Wow. If true, that's sad. I saw a recent interview with Flew, and I would not be surprised if this story were true--he seemed to be easily fuddled and had significant memory problems.
I can see that there is just cause for scrutinizing the author's integrity as to his questionable use of potentially bogus materials and alleged mis-use of Flew's statements.
You will have to forgive me if I'm equally as cynnical about a highly educated Sr. Adult forgetting to be an atheist (or forgetting not to be a deist).
Dimentia does not entail a change of status of this magnitude!
I wrote: The story that Flew changed his mind has already been published. What more was there to be said? If Flew was competent to write something more on the issue he should've at least done so in a journal or magazine of some type. If he wasn't, then why would Varghese want to do so? I think I have a partial answer. Varghese wanted to make some money off a best selling book. I just hope Flew gets his share.
Now we are left with applying the same types of higher criticism toward that book as we must do with Plato's Dialogues and the gospels. Who said what and why? Such an exercise isn't worth it to me. If I want to read the arguments on behalf of the issues pro or con there are better books.
So I hope you'll pardon me if I pass on this book. I cannot tell who wrote what and who didn't. Besides what Flew believes makes no difference to me about what I should believe. People have been changing their minds on the God question down through history, and most of the changes have been from belief to non-belief since the Enlightenment. No wonder Christians want to parade one important success through the streets, since such a parade is so small to begin with.
Andrew: I would like you to tell me the religious affiliation or beliefs of Mark Oppenheimer, the NYTimes writer whose article raised the original questions -- at least here. (Have you even READ the original article that is linked to a few posts down?)
Carrier's piece is merely 'confirmatory.' It is Oppenheimer's piece that shows Flew's 'diminished capacity.'
And, to cover two points. No one is -- or should be -- dismissing Flew's book merely on the basis of his age. (My in-laws are both older than Flew, and while I haven't spoken with my father-in-law recently, I can personally testify that, as of this week, my mother-in-law is as capable -- and as peppery -- as ever.)
Nor am I an atheist who is 'desperate' to discredit the book. I am, if not as old as Flew, old enough (61) that my death is no longer a 'theoretical' matter. I can understand how someone of my age or older might wish to grasp a set of beliefs that would deny its finality. I've even felt the pull of this temptation myself, though this is one of the rare temptations I have no expectation of ever succumbing to. (And if I were ever to, I would expect and hope my friends would challenge my own competency.)
Carrier is a popular atheist apologist desperate to deny the truth that Flew has of his own accord rejected atheism. So desperate, in fact, that he resorts in the bulk of his blog entry to merely speculating without evidence. One wonders what Carrier's next move will be, given the statement that Antony Flew just released from the publisher's office:
The idea that someone manipulated me because I'm old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. This is my book and it represents my thinking.
Thanks to Steve Laube, the Literary Agent for the book project. amazon.com/review/RU8MI4LZBIH4W/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm/
Perhaps Carrier would like to suggest now that Flew himself is part of the conspiracy to manipulate Flew.
Mr. Henderson: Rather than 'speculating without evidence,' Carrier's blog entry repeatedly DOES quote contradictions between Flew's correspondence with Carrier, as well as the evidence of Flew's previous writing. I would suggest you read it more carefully.
However, I note that you do not discuss the portrait of Flew -- based on personal observation and conversation -- in Oppenheimer's article. (As I asked Andrew, are you aware of Oppenheimer's religious orientation or beliefs? I am not, and would appreciate knowing that vital piece of information. Also, are you aware -- again, I am not -- of Oppenheimer's 'track record' for accuracy in other articles he has written?
(After I wrote the above, I Googled not Oppenheimer, but the Yale Journalism Initiative, which gave me further information about Oppenheimer, as well as directing me to his two books. Oppenheimer has been a relion columnist for the Hartford Courant as well as a writer for the Christian Century, as well as director of the YJI. His reputation and history seems to me worth dealing with before you dismiss the observations he makes in the article.)
Unless you can demonstrate a history of inaccuracy in Oppenheimer's observation and writing, you have to deal with this article first, with its portrayal of a man seriously affected by age and the mental failings that can affect the aged. (I find it almost incredible that a person whose mind retains full control of his facilities could say "If I ever become competent to read anything off the Internet..." (In fact, were he still functioning, I would be surprised if his Christian 'handlers' did not teach him to do so, since it is not a stupendous task.)
To repeat again, I have no 'desperate desire' to discredit Flew, since, until this controversy I had never even heard his name. No atheist I have read has cited him, to my memory. Nor, again, would I be "shocked" to discover a man, late in life, returning to a religious belief as his mortality became more obvious to him -- particularly someone who was, in fact, a preacher's son, as was Flew. Had this book been authentic, I would have been, perhaps, saddened, but not horrified.
However, given the fact that Flew had repeatedly expressed his rejection of Christianity, and of a 'personal God,' even when he began to admit his beginning belief in some form of God, and given the questions raised by both Carrier and particularly Oppenheimer, I would need more than a statement -- from a publicist's office -- that 'nobody's manipulating me' to be convinced of the authenticity of the work in question.
