Comments

Hi David:

Thanks for your caution concerning the Oppenheimer article. As co-author of the Antony Flew book, I thought you might be interested in my letter to the NYT Magazine editor with regard to certain assertions in the story. Also Stanley Fish's New York Times Think Again column offers a far more nuanced analysis of the book.

Roy Varghese

Letters to the Editor
Magazine, The New York Times
620 Eight Avenue
New York, NY 10018
magazine@nytimes.com

Dear Editor:

First the good news: Antony Flew is alive and well (physically and mentally) contrary to what readers might assume from Mark Oppenheimer’s article, “The Turning of an Atheist” (New York Times magazine, November 4, 2007). Second, the bad news (for his former fellow atheists): he has not retracted his change of position on the question of God, this despite three years of efforts of malign his mental capabilities and the motives of any theists affiliated with him.

I would like to answer three questions raised by Mr. Oppenheimer’s article:

Did Tony Flew write There is a God? Well, as the cover specifically states, it is written by Flew with yours truly. Oppenheimer says I “made the book sound like more of a joint effort – slightly more, anyway” implying thereby it was a sorta kinda joint effort but, come now, no one seriously believes this. But, as I had told him, the substantive portions of the book came from a combination of Tony’s published and unpublished writings (and by the way he still does write) as well as extensive correspondence and numerous interviews with him. I would be happy to share these with any investigative journalist. The cute sub-titles and the enchanting anecdotes, I’m afraid, did not originate with Tony although he OKed them. Oppenheimer asks “if it was ethical to publish a book under Flew’s name that cites sources Flew doesn’t know well enough to discuss.” Well, I specifically told Oppenheimer that several of these quotes were taken from my previous book and that There is a God dutifully documents this (“For the most part, these quotations are taken from Roy Abraham Varghese, The Wonder of the World …”, p.218). Moreover, Tony edited, corrected and approved at least ten versions of the manuscript.

It should also be noted that Tony didn’t stumble on to his answers to the question at hand overnight – or with this book. As the article rightly notes, the journey began over twenty years ago. Tony, in fact, was a contributor to a book I co-edited in 1992 (Cosmos, Bios, Theos) in which he explored these issues from the other side of the table – but taking the very same approach that he does here.

Does Tony Flew actually believe in a Creator/Intelligence/God? The article’s lead-in states, “But his change of heart may not be what it seems.” Let me be blunt about this (as I was with Oppenheimer). For three years, assorted skeptics and freethinkers have hounded the poor man trying to get him to recant. Believe me, if there was the slightest indication, the remotest suspicion, that he had retracted his new-found belief in God, it would be plastered all across the worldwide web (and beyond). Instead, Tony has taken it on himself to respond to every attack on his intellectual integrity in contributions to publications ranging from a rationalist journal in New Zealand to the latest issue of Skeptic magazine in the UK. The attacks on him are always highlighted on the Internet – his responses are never to be found unless you happen to get hold of the print editions. Not without reason, he now refers to several of the apostles of reason as “bigots”. A key point missed by the article is that it is not just or even mainly the evidence from science that led Flew to change his mind. The single greatest influence on him was philosophical – specifically the book The Rediscovery of Wisdom by David Conway. It was not a tug of war between, on the one hand Paul Kurtz and Richard Carrier, and on the other, the theist scientists, with the data from science as the rope. The rope was a philosophical one and here Conway, Richard Swinburne, Gerald Schroeder (in his exploration of the philosophical implications of science in The Hidden Face of God), et al were decisive.

Is Tony Flew “all there” mentally? Oppenheimer asks if he is “a senescent scholar” with a “failing” memory. As he himself notes, Tony cheerfully volunteered the fact that he has “nominal aphasia”, the inability to reproduce names. Now, starting at the age of forty, the average human being progressively forgets recent names, events and the like. So nothing out of the ordinary there. Is Tony slower to respond when asked a question than a younger person? No question about that – age certainly leaves a mark with each passing year and he is now eighty-four. But then again there are numerous scholars in their seventies and eighties who have trouble remembering recent names and events. And yet in most such cases, the thinkers concerned have been clear and consistent in their reasoning whether or not we agree with their conclusions. The same holds true for Tony. When he sets pen to paper (as will be seen in the most recent issue of Skeptic), he is as cogent and coherent as you could want (and also as terse as he was in his 1950 article). The only reason why people ask questions about his mental faculties is because he dared to change his mind. But let’s not forget that his new view of the world is one embraced by many of today’s leading philosophers in the Anglo-American world as well as most of the pioneers of modern science. This is the dirty little secret that the “new atheists” and their drum-beaters never talk about. It’s so much easier to shoot the messenger!

