of DNA, the allegedly fine-tuned, life-supporting universe, the origin of life, and so on. All of these things have been discussed and dissected ad nauseam. Nothing new here, people. Moreover, Flew told people that while he was impressed with the scientific arguments theists were making for God, he really had not kept current with the scientific literature. In correspondence and in an interview, Flew acknowledged that his memory had been failing. In an extensive correspondence with Richard Carrier, Flew retreated from his new-found theism, only to return to it somewhat later. He was clearly impressionable at this stage of his life. 

Regarding the book manuscript that Varghese initiated and ghostwrote, Flew told Mark Oppenheimer, "This is really Roy's doing. He showed it to me, and I said. O.K. I'm too old for this kind of work!" Varghese agrees he wrote the book but says he based it on Flew's remarks and writings in the previous years--which is perplexing because, as Carrier shows, Flew contradicted himself repeatedly in those years, whether due to his failing memory or some other reason. For the record, Carrier reports that in a statement that mysteriously appeared after Oppenheimer's article, Flew claimed he stood by the book 100 percent. But Carrier gives us much reason to doubt that Flew wrote the statement or if he did, that he was in any condition to understand it. Judge for yourself.

And another thing. Surprising as it may seem, Flew, the son of a Methodist minister, was never a hardcore or aggressive or "positive" atheist. At the height of his career, he disbelieved in any god but had not believed affirmatively that god was a fiction. I learned this with some disappointment in 1974 when I read George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God. In that book, Smith quotes Flew's statement that "all the phenomena of the universe can and must be explained without reference to any principle or principles in any sense 'outside', or beyond.'" Smith goes on:

Thus far I am in complete agreement with Flew, but in defending his position, he writes:

The reason why atheist naturalism must have at least this initial priority over theism is that it is the more economical view. The theist as such postulates more than the atheist, and, in a consequence, the onus of proof must rest on him.

As Smith notes, Flew was invoking Occam's Razor. Naturalism is simpler than supernaturalism, and so until it fails, it must be chosen as the best explanation. Smith goes on:

Again, in God and Philosophy, Flew writes of his Stratonician Presumption that it [naturalism] "defeasible of course by adverse argument." This is where I must take issue. Flew is quite right in insisting that the natural universe must constitute the starting point of our inquiry, and he is correct in pointing out that the burden of proof falls solely on the theist. But Flew is wrong, or at least misleading, when he grants to theism the theoretical possibility of gaining a foothold by dislodging naturalism through argumentation. There is no such possibility, even in principle.

Naturalism has the priority over supernaturalism, not because it is the more economical of the two explanations, but because it is the only framework in which explanation is possible.... [Emphasis added.] [T]he contest between naturalism and supernaturalism is not a battle between two rival modes of explanation, in which naturalism is selected because it is a better or more economical mode of explanation. Rather, naturalism is selected because it is the only possible method of explanation. [Emphasis in original.] Naturalism is the only context in which the concept of explanation has meaning. 

Once the theist removes himself from the framework of natural causality and the general principles or "laws" by which man comprehends the universe, he forfeits his epistemological right to the concept of explanation and precludes the possibility of explaining anything.

A last word. One struggles to see why Jews, Christians, or Muslims would gloat over Flew's alleged conversion. At most Flew claimed he'd become a deist, although he neglected to say this when he had clear opportunities to do so, such as in his 2005 introduction to his classic God and Philosophy. In other words, he apparently came to believe that a creator designed the universe but then retired and certainly does not intervene in human affairs. He likened his view to that of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, who were not Abrahamic monotheists. This is a far cry from the jealous and vengeful Almighty Master of the Universe to whom one prays for favor, who watches us incessantly, and who demands worshipful submission to its every command. As Christianity Today put it in 2004, "One of the most prominent atheists of the last century now says he believes there must be some kind of God, based on scientific evidence. But Antony Flew is careful to say that he's merely a deist, and rejects any notion of a God of revelation." Indeed, Christianity Today quotes from an Associated Press interview in which Flew said:

I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins. It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.... I don't believe in the God of any revelatory system, although I am open to that. But it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before.

 

By the way, in 2001, after rumors had circulated that Flew had become a Christian, he responded in "Sorry to Disappoint, But I'm Still an Atheist." He invoked this article when rumors again spread in 2003. After that he embraced nothing more than deism, if that.
Are theists so desperate for celebrities that they had to grab onto Flew for dear life?

For details on the controversy and other relevant material, see these articles:

"Theology and Falsification: A Golden Jubilee Celebration," by Antony Flew, The Secular Web. Flew's first paper on the God question.
"Sorry to Disappoint, But I'm Still an Atheist," by Antony Flew, The Secular Web, Aug. 31, 2001
"The Presumption of Atheism," by Antony Flew, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, September 1972
"The Turning of an Atheist," by Mark Oppenheimer, New York Times Magazine, Nov. 4, 2007. Oppenheimer interviewed Flew."
Following the Argument Wherever it Leads," by Kenneth Grubbs, eSkeptic
"Anthony Flew Considers God--Sort of," by Richard Carrier, The Secular Web. This is a detailed and much-updated account of Carrier's extensive correspondence with Flew and a description of ensuing developments. It's a must-read.
"Antony Flew's Bogus Book," by Richard Carrier, Richard Carrier Blogs, Nov. 6, 2007
"Antony Flew, Philosopher and Ex-Atheist, Dies at 87," by William Grimes, New York Times, April 16, 2010
"Atheist No More, Flew Still Rejects Revealed Religion," Ted Olsen, Christianity Today, Dec. 1, 2004
"Flew's Flawed Science," by Victor Stenger, secularhumanism.org. Stenger is a physicist.