I have read Carrier's blog entry. Twice. He provides absolutely no evidence that Flew's book is bogus. Let's strip away the rhetorical fluff from his entry. We end up with this string of facts:
"This book never once mentions my name."
"Nor does it address any of the questions or issues that I raised in my correspondence with Flew."
"Not a single argument in this book is anything Flew ever said in his letters to me were his reasons for becoming a theist, except one: the DNA argument, which he phrased very differently, and then rescinded in his letters to me."
"The book has everywhere the hallmarks of Christian apologetic interests and idioms, but none of Flew's"
"...absent from the entire book is any discussion of Deism or the God of Thomas Jefferson, which Flew repeatedly emphasized in his letters to me."
But what precisely is supposed to follow from these facts? Says Carrier, "All this makes this book a grand and shameless lie."
But that's ridiculous. Why should anybody expect Flew to mention Carrier in the first place? Moreover, the book has Christian idiom here and there because, well, it was co-authored with a Christian. How does this add up to the book being "bogus"?
Further, Flew himself has said that the book accurately reflects his position. Why on earth should we give the benefit of the doubt to an atheist apologist like Carrier rather than Flew himself, especially when Carrier's case is so flimsy and speculative to begin with?
Neither Carrier nor Oppenheimer have provided evidence that the book is bogus. Furthermore, Flew himself rejects the NYT article. He also claims that he was never manipulated and that the book represents his thinking. What more do you need? You and other atheists have resorted to inventing ellaborate conspiracy theories that aren't based on hard evidence. If that isn't desperation, I don't know what is.
You suggest that you hadn't heard of Flew prior to this controversey, and assert that no atheist to your memory has cited Flew. It is obvious, then, that you aren't well-read in philosophy of religion.
12 comments:
Wow. If true, that's sad. I saw a recent interview with Flew, and I would not be surprised if this story were true--he seemed to be easily fuddled and had significant memory problems.
I can see that there is just cause for scrutinizing the author's integrity as to his questionable use of potentially bogus materials and alleged mis-use of Flew's statements.
You will have to forgive me if I'm equally as cynnical about a highly educated Sr. Adult forgetting to be an atheist (or forgetting not to be a deist).
Dimentia does not entail a change of status of this magnitude!
It still seems like a cheap shot.
I'm sorry! Both sides should let this go.
Richard Carrier also responds on Amazon.
I responded on Vic Reppert's Blog.
I wrote: The story that Flew changed his mind has already been published. What more was there to be said? If Flew was competent to write something more on the issue he should've at least done so in a journal or magazine of some type. If he wasn't, then why would Varghese want to do so? I think I have a partial answer. Varghese wanted to make some money off a best selling book. I just hope Flew gets his share.
Now we are left with applying the same types of higher criticism toward that book as we must do with Plato's Dialogues and the gospels. Who said what and why? Such an exercise isn't worth it to me. If I want to read the arguments on behalf of the issues pro or con there are better books.
So I hope you'll pardon me if I pass on this book. I cannot tell who wrote what and who didn't. Besides what Flew believes makes no difference to me about what I should believe. People have been changing their minds on the God question down through history, and most of the changes have been from belief to non-belief since the Enlightenment. No wonder Christians want to parade one important success through the streets, since such a parade is so small to begin with.
Cheers.
Serious, if true.
But I am suspicious. Atheists are desperate to discredit this, and I am convinced they would lie to do so.
Andrew:
I would like you to tell me the religious affiliation or beliefs of Mark Oppenheimer, the NYTimes writer whose article raised the original questions -- at least here. (Have you even READ the original article that is linked to a few posts down?)
Carrier's piece is merely 'confirmatory.' It is Oppenheimer's piece that shows Flew's 'diminished capacity.'
And, to cover two points. No one is -- or should be -- dismissing Flew's book merely on the basis of his age. (My in-laws are both older than Flew, and while I haven't spoken with my father-in-law recently, I can personally testify that, as of this week, my mother-in-law is as capable -- and as peppery -- as ever.)
Nor am I an atheist who is 'desperate' to discredit the book. I am, if not as old as Flew, old enough (61) that my death is no longer a 'theoretical' matter. I can understand how someone of my age or older might wish to grasp a set of beliefs that would deny its finality. I've even felt the pull of this temptation myself, though this is one of the rare temptations I have no expectation of ever succumbing to. (And if I were ever to, I would expect and hope my friends would challenge my own competency.)
Carrier is a popular atheist apologist desperate to deny the truth that Flew has of his own accord rejected atheism. So desperate, in fact, that he resorts in the bulk of his blog entry to merely speculating without evidence. One wonders what Carrier's next move will be, given the statement that Antony Flew just released from the publisher's office:
The idea that someone manipulated me because I'm old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. This is my book and it represents my thinking.
