How the World's Most Noted Atheist Changed His Mind

[rug]

Last edited Mon May 20, 2013, 06:00 PM - Edit history (2)

by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
May 19, 2013

EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew (1923-2010) was the world's most famous atheist. Long before Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris began taking swipes at religion, Flew was the preeminent spokesman for unbelief. However in 2004, he shocked the world by announcing he had come to believe in God. While never embracing Christianity-Flew only believed in the deistic, Aristotelian conception of God-he became one of the most high-profile and surprising atheist converts. In 2007, he recounted his conversion in a book titled There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. Some critics suggested Flew's mental capacity had declined and therefore we should question the credibility of his conversion. Others hailed Flew's book as a legitimate and landmark publication. A couple months before the book's release, Flew sat down with Strange Notions contributor Dr. Benjamin Wiker for an interview about his book, his conversion, and the reasons that led him to God. Read below and enjoy.

Dr. Benjamin Wiker: You say in There is a God, that "it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from denial...to discovery." Everyone else was certainly very surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden. But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual process-a "two decade migration," as you call it. God was the conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn't there a point in the "argument" where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that "There is a God" after all? So that, in some sense, you really did "hear a Voice that says" in the evidence itself "'Can you hear me now?'"

Antony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself-which is far more complex than the physical Universe-can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.

Wiker: You are famous for arguing for a presumption of atheism, i.e., as far as arguments for and against the existence of God, the burden of proof lies with the theist. Given that you believe that you only followed the evidence where it led, and it led to theism, it would seem that things have now gone the other way, so that the burden of proof lies with the atheist. He must prove that God doesn't exist. What are your thoughts on that?

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=17569#.UZqSXU7D-M9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

[dimbear]

1. Actual WMFA during that period: Bertrand Russell.

Even Russell admitted he couldn't be 100% sure there was no god, just that for practical purposes there wasn't a god.

[longship]

2. I am not surprised by the use of "notorious" here.

Notorious in common parlance implies some evil or bad intent. After all, without religion, atheists have no basis of ethics. Even some atheists here have stated the equivalent today.

I object to the title, fully realizing that it was not the choice of the DU who posted it.

I really get sick and tired of such characterizations. Atheists hear and read them all the time. I just have to shake my head and wonder what it is going to take to turn this around.

[rug]

3. That's a very good point I hadn't considered. The headline works perfectly well without it.

Fuck it, I'm taking it out.

[longship]

4. "Noted" would work. nt

[rug]

6. Argh, I just put in "famous' but "noted" is more precise.

[longship]

7. Another post with 18 edits...

(If I told you once, Longship, I've told you a million times, "Don't exaggerate!&quot

[LostOne4Ever]

18. THANK you! (nt)

[Starboard Tack]

5. Interesting, and not very surprising.

Flew was a thinking man, and as such, found it easier to reach a conclusion that a force greater than man, call it God, was responsible for the creation of our universe. I can go along with that, to a degree, in the sense that such an God was already part of a pre-existing infinity, of which our universe is but a part. As he said, he was a deist, not a theist, which still makes him somewhat of an atheist.

[rug]

9. Apparently DNA was one of his intellectual turning points.

“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, There Is A God, How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, 2007, p. 75]

(P.S. to longship: "notorious" is in the goddamn subtitle!)

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. Bad arguments are bad

I'd hardly consider the turning point "intellectual", given that his argument is entirely subjective. Complexity doesn't ipso facto imply design, and just because he couldn't fathom DNA arising on its own doesn't make it so.

Whatever his reasons for turning to faith may have been, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest they may have been personal/emotional, and not intellectual/objective.

[skepticscott]

8. So another idiot

got suckered in by the Argument from Design. Wow...this just brings atheism crashing down around us as worldview.

[hrmjustin]

13. He is an idiot because he believes now?

[Act_of_Reparation]

20. No. He's an idiot because the argument from design is patently stupid.

It's completely fallacious, and has been roundly defeated again and again and again, for decades.

[skepticscott]

24. Exactly...and Flew knows that perfectly well

he just had to shut that part of his brain off and go back to thumb-sucking.

[Jim__]

10. "Some critics suggested Flew's mental capacity had declined ..."

His mental capacity seems to have remained quite sharp up to the point where he had this Q&A.

[Goblinmonger]

21. Except he fell for the watchmaker argument.

Which is kind of ridiculous. I mean, he's arguing creationism here. Sure maybe not fundie, young-earth creationism, but, still, creationism.

