Monday, November 05, 2007

Anthony Flew, the semi-famous atheist has become a proponent of Intelligent Design. The article is in the New York Times. I won't link to it out of principle, but if you go looking for it its there. Here are the last two paragraphs of the long piece.

Intellectuals, even more than the rest of us, like to believe that they reach conclusions solely through study and reflection. But like the rest of us, they sometimes choose their opinions to suit their friends rather than the other way around. Which means that Flew is likely to remain a theist, for just as the Christians drew him close, the atheists gave him up for lost. “He once was a great philosopher,” Richard Dawkins, the Oxford biologist and author of “The God Delusion,” told a Virginia audience last year. “It’s very sad.” Paul Kurtz of Prometheus Books says he thinks Flew is being exploited. “They’re misusing him,” Kurtz says, referring to the Christians. “They’re worried about atheists, and they’re trying to find an atheist to be on their side.”

They found one, and with less difficulty than atheists would have guessed. From the start, the believers’ affection for Antony Flew was not unrequited. When Flew met Christians who claimed to have new, scientific proof of the existence of God, he quickly became again the young graduate student who embarked on a study of the paranormal when all his colleagues were committed to strict rationalism. He may, too, have connected with the child who was raised in his parents’ warm, faithful Methodism. Flew’s colleagues will wonder how he could sign a petition to the prime minister in favor of intelligent design, but it becomes more understandable if the signatory never hated religious belief the way many philosophers do and if he never hated religious people in the least. At a time when belief in God is more polarizing than it has been in years, when all believers are being blamed for religion’s worst excesses, Antony Flew has quietly switched sides, just following the evidence as it has been explained to him, blissfully unaware of what others have at stake.

3 comments:

  1. Molly4:12 PM

    Do you not link to the NYT article honestly "out of principle," or because the first 9/10ths of the article describes how several shady theists have taken advantage of a prominent old man with a big name and a failing mind?

    The paragraphs you posted are certainly relevant, but do not show the blinking-on-and-off quality of the 82-year-old Flew's mental abilities.

    I think it's important to read the entire piece for the proper context, so, out of principle, I will link to it:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here is why I will not link to the New York Times.
    http://scienceandcreation.blogspot.com/2006/06/no-more-links-from-nyt.html#links

    ReplyDelete
  3. It did not sound to me like he had a failing mind, anymore than William Dembski or Michael Behe have failing minds. Both of those minds are sharp as tacks, just on the wrong track.

    ReplyDelete