Thanks to Steve Laube, the Literary Agent for the book project. amazon.com/review/RU8MI4LZBIH4W/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm/
Perhaps Carrier would like to suggest now that Flew himself is part of the conspiracy to manipulate Flew.
Mr. Henderson:
Rather than 'speculating without evidence,' Carrier's blog entry repeatedly DOES quote contradictions between Flew's correspondence with Carrier, as well as the evidence of Flew's previous writing. I would suggest you read it more carefully.
However, I note that you do not discuss the portrait of Flew -- based on personal observation and conversation -- in Oppenheimer's article. (As I asked Andrew, are you aware of Oppenheimer's religious orientation or beliefs? I am not, and would appreciate knowing that vital piece of information. Also, are you aware -- again, I am not -- of Oppenheimer's 'track record' for accuracy in other articles he has written?
(After I wrote the above, I Googled not Oppenheimer, but the Yale Journalism Initiative, which gave me further information about Oppenheimer, as well as directing me to his two books. Oppenheimer has been a relion columnist for the Hartford Courant as well as a writer for the Christian Century, as well as director of the YJI. His reputation and history seems to me worth dealing with before you dismiss the observations he makes in the article.)
Unless you can demonstrate a history of inaccuracy in Oppenheimer's observation and writing, you have to deal with this article first, with its portrayal of a man seriously affected by age and the mental failings that can affect the aged. (I find it almost incredible that a person whose mind retains full control of his facilities could say "If I ever become competent to read anything off the Internet..." (In fact, were he still functioning, I would be surprised if his Christian 'handlers' did not teach him to do so, since it is not a stupendous task.)
To repeat again, I have no 'desperate desire' to discredit Flew, since, until this controversy I had never even heard his name. No atheist I have read has cited him, to my memory. Nor, again, would I be "shocked" to discover a man, late in life, returning to a religious belief as his mortality became more obvious to him -- particularly someone who was, in fact, a preacher's son, as was Flew. Had this book been authentic, I would have been, perhaps, saddened, but not horrified.
However, given the fact that Flew had repeatedly expressed his rejection of Christianity, and of a 'personal God,' even when he began to admit his beginning belief in some form of God, and given the questions raised by both Carrier and particularly Oppenheimer, I would need more than a statement -- from a publicist's office -- that 'nobody's manipulating me' to be convinced of the authenticity of the work in question.
Mr. Benton,
I have read Carrier's blog entry. Twice. He provides absolutely no evidence that Flew's book is bogus. Let's strip away the rhetorical fluff from his entry. We end up with this string of facts:
"This book never once mentions my name."
"Nor does it address any of the questions or issues that I raised in my correspondence with Flew."
"Not a single argument in this book is anything Flew ever said in his letters to me were his reasons for becoming a theist, except one: the DNA argument, which he phrased very differently, and then rescinded in his letters to me."
"The book has everywhere the hallmarks of Christian apologetic interests and idioms, but none of Flew's"
"...absent from the entire book is any discussion of Deism or the God of Thomas Jefferson, which Flew repeatedly emphasized in his letters to me."
But what precisely is supposed to follow from these facts? Says Carrier, "All this makes this book a grand and shameless lie."
But that's ridiculous. Why should anybody expect Flew to mention Carrier in the first place? Moreover, the book has Christian idiom here and there because, well, it was co-authored with a Christian. How does this add up to the book being "bogus"?
Further, Flew himself has said that the book accurately reflects his position. Why on earth should we give the benefit of the doubt to an atheist apologist like Carrier rather than Flew himself, especially when Carrier's case is so flimsy and speculative to begin with?
Neither Carrier nor Oppenheimer have provided evidence that the book is bogus. Furthermore, Flew himself rejects the NYT article. He also claims that he was never manipulated and that the book represents his thinking. What more do you need? You and other atheists have resorted to inventing ellaborate conspiracy theories that aren't based on hard evidence. If that isn't desperation, I don't know what is.
You suggest that you hadn't heard of Flew prior to this controversey, and assert that no atheist to your memory has cited Flew. It is obvious, then, that you aren't well-read in philosophy of religion.
'Why should anybody expect Flew to mention Carrier in the first place?'
Indeed. Why should Flew talk about Flew's research on the subject?
Why should Flew's book talk about Flew's interest in the doctrine of eternal torture?
Why should Flew's book discuss what Aristotle meant by a god? That is the god Flew believes in.
Flew was too busy putting in baseball anecdotes to talk about his documented interests, correspondence, and beliefs.
This is as big a scandal as Salvador Dali signing blank canvases.
Why doesn't Varghese simply come out and say 'Flew wrote this or that section'?
Varghese doesn't say that, because Varghese still has a shred of honesty left.
'Furthermore, Flew himself rejects the NYT article.'
Here is the official Harper Collins press release site.
http://www.harpercollins.com/footer/pressReleases.aspx?year=2007
This press release seems only to exist on an Amazon review.
Post a Comment