[Jim__]

22. He did not "fall for the watchmaker argument."

He argues that the origin of life and reproduction cannot be explained through biology. Three atheists: Thomas Nagel, Jerry Fodor, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini have made similar arguments - not arguing for the necessity of an intelligent source, but rather arguing that there must be an overriding physical law that explains the origin and evolution of life.

Of course, we can always argue that anyone that disagrees with our ideas is failing mentally. But, that would be somewhat of a dogmatic argument.

[skepticscott]

25. Uh....that IS the watchmaker argument, dude

The argument that X can't possibly be explained by natural means, but only by invoking the supernatural (i.e. god).

[Jim__]

33. No, actually it isn't.

The watchmaker argument is an argument by analogy. Flew is not making an analogical argument.

[skepticscott]

34. It happens to be both

Come back when you really understand it.

[Jim__]

35. If you're claiming that Flew is making an analogical argument, please point to the analogy.

If his argument is not analogical, then it's not the watchmaker argument.

[skepticscott]

39. The watchmaker argument is very simple

"I can't see how X could have arisen naturally, therefore there must be a watchmaker/creator/etc. that brought it about" That's exactly the (deeply flawed) argument Flew is making.

As I said, come back when you understand it.

[Goblinmonger]

36. I don't even know where to start

First, Just because he doesn't say it is organized like a watch is so it much have a "watchmaker" doesn't mean he isn't falling for the same fallacy. He says it is too ordered to have just happened naturally. How is that not the same argument.

Second, "must be an overriding physical law" is different from "explained through biology" how exactly? Are you saying he is nitpicking between physics and biology? Because that doesn't sound like what he is doing. It sounds like he is saying that there must be a creator that planned all this.

Third, from what I have read, people that knew him said that these people were taking advantage of him while he was failing mentally in his old age. I'll go with them.

Fourth, are you telling me you agree with this guy? Because I thought creationists were fair game on DU as being not all that bright. And this guy is arguing for creationism, albeit not young-earth creationism necessarily.

[rug]

37. There is a vast difference between stating the earth was created as literally described in the Bible

and stating that there is a creator.

The former is what is most often understood to be "creationists". The notion of a creator is common to most of the major religions.

[Jim__]

38. The watchmaker argument is analogical, his argument is not.

Therefore, his argument is not the watchmaker argument.

No, I don't agree with him. I'm saying that because we disagree with someone, doesn't mean that he is failing mentally.

According to the interview, it was a 20 year migration on his part. So, when people claim that he changed because others were taking advantage of him in his old age, they are claiming that Flew was failing in his 60s. Since the interview was given when he was in his 80s, that's a hard claim to accept.

Here's his basic argument about the need for an intelligent being to explain life:

Antony Flew, who spent most of his life as an atheist, converted to deism late in life because of the anthropic principle.[48] He concluded that the fine-tuning of the universe was too precise to be the result of chance, so accepted the existence of God. He said that his commitment to "go where the evidence leads" meant that he ended up accepting the existence of God.[49] Flew proposed the view, held earlier by Fred Hoyle, that the universe is too young for life to have developed purely by chance and that, therefore, an intelligent being must exist which was involved in designing the conditions required for life to evolve.[48]

That's not the watchmaker argument.

My point is quite simple. We can disagree with someone's argument without assuming that they are mentally failing. To me, it makes much more sense to engage with an argument than to merely attack and ridicule the person making the argument.

Here's a simple question, at the time of the earth's formation, what was the probability that life would evolve? Now, lots of people can throw down answers to that; but how many can cite evidence to support their answers? Was the probability closer to 98% or 0.001%? And what do you base your answer on? Note, it is not a valid probabilistic argument to claim that life evolved therefore the probability was 1. As far as I know, no one knows the answer, or even which probability is closer. If my understanding is correct, then there is no basis for dismissing arguments about the origin of life that don't conflict with the evidence merely because we disagree with the conclusions.

[LiberalAndProud]

11. So, he progressed to deism.

The question he does not address is from where did this highly organized mind come? If a highly organized universe requires a creator, can the creator exist without having been created?

I cannot see myself taking this same path to deism any more than I can place value on someone claiming to have literally heard the Voice of God. It seems to be a profoundly personal experience, but it is only persuasive to those who are already convinced.

Still, Sagan had it right about characterizing God as a set of universal laws. If that is the definition God, then so it is. Praying to these laws, on the other hand, seems irrational.

