Imagine if one of the world's leading Christians--say C.S. Lewis a generation ago, or Billy Graham now--were to reject his religious beliefs and become a atheist. It would be big news! The New York Times would be all over it, for sure, and the question would be why a man who has devoted his life to God would now turn against Him? In sum, the focus would be on what were the reasons for the conversion and on what's so bad about Christianity.
Contrast this with the New York Times' approach to the conversion of philosopher Anthony Flew. Flew has been, for the past half-century, the world's leading advocate of atheism. No one has so relentlessly espoused the atheist cause, and no one has been more anthologized and eulogized by the atheist community. Other twentieth-century philosophers, such as Martin Heidegger and Bertrand Russell, were unbelievers but they did not make atheism central to their philosophical work as did Flew. Flew's atheism long precedes that of latecomers like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens.
Now, in his early eighties, Flew has rejected atheism and said he believes that God exists. He does not espouse the Christian God, but calls himself a Deist. He says he has a lifelong commitment to following the evidence where it leads, and that new advances in the sciences have shown him that materialism and Darwinism simply cannot account for the world as it is and life as it is. Examining the fine-tuning of the universe and the mind-boggling complexity of the cell (a compexity that evolution presumes but cannot explain), Flew now believes that the design of the universe requires a designer. He gives his reasons in a new book There Is a God which is co-authored with Roy Abraham Varghese.
When something like this happens, the New York TImes goes into mafia-style intellectual hit mode. They selected Mark Oppenheimer of Yale, who visited Flew in England and wrote a long piece in the November 4, 2007 New York Times Magazine suggesting that Flew converted because he is, well, senile. The basic idea is that Flew has lost his mind and can't remember anything, and when Christian apologists like Varghese were nice to him Flew basically surrendered to them and let them write his book.
The only evidence that Flew has lost his mind is that he's 84 years old. A man of 84 naturally loses some of his memory, especially for names, but this does not mean he has lost his marbles. Flew's own writings of the past few years are all entirely coherent and employ sophisticated philosophical vocabulary. While Flew seems to have asked his collaborator Varghese to write a draft of his life story, it was Flew who reviewed and approved the final contents. There is nothing in the Times' article that shows Flew to be incapable of a reasoned change of mind and heart.
I realize that atheists--including those at the New York Times--are embarassed at having to surrender one of their most stalwart champions to theism. Maybe they too should consider following the evidence where it leads? Too closed-minded to consider Flew's arguments, these fellows would much rather belittle the intellectual capacity of the man they once revered. Hell hath no fury like an atheist scorned.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 84)
1. I've stated in other blogs that many former atheists have become born-again Christians, preaching the gospel and enjoying a personal relationship with God. It is rare, if it happens at all, for a true Christian to suddenly stop believing because they already know the Master.
DENA at 2:24AM on Nov 16th 2007
2. I am an x-evangelical; perhaps Dinesh is unfamiliar with Billy Graham's esteemed colleague, Charles Templeton. Templeton began reading the Bible and found the evidence for Christianity lacking. Of course, Billy, who famously gave up seeking the 'truth' on a hill in San Bernardino, went on to fame and glory. Maybe Dinesh should evaluated which man had more courage and write a piece on that.
jpflan at 1:02PM on Nov 27th 2007
3. You have to focus on the fact that Flew is now a deist (as you've mentioned). He has not embraced Christianity so there really is nothing for fundies to celebrate.
lemon at 2:43AM on Nov 16th 2007
4. I guess that the writer's strike is affecting Dinesh's blog. His ghostwriter must be walking the picket line, so now he's showing reruns. I think I'll change the channel.
emelpe at 4:43AM on Nov 16th 2007
5. "Examining the fine-tuning of the universe and the mind-boggling complexity of the cell (a compexity that evolution presumes but cannot explain), Flew now believes that the design of the universe requires a designer."
DUH!!!!!!! It's SIMPLE COMMON SENSE - anyone with any common sense and/or who isn't driven by some fringe idea of thought knows this. Even the creators of "South Park" once said in an interview that Creationism makes a lot more sense than Darwinism/ the Big-Bang theory.
Cameron at 5:50AM on Nov 16th 2007
6. DARWINISM and ATHEISM: UNSCIENTIFIC and MYTHICAL
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
prffsrx at 6:28AM on Nov 16th 2007
7. A Porshe 911 is incredibly complex. If I saw one with absolutely no idea of how it was constructed, according to the "intelligent Design theory", I'd have to assume it was built by God. It couldn't function without the engine, transmission, axles, or wheels. the engine couldn't function without the radiator. the engine couldn't work without tempered steel. It wouldn't work right without the brakes. The rack and pinion steering are essential to making it go where you want it to go. The windshield keeps the bugs out of your teeth.
