One Flew Over to the Dark Side

[Libertarian]

Not only did I find this an interesting article....but a few of the links at the bottom are interesting as well.


Unlike many other modern philosophers, Flew has a high regard for the person of Jesus. Early in the interview, he stated rather abruptly: "There's absolutely no good reason for believing in Islam, whereas in Christianity you have the charismatic figure of Jesus, the defining example of what is meant by charismatic." By charismatic, he means dynamic and impressive. He dismissed views that Jesus never existed as "ridiculous."

Later I asked, "Are you basically impressed with Jesus?"

"Oh yes. He is a defining instance of a charismatic figure, perplexing in many ways, of course." Beyond this, Flew remains agnostic about orthodox views of Jesus, though he has made some very positive remarks about the case for the Resurrection. In the journal Philosophia Christi he states: "The evidence for the Resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion." No, he still does not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. However, he told me, the case for an empty tomb is "considerably better than I thought previously."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/004/29.80.html

 

[Riddick]

yes, that is an interesting link. i hadn't seen that site yet, looks informative. thanks man!

 

[RandFan]

Not only did I find this an interesting article....but a few of the links at the bottom are interesting as well.http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/004/29.80.html

Interesting. If I were still a Diest I would find myself aligned with Flew.

 

[Kopji]

Flew has had to assure former students that he does not now believe in revealed religion.

If I may ask since the article did not mention it, what is it precisely in "ID science" that he finds so convincing?

Why only one god? Why not four or five?
Why not an alien conglomerate?

As I read it, he's wasted almost his whole life and additionally misled countless people to incorrect conclusions about what?
Their eternal doom? No, not that.
Belief in Jesus Lord and God? No not that either...

His action 'becoming a deist' just has no meaning I can discern. Maybe one of the philosophy guys can help me out.

What does Flew believe now that he did not as an 'atheist', that has any relevance to anything?

 

[Robin]

It is, of course, no small matter that one of the world's leading philosophers has moved somewhat closer to the side of the angels.

Am I the only person who had never heard of Flew until he supposedly rejected atheism? Is he really one of the world's leading philosophers?

When Flew originally attacked theism more than 50 years ago, there were few Christians working in philosophy.

Few Christians working in philosphy 50 years ago? I don't think so.

 

[stamenflicker]

Yeah Flew is pretty respected. You can go to about any bookstore and get "The Dictionary of Philosophy" and see Flew's name on it. We spent considerable time on Flew in seminary because he and Russell were two of only a very few anti-theist philosophers whose logic was worth countering during the last century. Flew's most convincing argument to me was regarding the theists problem with evil, unfortunately it is currently missing from my bookshelf so I'm afraid to summarize it and not do it justice. It was a good argument as I recall, better than some of the half-cocked stuff you read on these forums. I probably lent it out long ago, since I've settled the issue as best I can in my own soul.

I'd suspect one reason so many haven't heard of Flew, or even Plantiga (who is a great philosopher in my estimation) is that so much of the philosophical dialogue exists in a place that many people (erroneously) believe to be non-negiotiable. The thing that seperates Flew and even Russell from so much of what I read here in "Randi" is an acknowledgement of the limitations of Reason, Knowledge, and Science; as well as an acknowledgement of what is needed to fill the utter void in that very same Reason, Knowledge, and Science that each enlightened human being loves and cherishes so deeply.

I think it was Jung who so powerfully put it: Science is perfect for telling us "How" a nuclear bomb can be made, but to get at the "Why" of its making requires us to enter a wholly different set of maxiums. Flew was an honest philospher, which is probably why I came out of seminary 15 years ago with a deep respect for the guy... even if he didn't agree with my Christian beliefs.

My only reason for being here is a wish or a hope of finding the company of such intellectually honest people. Unfortunately, my stay here has been riddled with an intellectual bigotry that can only take a soul back to 1960 Selma Alabama.

Flick

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...My only reason for being here is a wish or a hope of finding the company of such intellectually honest people. Unfortunately, my stay here has been riddled with an intellectual bigotry that can only take a soul back to 1960 Selma Alabama...