[kwassa]

23. Not really

Still, Sagan had it right about characterizing God as a set of universal laws. If that is the definition God, then so it is. Praying to these laws, on the other hand, seems irrational.

This presumes one knows all the necessary universal laws. Praying is about guidance on the laws one hasn't experienced yet, for wisdom, insight, and the openness to see them in the first place.

[Phillip McCleod]

12. the argument from complexity for the existence of an 'intelligent source'..

..has one great big gaping loophole..

there are whole classes of complex systems whose complexity is precisely the property responsible for emergent orderly states.

chaos theory, aka, complexity science 101.

[dimbear]

15. The Exploitation of Anthony Flew

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2007/11/the-exploitation-of-antony-flew/

An article from back in the day that touches several salient points........
like the memory gaps, the pseudoscience Flew began to swallow, and so on.

*************
November 6, 2007 By Adam Lee

Have you heard the shocking news? The world’s most notorious atheist has converted!

No, it’s not Richard Dawkins.

Or Sam Harris.

Or Christopher Hitchens.

Or Dan Barker.

Or Michael Newdow.

Or Julia Sweeney.

No, this world-famous, notorious atheist convert is the philosopher Antony Flew.

If you’re wondering, “Who?”, you’re probably not alone. Antony Flew is a British philosopher, now retired and of advanced age. ************

[SecularMotion]

17. From the link

The only conclusion I can draw is that these apologists are taking advantage of a confused, elderly man in a state of cognitive decline. There’s little evidence that Flew even understands the controversy he’s at the center of, much less that he changed his position as the result of any new arguments. These apologists insinuated themselves into his life, won his confidence, and then pushed him to agree to their claims when he no longer knew what he was agreeing to, and are now using him as a prop to promote their antiquated, irrational superstitions. (Although even by the most Christian-friendly interpretation of these events, Flew is now a deist, not a Christian – which one would think, in their eyes, leaves him just as damned as if he’d been an atheist.)

Just to be clear, I don’t expect this to have the slightest impact on the atheist community. We are not atheists because we follow Antony Flew (or Richard Dawkins, or Sam Harris). We follow these people because we are atheists and find their positions in agreement with our own. Even if Antony Flew had converted in his prime, that would have no persuasive effect on me unless he could show the facts and evidence that led to this decision. The Times article mentions “what others have at stake”, but in fact there is nothing at stake other than the sad story of a worthy philosopher’s legacy being coopted late in life by confidence tricksters.

[LostOne4Ever]

19. This!

Never heard of the guy before and most of the literature on skepticism that im familiar with is ANCIENT (Thomas Paine, Hume, Darrow, Ingersoll).

[rug]

30. He sounded positively addled.

Flew: I accept the God of Aristotle who shares all the attributes you cite. Like Lewis I believe that God is a person but not the sort of person with whom you can have a talk. It is the ultimate being, the Creator of the Universe.

Wiker: Do you plan to write a follow-up book to There is a God?

Flew: As I said in opening the book, this is my last will and testament.

Rather than the exploitation of Antony Flew, Adam Lee's article is more the attempted destruction of Antony Flew. He could not have possibly come to a different conclusion short of dementia.

[struggle4progress]

16. ... He thought he saw a argument that proved he was the Pope. He looked again and found it was

a bar of mottled soap ..."

The Mad Gardener's Song
Sylvie and Bruno (1889)
Lewis Carroll

[goldent]

26. I agree with him on the complexity argument

Modern particle physics seems so wacky - why does it get increasing complex as you go deeper and deeper? And there are aspects of the origin of life that have no good explanation (that I've heard). Also, we have been working on artificial intelligence for 60+ years, and it is pitiful how little we have to show for it.

I don't use these as evidence of God because I think that we might possibly make progress - but our ignorance in these areas gives me doubts.

[exboyfil]

28. Only 60 years?

Evolution is not a random process and it has had billions of years (at least 2 billion years for eukaryotes).

I do agree with you on modern particle physics, but I am not going to run off and say that it is supernatural in origin. The energies involved to test the origin can never be duplicated, and we do not yet have instruments capable of detecting dark matter. Dark energy and inflated expansion?? I don't know, but if I said God did it, then I would not continue to look for understanding.

I would not call us ignorant. We do understand a great deal and nothing we have discovered to this point would lead to only a supernatural conclusion.

The human brain is the most complex thing found in nature, and, yes our technology has not duplicated it, but we can easily see how it evolved through selective pressures.

