Flew Flees Atheism

| | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (3)

I'm not sure exactly what to think of this, but Joe Carter thinks Antony Flew is showing signs of moving away from atheism. It's not clear what he's moving toward, but this is important news in philosophy of religion, since he's been one of the staunchest defenders of arguments for atheism and opponents of arguments for theism. I haven't read a word of his atheistic arguments, but I've been told that his work doesn't hold a candle to J.L. Mackie or William Rowe's stuff, so I don't think this is as big a deal as Joe does. What's interesting here is that the arguments for God's existence are actually playing some role in his move from atheism.

3 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Flew Flees Atheism.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://movabletype.ektopos.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/729

Odd news from an odd source. Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost has a post describing how it could be that Antony Flew is moving from atheism to naturalistic theism [or, given what the post says, perhaps moving from considering naturalistic... Read More

The former atheist philosopher who has lost his atheism is now talking about it. ABC news has covered it, and you can see it from the horse's mouth here in an interview in a forthcoming issue of Philosophia Christi. I... Read More

British athiest philosopher Antony Flew isn't anymore. This story has been flying around the blogosphere a lot lately. Here is my take on the results and the reasons for his "conversion"... Read More

3 Comments

I haven't read a word of his atheistic arguments, but I've been told that his work doesn't hold a candle to J.L. Mackie or William Rowe's stuff, so I don't think this is as big a deal as Joe does.

I don�t think the importance lies so much in Flew�s arguments for atheism. To be honest, I haven�t ever seen any (including Mackie�s) that were terribly convincing even when you give them the benefit of the doubt.

The reason I think it is significant is that Flew, who has always taken an interest in natural atheology, looked at the scientific evidence and allowed it to influence his philosophical position. Right now, naturalism requires some semblance of a positive philosophical foundation in order to be taken seriously. If the professional philosophers find it untenable then it will be much harder to justify.

You do know that his parents were christians, right ?

I do not think one needs arguments to believe in God or to assume that God was invented by human minds. This is a matter of personal conviction and faith. For me, we all humans have this natural impulse to believe in God, this belief is part of what we are and every human society at a certain stage develops a kind of religious experience.
In the same manner, we do not need doctrines to love or to feel pain, or show some fraternity. Those things are also part of what we are. And inasmuch as such things yield good results in People's lives, I think it is okay to accept them.

Leave a comment

Contact

    The Parablemen are: , , and .

Archives

Archives

Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To

I've Been Listening To

Games I've Been Playing

Other Stuff

    jolly_good_blogger

    thinking blogger
    thinking blogger

    Dr. Seuss Pro

    Search or read the Bible


    Example: John 1 or love one another (ESV)





  • Link Policy
Powered by Movable Type 5.04