For the past half century, the leading atheist in the world was philosopher Anthony Flew. He wrote over 30 philosophical works laying the intellectual groundwork for nonbelief. He debated Christian apologists. He was widely cited in atheist literature and at atheist conventions. What distinguished Flew was how comprehensive and fully-developed his atheist philosophy was. Other philosophers, such as Bertrand Russell and Martin Heidegger, espoused atheist beliefs but those beliefs were incidental to their philosophy. Atheism was Flew's philosophy. HIs works such as Theology and Falsification and The Presumption of Atheism were considered classics of theist thought.
Then Anthony Flew became a believer, and his book There Is A God describes his intellectual journey. Go ahead and order this book, along with my new book, What's So Great About Christianity. Together the two books represent what atheism has always dreaded: historically based, philosophically rich, scientifically fluent, logically reasoned refutations of atheism.
Flew says he has a lifelong commitment to going "where the evidence leads." And now, he calmly says, the evidence leads to theism. His own past writings have been exposed as a "relic." Flew writes, "My discovery of the divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena...It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor do I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. My discovery of the divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith."
Flew's argument for God combines science and philosophy, and I'll let you discover it for yourself in his book. What I enjoyed was the way he uses simple analogies to expose atheist illogic. For instance, leading atheists seek to prove that the mind is no more than the brain. If the brain is destroyed, they say, we can't use our minds. Therefore there is nothing to minds excerpt circuits and neurons. Flew gives the example of a child raised on a remote island who finds a satellite phone. Voices come out of the machine. The child recognizes these voices as human and is thrilled by the discovery that she has found a way to interact with other humans. Perhaps there is life outside the island! Then the elders of the tribe (if I may embellish Flew's account, let's call them Big Chief Dawkins, Grand Pooh Bah Dennett, and Witch Doctor Pinker) scorn the child and say, "Look, when we damage the instrument, the voices stop. So they're obviously nothing more than sounds produced by the unique combination of metals and circuit boards. Forget about learning about other humans. From all the evidence we have, we are the only living creatures on earth. So go back to making sandcastles." Who are the real dummies here?
Anthony Flew has been banished from the atheist community. Anthologies have been reprinted removing his essays. Atheist websites condemn him as an apostate. (Atheist toleration does not extend to former atheists.) He doesn't even make the case for Christianity, as I do. But Anthony flew out of the atheist cuckoo's nest, leaving anger and confusion among the unbelievers. And now Flew tells us why he rejects atheism. The atheist monopoly on public debate is over: the theists are striking back.
Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 23)
61. 1. Atheistic monopoly on public debate? What reality-inverted planet are you on, sir?
Anthony Flew's well-publicized change of view is years old news. He didn't exactly hide his light under a bushel. Why bring it up now other than as a commercial exercise?
Carol at 5:24PM on Oct 10th 2007
62. 59. 1. Atheistic monopoly on public debate? What reality-inverted planet are you on, sir? Absolutely, Steve. I feel oppressed by our culture's non-stop Christian rhetoric and I am not even an atheist.
Anthony Flew's well-publicized change of view is years old news. He didn't exactly hide his light under a bushel. Why bring it up now other than as a commercial exercise? A commercial exercise is exactly what it is. D'er asks you to buy Flew's book and his. He is using old news (and tired views) to flog his appropriately overlooked book.
Carol at 5:29PM on Oct 10th 2007
63. Why does he keep harping on leading evidence, reason, and fact and then offers a faulty analogy which provides neither evidence, fact, nor reason?
Rather than use fact to prove his case, he takes his case which is factually unproven, compares it to a so-called analogous situation which is factually proven, then says...they are are the same.
No, they are not the same. One is proven, one remains unproven.
A better analogy would be if the kid on the island had picked up a seashell and put it up to his ear and determined that the sounds he heard were songs of his ancestors. Then we could say, like the brain, that the interpretation of seashell harmonics creates an illusion of something that is not confirmed empirically.
Break the shell or punch a hole in it, and the illusion disappears.
He should simply take a cue from Joseph Campbell.
One man's religion is another man's myth.
Religion is metaphor and inference not to be confused with fact and history.
Read religious texts as poetry instead of history and you will understand their true meaning.
Treat religion as metaphor and it's impossible to be wrong. Treat it as fact and you're usually wrong.
eriknsf at 5:29PM on Oct 10th 2007
64. I believe it takes more faith to not believe in God then it does to believe. For "Nature is the living, breathing garment of God" - Goethe
Why is it difficult for people to see this? It is all around us. I can look at a child, a tadpole becoming a frog, even a piece of grass or a leaf and see that God is very VERY real.