[goldent]

29. Well I guess artificial intelligence has been studied more than 60 years

in a philosophical context, but I guess I consider that the practical work started with the advent of computers in the 1950s.

As I had stated, I don't use our poor understanding of nature and life as evidence for God. By definition, the supernatural is not an acceptable answer in science (well, it would be if you could explain the supernatural, to make it natural, but I think we've then just formed the circle). But if it were an acceptable answer, then based on the odds I was given, I would put some money on it.

[exboyfil]

27. I am not an atheist but I think that it

is dangerous to ever argue that any physical process does not have a natural source. If you say it is supernatural then you have immediately shut down all lines of inquiry. Treat all processes as natural and let the science fall where it may. In another 100 years we may identify things that cannot be explained and the argument for a supernatural source is strengthened. What is observable is that what once were huge gaps are being increasingly filled in by valid scientific theories with observable and model results. Evolution is an incredibly powerful process and, combined with billions of years of time can easily account for what is observed today. We do not yet have a theory for the origin of life (the first organisms in which the process began), but I think we are knocking on that threshold as well. As soon as any natural process is shown to lead to the evolutionary mechanism kicking in, then it is game over for biological science. Consider organizational behaviors of such things as prions (and viruses to a lesser extent). Also natural organizations that occur in nature (crystals for example). Lots of hypothesis out there now (RNA world, organizing clay, etc).

If I was to guess we will have identified at least one process for the origin of life within the next 30 years. It does not have to be the actual process (which may have been lost over time) but any credible process (remember a billion years for bacteria to organize into their first observable form in fossils). That is a long time to run the experiment.

[sigmasix]

31. what did he write?

I know I have a book or two by him from back in the day- I wanna say he authored a text book as well, but I'm not sure.

The argument from complexity and the watch-maker critisism is old hat and really only considered interesting in introductory philosophy courses.
I was a confirmed, informed and aware atheist for my entire adult life(29 years) until 7 years ago. I had an experience that answered some outstanding questions I had in a way that was eminently truthful for me and a personal paradigm shift. The radical change in belief structure was not accompanied by a new, previously unconsidered argument or scientific proofs. The fact is that the faith experience is a highly subjective state of mind- not so very different from aesthetic considerations.
Atheistic assumptions should be part and parcel of the scientific endeavor, and anyone that would suggest that science speaks to faith, or vice-versa, has missed the point of the distinction between the personal and the public.

I have sufficient evidence to convince me that there is some sort of over-arching intelligence at work in our universe- however the evidence doesnt come from the same species of arguments that science is from. There is no inconsistency of beliefs or appeals to supernatural agencies to explain the physical universe; pragmatic aestheticism leaves the question of faith to the ministrations of the aesthetic judgement of the individual- making it a highly personal, subjective undertaking. It is this very personal aestheticism that makes the faith experience so very powerful. Of course it isnt repeatable in a lab; faith is not a creature that is subject to the same requirements, evolution or proofs as scientific articualtions about the state of the universe.
More often than not I will side with atheists because of the strength of science unshackled by theistic mistakes like the argument from complexity and the watch-maker critisism. Expecting science to adhere to the dogmatic implications of any religion is a threat to science and our future. Silly notions like ID and weather controlled by prayer are pre-enlightenment tribal and religious markers brought into our century by those that are still stuck there.
I know this isnt a popular viewpoint, but I believe it is perfectly conceivable to allow a rich life of faith while maintaining an honest, exhaustive allegiance to true science that discards all appeals to a creator and structural limitations that are based on dogmatic interpretations of the feelings of the faithful.

Mr. Flew is entitled to find worth in the faith experience whether he can explain the reasons with out relying on dead arguments or not. He probably ought to refrain from publishing those arguments and expecting people to respect them, though.

One thing I would add: since discovering an avenue to faith my life has taken a turn for the better in many ways- releaved anxiety, confidence, forgiveness and empathy are emotions that have been charged and looking for new challenges. I have discovered a "reason" in my life that I never felt before and the subjective fear of death has shrunk to a niggling itch of curiousity. No one should change thier beliefs because of the experiences of others- and no one should allow another person to convince them to change thier minds about this stuff. The faith experience is wholly subjective and completely dependent on the readiness of the individual. no science will ever prove or disprove God's existence and no amount of belief in God is going to change the objective proofs of science's implications. Find it for youself- therein lies complete understanding, if there ever will be.

[rug]

32. Quite a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew#Works

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and a belated welcome to DU.