Roy Abraham Varghese

When Antony Flew was an atheist, theists dismissed him as unreliable and not worth listening to. Oddly now theists are sure he's a genius and dead on.

Most won't stop to read the fine print that he does not belive in a personal god and still rejects the religion you think he is defending.

But those are just details.

Bruce in Orlando is correct when he reminds us that Flew is not a christian or embraces any personal god.

He is flawed, however, in seeking to marginalize by inference the fact that Anthony Flew is now a theist. Religion is growing in the world and includes more and more ex-atheists in it's numbers.

Bruce in Orlando is mistaken when he states that theists dismissed Mr. Flew when he was an atheist. If memory serves me right (and the memory - as well as intellect - of theists seems to be held as questionable by atheists) Mr. Flew was invited to address the Socratic Society with his views by ex-atheist C. S. Lewis. Far from running from differing viewpoints believers from Rabbi Sha'ul to Ravi Zacharias have always been willing to engage in dialogs with their opponents. It is atheists, especially in recent times, who seem to want to dismiss the Straw Men they create rather than consider a well conceived and logical counter position.

I think Oppenheimer was bending over backwards to be kind to Flew. He could have mentioned Flew's leadership in the pro-apartheid, defunct Western Goals Institute, if he had really wanted to do a hatchet job...which is what I'm doing now, I guess. His comments on Islam reflects an ungracious mind...which perhaps I share, having just mentioned the Western Goals Institute myself.

The problem to me with believing in Flew's god of first causes is that this god is reduced to a few elegant equations circling around the scientific grail of the Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Everything after that would be absolutely inevitable for that god; there would be no need for divine guidance and revelation, don't you think? Everything possible would be inevitable, sooner or later. The god of first causes is a very unengaging thing.

To Michael: have you read Flew's book yet?

Sorry - the question was aimed at Greg -- NOT Michael.

"The god of first causes is a very unengaging thing."

The question is not whether it is engaging or compelling, but if its true. If its true our opinion on the topic is irrelevant. Also the case if it's not true.

However elegant the equations circling around the Grand Unified Theory of Everything...they're simply not enough to worship as evidence of a god of first things...which would be idolatry anyway.

God is as God is, and I can't know God. I would be God, if I could, as an ancient rabbi pointed out. God is welcomed to that job. But, I can know of God, somehow revealed, The one Triune God of my Methodist upbringing is sufficient for my religious yearnings.

I am as I am. I actually am a designer, perhaps somewhat intelligent, and I don't see Flew's intelligent design in the natural sphere. I see interacting and evolving patterns adequately explained as having been generated by the lovely equations circling around the not found Grand Unified Theory.

This isn't the God of the Bible, however, not the God of creation but a god of...I can't think of the right words. Creation is more than generating patterns from algorithms, it's a mindful thing that requires manipulating them as well. C S Lewis, I think, thought of God as living in an expanded now...and the "now" is where creation happens, I think, more or less. The god of the gaps is perhaps the idol of Flew. I'm not sure what all this Flew idol worship is all about.

perhaps its just local ajpologetic terminology, but I thought the distinction between "theist" and "deist" was mainly the issue of God being identified as "personal" for a theist, rather than not being so for the deist.

With this view, the claim of A. Flew as a "theist" is improper, and the term "deist" would seem appropriate.

Could Mr. Varghese, or anyone familiar with Flew's own claims please clarify?

thanks,
Greg

I am especially thankful to God whenever a person takes one or more steps toward recognizing His existence and His character. To recognize some of His key traits is an honor to Him, and worthy of commendation. One's understanding of God need not be "complete" to be appreciated.

I also pray that Mr. Flew's understanding will continue to grow to include more traits of the God revealed particularly in the Bible. So I prefer to throw bread rather than stones toward Mr. Flew, and I look forward to reading his (co-authored) book.

But then I prefer to be an encourager in these situations, and I recognize their can be value in other voices at appropriate times, who are in the appropriate relationship to him to express those perspectives.

Hasten Together, our small volunteer Christian ministry on the internet, has been praying for many since 9/11/2001. We pray for the unsaved. We don't judge, we don't label, we don't debate, we don't doubt. Many us work in outreach programs. We've seen the miracles of forgiveness and healing. When praying for others, we saw deaf ears opened, cancers healed, hearts restored, addicts healed, provisions provided, marriages restored, and reconcilation between groups that hated each other!

We are pleased to welcome Antony Flew into God's family. The Lord's will shall be done, on earth as it is in heaven. God knows who is faithful, truthful, and worthy of eternal life in His heavens. We pray others will read the book, understand the message, and find the truth that surpasses all understanding. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. We wish you all blessings, and the peace to be covered in the shadow of His wings.