Haylotx85 at 5:44PM on Oct 10th 2007
65. You might be a fundy atheist if...
• You think God was cruel for killing all of those innocent babies in the flood, and that Christians are cruel for opposing a woman's right to abort her baby.
• You can't remember if she was Mother or Sister Teresa, but you can name every pedophile priest listed in the media over the last seven years.
• You think the USA is a theocracy.
• You object to any mention of "God" and "Jesus" in the media and education systems — except as swear words
• You think marriage is an obsolete fundy institution — except for homosexuals
• 'Thinking for yourself' means adopting an atheist viewpoint.
• You think that Christianity is a 'virulent memeplex' and that atheism is the 'cure.'
JSM at 5:43PM on Oct 10th 2007
66. "Jesus is God. Read His claims and follow Him.
Do not waste time thinking otherwise. It is very simple."
DO NOT WASTE TIME THINKING??
This is a MAJOR reason atheism is getting popular these days.
JSM - Not all atheists are intelligent. Some of them use bad reasoning in arguments. This doesn't do anything to prove or disprove the existence of a god (or many gods). I assure you the theists out there have their own share of bad reasons, annoying dogma, hatred, and scorn. You're wrong about atheists though. They aren't pissed at "god". They're pissed at all of the "christian" lunatics out there making decisions based on a collection of very unlikely stories written a long time ago.
Jesus deserves the utmost respect as a philospher and he had a lot of brilliant ideas, but I see no reason to believe any of the supernatural stories in the Bible any more than I need to believe in greek mythology.
I often hear Christians speaking of Jesus's love and how powerful and comforting it is. I know what they are talking about because I used to be a Christian Sunday school teacher and I used to have those feelings. But you know what? I grew up and I don't need an imaginary friend or his imaginary love and compassion anymore. Maybe in my lonely old age I will return to that comfort like Flew and Lewis did, but for now I just annoyed at all of the people out there basing thier actions on these mythologies. It's messing up American politics and education, and that's why atheists are getting angry.
Michelle at 5:58PM on Oct 10th 2007
67. Hi JSM!
I'm sorry about the length of this, but I'd like to respond to your post:
"I just joined this blog an am loving it. I love the culture wars. I am unabashfully a Christian and love to see atheist get so riled up about "God.""
Very nice! That sounds like a very Christian attitude!
"Here are a few comments I would like to say about the evangelical atheist among us."
I'm not evangelical, so I guess this doesn't apply to me. I would like to help clear up some confusion, though.
"• You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief in God” and not just “belief that there is no god" as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life."
It is a meaningful distinction. A lack of belief in something is very, very different than believing in the lack of something. The fact that those two phrases seem so alike at first glance is definitely an unfortunate aspect of English.
If one has a lack of belief in God, then one just feels that evidence is required for God's existence before subscribing to that theory.
If one believes in no God, then one would feel that there is evidence present, and that evidence points towards God not existing.
I can understand how you might not feel that there's an important distinction between them, being someone that believes in God yourself, but it is actually important to people that feel that way.
"• You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique."
Don't forget the flying spaghetti monster! I believe that those sorts of things are chosen to emphasize what the arguer believes are the more ridiculous points of religion.
"• Isaac Newton does not count as an example of a great scientist who believed in the Bible since he died before the Origin of Species was published."
I've never heard any atheist claim this, and evolution, while a widely accepted theory, is not a requirement for being an atheist.
"• You think that every scientist who believes in Design and doesn't mindlessly accept evolution as a fact is a "kook," but you believe that Francis Crick (Nobel Prize winning co-discoverer of DNA), who reached into his nether regions and pulled out the "theory" of Directed Panspermia (which states with absolutely no support that aliens seeded the earth with life - see the movie "Mission to Mars"), is a great evolutionary scientist."
Most atheists don't believe in intelligent design, I would guess, since the most common "designer" would be a God-like being. Since atheists are defined by not believing in something, though, as opposed to belief in something -- it's a bit hard to lump them together.
I personally feel that scientists that believe in intelligent design are wrong, but that doesn't make them any less capable of making observations about the world around them.
"• Any scholar who believes in a historical Jesus must be a theist."
That's a bit of a general statement. Are we talking about someone named Jesus that wandered around the Mediterranean preaching, or a Jesus that exhibited magical and/or supernatural powers?
"• You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because it mentions "the creator"."
I don't want to sound like I'm attacking you, but that's a pretty silly statement. The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with how the country is run. Name me a court case that cited the Declaration of Independence as the reasoning for the decision.
"• You desperately wish that Stalin and Mao hadn't been atheists."
I agree with that! I desperately wish that Stalin hadn't lived, let alone been an atheist. I think it's a common human feeling not to want to be associated in any sort of way with someone bad, just as most Christians don't like to be associated with the people that ran the Inquisition.
