The Flew Fiasco
5 November 2007 by Bob
A long read, but definitely worth it.
But is Flew’s conversion what it seems to be? Depending on whom you ask, Antony Flew is either a true convert whose lifelong intellectual searchings finally brought him to God or a senescent scholar possibly being exploited by his associates. The version you prefer will depend on how you interpret a story that began 20 years ago, when some evangelical Christians found an atheist who, they thought, might be persuaded to join their side. In the intellectual tug of war that ensued, Flew himself — a continent away, his memory failing, without an Internet connection — had no idea how fiercely he was being fought over or how many of his acquaintances were calling or writing him just to shore up their cases.
Even if you never cared about Flew, this story fills in some nice details, and its tone actually reminds me of that cool book Monkey Girl (which I would also strongly recommend).
5 November 2007, on 4:07 pm
You’re right, Bob: a long read but more than worth it; thank you very much. Whether they’re acting with malice aforethought or not, the theists using Flew really expose their desperation to defend the whole apparatus of religious belief by resorting to such measures. They no longer care whether the “converted atheist” has become a full-fledged believer or not; they’re even clutching at a sorta-kinda-deist-agnostic, as if that proves anything at all – except, like I said, their desperation.
5 November 2007, on 6:01 pm
My dog, Waldotm, once a hardcore atheist, is now, according to my crazy but lovable Aunt, a hard shell Baptist. He’s mum on the subject but, from the exuberance with which he licks his balls, I’m terrified it may be true. Fortunately, his lack of opposable thumbs keeps him from pursuing a meth habit.
One Flew, Bent Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
Sigh.
5 November 2007, on 8:05 pm
I think this quote from the article is quite telling of Flew’s position:
“At the Biola ceremony, Flew mocked the revealed religion of his audience and flaunted his allegiance to deism: “The deist god, unlike the god of the Jewish, Christian or, for heaven’s sake, the Islamic revelation, is neither interested in nor concerned about either human beliefs or human behavior,” he told the small crowd.”
As is usual with theists, they are willing to tolerate fallacious thinking to prop up antiquated yet emotionally satisfying ideas. Embracing a deist to promote theism is a massive non-sequitur. As flew unambiguously asserts, deism does not equal Santa Jesus belief. In fact, from my impressions of deists like E. O. Wilson, they are much more in line with atheist thought than with theistic discombobulation.
5 November 2007, on 8:48 pm
It is funny, considering the Deism of Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and some of the other early Americans didn’t even hold with the notion of Jeebus’ divinity- which, I’m told, is pretty important to the xian faith.
Flew is one thing but, when they go around citing Jefferson’s xian beliefs- the same Jefferson who excised the magical, mystical parts of the gospels out with scissors to form his own version, with just the teachings of the man, Jeebus, it’s fucking absurd. Of course, it speaks volumes about the integrity of their movement.
5 November 2007, on 9:07 pm
Hey guys, if you want to get this NYT article more widely disseminated, there are a couple reviews up at the Amazon.com page for the Flew book referencing the article, including one by myself. Go over there and use the “was this review helpful to you” buttons to push those up top and push down the clueless positive reviews.
6 November 2007, on 12:17 pm
It sickens me to read this. It scare me to think people can’t see that the xtian scientists, philosophers, and scholars were simply exploiting the position a feeble old man.
6 November 2007, on 3:37 pm
Hey, Hallq, I just went over to Amazon to read your review and vote on it being helpful. It doesn’t surprise me, but most of the positive reviews for There is a God sound suspiciously like their writers never bothered to read the book at all. Just another example of theists’ lack of integrity that they would automatically give a thumbs-up to a piece for which they may have simply glanced over the dust jacket, if that!
6 November 2007, on 4:47 pm
I did just that, and read the little mini debate in the comments on the reviews.
I can’t believe how people can’t see how Flew was being exploited. The man doesn’t even remember what abiogenesis means.
7 November 2007, on 1:23 am
That was a fantastic read. Troubling, it seems, they are taking advantage of his old age.