Antony Flew, the brilliant atheist philosopher and debater, has passed away.
Update: If you want to know more about his “conversion” to deism at the end of his life, be sure to read Mark Oppenheimer’s The Turning of an Atheist.
Photo: John Lawrence
Recent Comments
- Jus: But you are not able to understand that these things are wrong… No, I do... on John Piper and Divine Command
- TrickQuestion: I will propose this to you then, Rich. Things are designed by someone(thing)... on Case For a Creator?
- Jabster: @Custy Why are you posts appearing out of order … that’s more... on John Piper and Divine Command
- Custador: When I finish work this afternoon, I will compile you a list so that you... on John Piper and Divine Command
- Theory_of_I: @Rich: “And add a little faith, whereby things which are seen were not... on Case For a Creator?
- trj: Sorry, Jus, I don’t think much of a god who bases his glory on genocide.... on John Piper and Divine Command
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
Countdown to theist lies about deathbed repentence in three… Two… One…
Um, actually, Flew didn’t wait for his deathbed. Creeping senility was enough:
The Turning of an Atheist
BTW, the linked article is a very good piece by Mark Oppenheimer which thoroughly demonstrates that Flew was not familiar with the names and arguments which appeared in the book of apologetics saddled with his name after his “conversion.”
Daniel, did you know about Flew’s (let’s not call it a conversion, more of an openness it sounds like to me) prior to posting this nice tribute?
Flew’s senile embrace of biological arguments which biologists do not find convincing does nothing to diminish the excellent contributions Flew made to philosophical discourse in his prime.
‘senile embrace of biologocal arguments’?
How is it, that after a life time of study, a man comes to the conclusion that possibly, just possibly there is a Creator after all (a position held by most of the world in one flavor or another BTW, and for most centuries) and that suddenly qualifies him as…senile? But up until that day he was just fine? He sounded quite lucid in his advanced years in the writings I read, those that you provided us.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, admit you have not read any of this man’s writings, and managed to squeeze an argumentum ad populum into your brief post. You elevate cluelessness almost to the level of art.
Truth! His muddled maunderings and pretensions to having read something, comprehended something, or known anything about someone, haven’t changed in two years.
Yep. I see it as a bit sad because it appears he was taken advantage of in his old age (and mind). But I admire many people who were deists (like Paine) and many others who are theists.
Every life is invaluable, I appreciate hearing all the various stories on both sides of the proverbial ‘aisle’. Thanks for sharing this man’s story with us, I hadn’t heard of him until today. (But admittedly, outside of UF, I’m not too terribly up to date on such things :) All the best.
Sad that he became a trophy only dimly aware of those fighting over him.
This is the tragic trap of authority based worldviews. People are fallible. If you attach your worldview to “so and so said so”, then you are just a cork tossed in the waves.
Better to make up your own mind.
Aw! Well, I guess he wasn’t a True Atheist. (tee hee hee!)
WIN!
I’m sure he is in a better place now. Ha!
“Passed away”!! Phooey. What you mean is that he died. Either that or you must explain to whence he ‘passed’.
It’s a euphemism. I don’t see what’s so terrible about it.
Away. Duh. ;^)
Don’t you mean “to whither he passed?” If you are going to use archaic pronouns, at least use them correctly.
Don’t you mean simply “whither he passed”?
;^)
whence = from where
whither = to where
Actually, the phrase “to whither” was in common use at the same time the pronoun “whither” was in common use. You can find it in Shakespeare, for example.
Hmm. I’ve just grepped the full texts of all Shakespeare plays plus the KJV bible, and here are the results:
Shakespeare:
whither occurs 91 times, to whither never occurs
whence occurs 84 times, of which 44 are from whence
KJV:
whither occurs 152 times, to whither never occurs
whence occurs 72 times, of which 27 are from whence
So, from whence: yes; to whither: no.
Get. Laid.
That is all.
Come now, archaic grammar is hot.
@Elem
You’re single aren’t you?
I’m pretty sure Elem is double.