Assuming I had no idea of how it came about, I wouldn't know that dumb luck created many of the elements that bring it into being. Steel wouldn't be around if some guy hadn't noticed that certain rocks melt, and can be formed into useful things. Glass, the same. burn sand, and something useful comes out of it. the only elements that it incorporates, are ones that work and are useful, having been refined since the bronze age.
So the Porshe, which I'd never seen before, and had assumed to be created by a God, is really just the product of dumb luck, and things that are useful...
Sounds alot like evolution, doesn't it?
Ken at 6:45AM on Nov 16th 2007
8. Simple common sense... Because I don't know how something came about, it must be the product of an all powerful, superbeing. Not only is it a product of a superbeing, that superbeing is looking out for ME PERSONALLY. It doesn't matter how many bad things happen to me, or those around me. Even though the stories about the superbeing have so many holes in them,he must exist, because I exist.
What kind of common sense is that? The universe is balanced. If it wasn't, we wouldn't know about it, we wouldn't be here.
We are on a wet rock, that is in the "sweet spot" orbit around a star. There are 100 billion stars in our galaxy. There are billions of galaxies, thus countless trillions of stars. Yet this superbeing gives a rat's heinie about individual photons (Scale a human to the universe, we're probably smaller than that). Not only does he give a rat's heinie about you, when your nanosecond life is over, he's invited you to the afterparty - but only if you believe in him. Otherwise, it's Guantanimo Bay for eternity.....
Common sense?
Ken at 7:05AM on Nov 16th 2007
9. God is dead or he would not allow Dafur, Ruwanda,the war in Iraq to go on. If this God sits there and allows us to destroy his planet, he doesn't really care about his creation very much. We are God. Every one of us has a different vision of what God is and mold him to our liking. Yes even with the Bible and the Koran and other religious works we can always tweek it to fit our personal beliefs. There is no God. We all create our own God and it is ourselves.
Rick at 7:05AM on Nov 16th 2007
10. WOW!!! Now THIS is news!! aol's news blogs are REALLY delving into the hard-hitting important issues.
If the hero bush was doing a better job, and the Iraq INVASION was not such a hideous breach of all that is christian, I dare say double d would be writing about current events in these blogs moreso than this inflammatory, irrelevent muck.
stuart joshua at 7:08AM on Nov 16th 2007
11. Ken:
Man has created many things, the car did not evolve
on its own. Life from non-life not possible
Observant at 7:14AM on Nov 16th 2007
12. We have many organisms which make the great Porsche cars (with their quality engineering design) look like a $1 cheap metal car you buy in Walmart from that big bin...in order to quiet the son.
Has anyone here seen the engineering drawing done for the cilia (long "whips" on some amoeba - I forget the name). These cilia move to propel this tiny organism thru water. A blowup shows the "o" ring and other engineering stuff which helps the cilia to rotate efficiently.
An evolutionary biologist who yet sees a designer (Dr. Michael Behe) cites this engineered joint of the cilia "hair" or "whip" in his book Darwin's Black Box...out a few years ago.
Behe has significant research - and one would think - a controversial claim - that this would have made "mainstream news" and nightly forecasts....even if only for other scientists to "shoot him down".
Scientific concepts, studies, controversial hypotheses make the news all the time...so there is interest.
But as in the Anthony Flew case,
many in media are interested in preserving their view of "orthodoxy" and thus any of these subversive stories that MIGHT just MIGHT undermine the college taught skepticism of many news people...
get deep sixed to a back page or get HANDLEd in the most prejudicial way possible.
We dare not let the newest crop of college students and young researchers think for themselves.
Disperse the postmodern FOG at 7:24AM on Nov 16th 2007
13. Dinesh:
Enjoy your reports, keep up the good work.
Observant at 7:27AM on Nov 16th 2007
14. I hear from time to time about people who once were christian, and then later changed their mind, and now confess that they do not believe.
People who change their mind and become unbelievers
never had anything to start with.
It is a change of heart not a change of mind.
With the heart man believes unto righteousness.
Observant at 7:38AM on Nov 16th 2007
15. "Flew has rejected atheism and said he believes that God exists. He does not espouse the Christian God, but calls himself a Deist. "
I'm a rationalist, which is a secular label for what Christians would call an atheist. What this guy believes is a lot closer to what I believe than what a Christian believes. I still respect this guy. At least he hasn't fallen for the petty, jealous, capricious caricature of the biblical God.
Do Christitans really accept him as one of their own?
fabio at 8:09AM on Nov 16th 2007