Nice.

Just to make it clear, I'm being sarcastic.

 

[Robin]

Yeah Flew is pretty respected. You can go to about any bookstore and get "The Dictionary of Philosophy" and see Flew's name on it.

What Dictionary of Philosophy is that? I tried the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Nothing - not even an index entry. You would think that if Flew was really "one of the world's leading philosophers" he might rate some mention.

 

[Robin]

Yeah Flew is pretty respected. You can go to about any bookstore and get "The Dictionary of Philosophy" and see Flew's name on it.

Oh, I see, you mean the Dictionary of Philosophy by Flew. That doesn't make him a leading philosopher.

 

[Kiless]

Found this - a blog 'search engine' that outlines a few links:
http://www.blogpulse.com/04_12_09/link_11.html


*********

In regards to stamenflicker:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870396436#post1870396436
This post doesn't particularly show much respect to the participants...('nice dodge people') ... although I fail to see where a similar lack of respect is shown to you.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870823744#post1870823744
"This is why I left this forum. Basically, in spite of my sincere belief that there is intelligence among the atheist / agnostic community, one is hard pressed to find it here."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870838009#post1870838009
People appear to respond to you with consideration here... but that's just my opinion....

Where, exactly, is an example of 'intellectual bigotry that can only take a soul back to 1960 Selma Alabama' ?

 

[Robin]

Where, exactly, is an example of 'intellectual bigotry that can only take a soul back to 1960 Selma Alabama' ?

I second that, stamenflicker, can you give examples?

 

[ceo_esq]

Oh, I see, you mean the Dictionary of Philosophy by Flew. That doesn't make him a leading philosopher.

For what it's worth, I agree with Stamenflicker's assessment of Antony Flew's eminence in the field of contemporary philosophy. Any university student taking a survey course of 20th-century philosophy, or a course in philosophy of religion, is bound to be assigned an article or book excerpt of Flew's to read. Some of Flew's longer efforts (such as An Introduction to Western Philosophy) are indeed among the standard works in the genre.

Here's a summary of Professor Flew's professional biography:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/flew-bio.html

 

[Ladewig]

My only reason for being here is a wish or a hope of finding the company of such intellectually honest people. Unfortunately, my stay here has been riddled with an intellectual bigotry that can only take a soul back to 1960 Selma Alabama.

Flick

I just read two threads in which you posted and saw that you did make valid points that were ignored by other posters.

Are there specific threads where you feel you faced intellectual bigotry?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...Are there specific threads where you feel you faced intellectual bigotry?

The poster in question is welcome to define what he/she means by "intellectual bigotry" as well, so that we might better assess the claim vis-a-vis its equation with race riots, water guns, and attack dogs circa 1960.

 

[Robin]

For what it's worth, I agree with Stamenflicker's assessment of Antony Flew's eminence in the field of contemporary philosophy. Any university student taking a survey course of 20th-century philosophy, or a course in philosophy of religion, is bound to be assigned an article or book excerpt of Flew's to read. Some of Flew's longer efforts (such as An Introduction to Western Philosophy) are indeed among the standard works in the genre.

Here's a summary of Professor Flew's professional biography:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/flew-bio.html

Is his eminence as a philosopher, or as a teacher/historian of philosophy? Both the examples of his published works given appear to suggest the latter. As I said earlier neither the Cambridge or Oxford dictionaries of philosophy mention him, nor does the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Let me make this clear I am not criticising Flew - he is undoubtedly a significant figure.

But I am disputing the claim that he is one of the world's leading philosophers, I can't see any evidence for this. As for his being an "icon and champion of unbelievers" as one article claims, well this unbeliever had never heard of him.

My other dispute was with the claim in the article that there were few Christians involved in philosophy 50 years ago. De Chardin and Maritain spring to mind immediately, but there were many Christians involved in philosophy throughout the twentieth century.

 

[stamenflicker]

Robin,

Oh, I see, you mean the Dictionary of Philosophy by Flew. That doesn't make him a leading philosopher.