Envious of my mad grepping skills, eh?
Some chicks dig that stuff, y’know.
p4n3d the p4n3r
U r s0 l33t! @ll h15 b@s3s r b3l0ng 2 u!
Muphry’s law (sic), it’s called.
Btw, since when did 4 stand for W? :^P
Oh, and I forgot to mention: whence and whither are adverbs or conjunctions, not pronouns. XD
RIP: Remember In Prime. Right?
True dat. Note to self: in later years, keep the cyanide pills handy.
Sucks he died, but the article on Wikipedia says he wrote a book called There Is a God: How The Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.
Because he was senile and scared of death?
I have trouble believing he wrote it. I read it, and it’s a mish-mash of Flew’s curriculum vitae and some of the worst Christian arguments trawled up from the depths of the internet.
I have to believe Flew’s contribution was just the biography, and then the second author, Roy Abraham Varghese, stapled on the Christian arguments. If Flew were even a decent philosopher, he would never believed those theistic lines of evidence as presented in the book. (Really. They’re that bad).
Of course, he might have been senile, but if he were senile, he wouldn’t have been able to put together his biography.
Duke
I’m not sure he was “senile” — but there was certainly evidence his mind had weakened. And from some of the interviews, it seems he didn’t even remember many of his old arguments anymore.
“… he wrote a book called There Is a God: How The Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.”
See the article I linked up near the top, by Mark Oppenheimer. He makes a very solid case the Flew did not write that book and is unfamiliar with the arguments it contained.
I do too. (Though not as well read as you.) I simply admire good thinkers with varied beliefs. I don’t have a problem with someone’s beliefs evolving and being subject to evaluation and change — and, I always hope. insight, logic, self-challenge and reason.
I have a *huge* problem with a bunch of prejudiced great unwashed making a disproportionate flap over his badly-miscalled “conversion”. Bullshit. One of the links says he still didn’t believe in the good ol’ christian foundations of hateful punishment (forever! bwaaahahahahaha!), needing to be “saved”, and all the spiteful crap designed to control people. *Big* difference from thinking there might be mind in the universe, which has *no* relation to the punitive christian crap.
I get the idea people will fall all over it, distort it, and make a biiiiig flap about it, very similar to the headlines you’ve mentioned, such as “atheist books found in arsonist’s garage”. The brainwashed bastards aren’t going to say “bible found in pedophile’s garage”………
Even though it was there.
Need more? Those wetting themselves over a so-called (miscalled) “conversion” to christianity from atheism are ignoring all of you who “converted” from christianity to atheism.
Aren’t they?
“Flew concluded that research into DNA had ‘shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved’.”
If our universe is but one of an infinite or even near infinite number of universes, life may occur on the one or ones with conditions congenial to life; there may be one such universe with such conditions, or many.
Yes, the odds for the rise of life may be “almost unbelievable” in one universe, just as the odds of one of us holding the winning lottery are almost unbelievable.
Yet someone does win the lottery, despite the odds, because even with lots of tickets, there are lots of ticket holders.
Ours may simply be the universe within the multiverse, in the galaxy and solar system among galaxies and solar systems, on the planet among planets, that holds the winning lottery ticket for life.
Dave, you should really check out the article Peter Cross linked to (this one). That book does not accurately portray Flew’s personal understanding, and even where it does, the beliefs it describe seem to have resulted from a combination of confusion, aphasia, senility, and a sense of being overwhelmed by technology and various seemingly knowledgeable theists. Flew’s views in his prime are much more coherent and illuminating; true works of art.
Thanks, Michael, I will.
Good article – I realize I’d read it a few years ago. It was good to refresh my own old mind.
Well, I’m pretty there aren’t very many coffin-to-coffin proselytizers to pester a person in the six-feet-under sphere. No money in it. So, perhaps from that perspective, yes.
On the other hand, his journey is done. Condolences to those who knew him and miss him. I do sincerely hope he felt satisfied at the end with where he’d gotten.