Sue Sabas
Hastentogether.com

. . . The DSM-IV, the diagnostic manual used by psychiatrists has this to say about Alzheimer’s: The course of Dementia of the Alzheimer’s Type tends to be slowly progressive, with a loss of 3-4 points per year on a standard assessment instrument. Various patterns of deficits are seen. A common pattern is an insidious onset, with early deficits in recent memory followed by the development of aphasia, apraxia, and agnosia after several years (any one of the three is sufficient to make the diagnosis). . . The average duration of the illness from onset of symptoms to death is 8-10 years.

Oppenheimer interviewed Flew, offering no diagnosis but simply reporting what he saw. If his observations are reported accurately, the characteristic symptoms of Alzheimer’s are present in interviews, Flew’s recent public appearances, and written conversations between Flew and atheist author, Richard Carrier. The article reads like a mental status exam:

• Memory impairment: could not recall the identities of old colleagues (e.g. Brian Leftow, Paul Davies) when given their names, could not recall the content of his earlier books (John Leslie), forgot and then remembered timeless philosophical arguments—conclusions were swayed back and forth in beliefs by most recent conversations or changes in recall.
• Aphasia: halting diction, loss of technical vocabulary (e.g. abiogenesis) self-described “nominal aphasia.”
• Disturbance in executive functioning: manifest confusion responding to abstract argumentation--demurring, passive assent, contradictory statements, didn’t write and couldn’t maintain content awareness of book published in his name. . . .

Excerpted from my Nov 11 article at www.debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com.
Valerie Tarico Ph.D. is a psychologist and former evangelical. She is the author of The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth.

The name "Oppenheimer" says it all. (They always freak out when seriously challenged intellectually.)

Greg says: I see interacting and evolving patterns adequately explained as having been generated by the lovely equations circling around the not found Grand Unified Theory.
So the 'I' here is a sort of fractal image, is it? And what does 'lovely' mean in this system of thought? So Greg doesn't exist either?

Dear friend,
Here is why Gerald Schroeder is a Crank and Antony Flew is false:

http://philophil.blogspot.com/2008/01/antony-flew-richard-dawkins-and-gerald.html

Mr. Varghese,

Your credibility in this matter is very questionable due to the nature of your own defense of Anthony Flew. It appears to many you are hiding your own opinions and biases behind the name and credentials of a scholar who may very well be into his dotage.

It would be very beneficial for you to have Dr. Flew make a public statement on his own behalf to the validity and veracity of the book that was written in his own name. This would not only benefit Dr. Flew but also you Mr. Varghese. It would be a great exercise to dispel any skepticism that people, outside the niche group who you normally cater to, have about the work in question. This would showcase your own commitment to the requirements of academic rigor as well.

I know it may be in bad taste to ask an old man to do such a thing, but being a scholar requires some sort of defense of one’s own words. If he is capable of communicating with you for this book, then it would not be a hardship for him to speak on his own behalf instead of allowing his ghostwriter to.

While "racism." and "sexism" have come to be deplored in polite society, "ageism" unfortunately is still alive and well and kicking. This in conjunction with the a "kill the messenger" mentality if you don't like the message... and you have the skewering of Antony Flew.

To assume that his book "There Is A God" is a case of total manipulation by his co-auther Roy Varghese, is to do exactly the opposite of what Flew himself had the courage to do: "...follow the argument wherever it leads."

And where the argument leads is that this book clearly represents Flew's position, irrespective of any alleged "doctoring of the script" on the part of Mr. Varghese.

Since at least 2004, Antony Flew has been "out of the closet" on his becoming a deist; at least three full years before the publication of this book. It is evidenced by the interviews he had given at the time which are a matter of public record, in both written and video form.

Regarding the latter, it can easily be viewed with one's own eyes through the "science" of "YubeTube" and other on-line communications phenomena.

It is appalling that people who claim superior intelligence on the issue of God's non-existence, and the accident of the universe, cannot see a hatchet job on an octogenarian, right before their very eyes.

Is the message of intelligence at work in the development of outer and "inner" space all that frightening?

Having listened to various debates and interviews provided by Anthony Flew, I believe "There Is A God" is an actual reflection of his newly announced belief in a God Who is also the Creator of the universe. It is interesting to read Anthony's life journey, internal struggles and concessions on the matter that has seemed to be of uttermost importance to him: God! Not only it is in the book but he has also clearly expressed his views publicly. So what is the matter then? Anthony Flew must well have understood all the consequences and implications of his new views on the existence of God. To deny this would be close to intellectual fraud and lack of respect to Anthony's works.
As far as Anthony Few is concerned, I believe that he has clearly made reference to the God of the Bible Whom he has spent decades debating on. Surely, this is the God Who "has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, "so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; "for in Him we live and move and have our being, [...]' "Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.