I'd be curious to know what would make a "leading philosopher." I think starting a new thread would be a good thing on this issue. Here's a kickoff question:

In your opinion, who are the leading philosophers of the last 30 years, say 1975 - current?

I don't know if Flew would make my top 3, but it would probably make my top 5.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

Kilness,

In regards to stamenflicker

As to any thread that has my name in it, it is important to note that a) I post in a very limited number of threads; b) I tend not to post in threads that are obviously mean-spirited or demeaning and there are lots of those here; c) there is no doubt you can pick a sentence or two or maybe thirty that aren't pleasant. However the ones you picked aren't really that.

The first one you quoted, "nice dodge" wasn't meant as a slam, just an intro quip. As you can see I ended my statements with "peace."

The second link you posted is a great example not of intellectual bigotry so much as stubbornness. I wish you'd read the whole thing. Thanks for posting it because in many way it epitomizes this forum on the Randi.org site.

The final link I think is an exchange with Robin. Robin's mostly a pleasant poster, although its like oil and water in a debate.

So,

The poster in question is welcome to define what he/she means by "intellectual bigotry"

Intellectual bigotry is not saying my way of thinking is right, yours is wrong--- we all do that; rather, it says:

"My way of thinking is superior, yours is inferior." It is less about logic or reason, and more about power and/or punishment.

Also it is important to note, that for this to occur, "Stamenflicker" doesn't have to be in a thread. "Stamenflicker" is just one person, and its not about me. Rather it is the context from which a community chooses to operate.

The context of this post is a contrast between Flew and the forum. So reason would try to tie my comments to Flew and associate them with prior threads, be they mine or anyone elses. Power-over / power-under takes it as an opportunity make it about Stamenflicker and the forum.

So in the context of my post, I mention that Flew acknowledges the limitations of his knowledge, as well as finds merit in modes of thought that are not his own. For the record, so did Camus and so did Russell. These are two atheists whom I greatly respect and read often. Whereas this forum is less about atheism, and more about anti-theism. I do not use those words interchangeably.

I doubt there are many here who could name three theists they read often or respect as thinkers. Why? Because the theist thinker is inferior, I've about so much as heard such comments here. Whereas Flew, in the link provided, mentions Plantiga, a theist thinker whom he respects. Clearly he is not a thinker whose intellectual processes exist in a superior / inferior realm. Rather, he is more likely through reason and logic to say, "I'm right, you are wrong and here is why I think so."

Flick

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

Flick -

Flew may be respected within Philosophy of Religion, and from what I've gathered he's generally read quite broadly in seminaries or other philosophy classes outside of philosophy departments. But as far as Philosophy itself goes, he's practically a non-entity.

The first time I ever heard of him was when the whole thing broke on the news, and frankly my first reaction was "hold on, there are still logical positivists wondering around?" He's far, far, far from a big name.

Frankly as far as the whole thing goes I can't help but get the impression that all that's really happening is that Flew is just getting a little old and experiencing some mental disfunction. Not because I believe religious beliefs are the result of mental disfunction necessarily - but his reasons are ridiculous, his statements about Jesus are perplexingly wierd, he admits in interviews to having troubles with his memory, and so on.

 

[Robin]

Robin,



I'd be curious to know what would make a "leading philosopher."

The claim that Flew was a "leading philosopher" was in the originally quoted article so I don't know what the criteria was

Here's a kickoff question:

In your opinion, who are the leading philosophers of the last 30 years, say 1975 - current?

I don't know if Flew would make my top 3, but it would probably make my top 5.

Flick

I wouldn't consider my opinion very reliable, which is why I went looking for the standard references on the subject. For all I know he might be a great little thinker, but if he were really a 'leading' philosopher you would expect some recognition of the fact in at least one of these texts.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Isn't Flew the originator of the "No True Scotsman" argument?

Perhaps a pithy phrase or two is a definitive characteristic of a leading philosopher?

Can anyone think of anything a leading philosopher has done to improve the lot of humanity- compared to, say, a leading truck driver, an average washroom attendant, or a mediocre DJ?