"• You believe that Hitler claiming to be a Christian is undeniable proof that he was a Christian, while George Washington only claimed to be a Christian in order to win the people's favor."
There may be a reason that some people feel this way. For the longest period of time, it wasn't safe to be open about being an atheist. It makes sense that someone might lie and say they were religious to gain favor with people. It does work both ways though, but I can see how Washington would have more to gain from saying that than Hitler would.
"• You assert that the 300 Protestants put to death under the reign of "Bloody Mary" in 16th century England stand as absolute proof of the inherent evil of Christianity but the tens upon tens of millions killed by Marxist regimes under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot in the 20th century have absolutely NOTHING to do with the profound atheism inherent in these regimes."
Christianity in and of itself isn't evil. In fact, the New Testament is full of all sorts of positive ways that people should treat each other. Religion is something that many people feel strongly about, perhaps more strongly than anything else. Therefore, in the past, it was used as a horrible excuse to cause great suffering in others.
It's hard to say that it would have been different even without religion, people might have just found other things to fight about.
There is a difference to fighting in the name of religion, and being a religious person that fights. There's that same distinction for atheists. Communists fought to spread communism, which just happened to have atheistic tendencies. Saying that Stalin killed millions in the name of atheism is like saying that Hitler did the same for Christianity (if he was really Christian).
Tembuki at 6:06PM on Oct 10th 2007
68. In response to "Haylotx85" at number 63.
It takes no effort not to believe in something, just like it takes no effort not to want to play baseball.
The human mind is great at seeing patterns for which it is actively looking, so what may seem obvious to you is not something that other people see. That doesn't make you more right than them.
Tem at 6:07PM on Oct 10th 2007
69. The bible states that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"...knowledge does not constitute wisdom...for example, you KNOW your gas tank is on empty...that is knowledge, but WISDOM has to do with action...it tells you what to do about it...we are truine beings...we are 1.spirit=home of conscience, wisdom and creativity 2. we are soul=emotions and we are thirdly,3,body=taste, touch, smell etc....Those scientists listed all had the fear and wisdom of God...I believe their wisdom came from having that close knit day to day trust in the Lord, and God guiding their thoughts and actions to come up with their various discoveries! When you are a christian, you are ALIVE in your spirit, soul and body...when you are NOT a christian, you are NOT alive in your spirit...you need to make a connection with your Creator spiritually...read His word, find out who He is and what He is all about, maybe go to church, seek Him out and you will find Him, because He is what is missing in your life, that empty void that neither sex, material things, other people can not fill it...we were made to worship a God...and to have that spirit empty and no life in God, is to be spiritually dead...those who are spiritually dead, live by their soul/emotions and body/fleshy desire only...we were made to function as a WHOLE person, that means spirit, soul, and body...just as the scientists did! I give God the credit for their wisdom!
Bridget at 6:13PM on Oct 10th 2007
70. Even if and when our ambition to understand completely disproves god, many of us will still need and desire him, or simply reformat the idea of a guardian, and after life into whatever advancement we make. It is true; it does take a lot more devotion to admit that there are no such pleasant things waiting for us in the great beyond.
But we are all straying away from the main point with our arguing and stuff:
This Dinesh guy is only using his blog to make money, and his opinions arn't very enthralling for an AOL-supoorted blog. :(
Rory at 6:16PM on Oct 10th 2007
71. AND might I add...in that specific order, spirit, soul and body...the spirit MUST be predominant in your life over all,controlling the emotions and the body ...like a rudder on a ship...
Bridget at 6:20PM on Oct 10th 2007
72. Hi, the Christian Michelle here.
I always come off as so sanguine, so not to be taken seriously. I dont know why. In real life I dont act like that, but I do mean what I say here. And sanguine is not even my total temperment. Now,
#1 How do you athiests explain those new age people that float?
#2 And Dinesh is selling his book not just for money, but to inform people of what they need to hear.
Michelle at 6:21PM on Oct 10th 2007
73. Oh, just realized, the other Christian Michelle I am. Hey you other guys, Ive been called Michelle almost all year here. Hey Michelles, Change your name! Unless you had it longer than me.
Michelle at 6:23PM on Oct 10th 2007
74. I wish Dinesh would reply to people's posts on his blog. Obviously some of them aren't worth commenting on, or are so far off-topic as to not be worth his time.
Some people made valid responses to the voice box analogy, though. How do you feel about those, Mr. D'Souza? Does it violate some hidden rule of elite bloggers to respond to the hoi polloi running amuck underneath your post?
Tem at 6:24PM on Oct 10th 2007
75. Sorry, I didnt read all that that other Michelle said. She does seem to be an athiest.
Michelle at 6:26PM on Oct 10th 2007