Talk:Antony Flew

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophers

	Antony Flew is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
For more information and how you can help click Show → If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details. Quick help: See changes to: Main talk page Article layout Links to Atheism information and Wikipedia:Research resources Writing about religion and Article development Citing sources, Verifing Sources and Original research Assume good faith and be civil Core articles Atheism article New atheism articles To Do List: edit - history - watch - purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members Help with articles. See this month's adopt an article. Help out with the To-do lists Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism related articles (see: atheism layout style, The perfect article, and Featured articles) Add Atheism navigation template on the bottom of all atheism articles; (use {{Atheism}} or see navigation template) Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box) Add {{Category:atheism}} to the bottom of all atheism related articles, so it shows up on the list of atheism articles Maintenance / Etc Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources, and atheism references). Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process) Watch the list of atheism related articles and add to accordingly (see atheism articles) And always write for an encyclopedia. Article to improve for the month of November Agnosticism Create Notable atheist articles Shorten / merge into others false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Expand an atheism stub Your immediate attention false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism, using footnotes.

Archives

Dec 2004 — Aug 2006

Contents 1 Balance 2 Untitled 3 Personal attacks are against WP policy 4 This article is libelous 5 Recent New York Times article

[edit] Balance

It seems clear to me that some have allowed the deist/atheist issue overwhelm the rest of this article. Flew was a respected British philosopher and yet that is rushed through to get down to the (G)Habermas-Flew thing.86.141.231.90 (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

FACT: Flew is now a deist. Atheists need to get over this, otherwise it clouds their neutrality in approaching this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.97 (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The article which is provided as a source for Flew's convertion from atheism has a title "My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism". Deism and Theism are different concepts. Deism says "there's a creator who does not interfere with the world", Theism "there's a creator". Flew's religious stance should be changed to theism (according to the article's title).86.50.9.167 (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled

I have met Antony Flew many times over the years and read most of his published writings. So I was rather surprised to learn, from the wikipedia article, that he was a supporter of apartheid and protectionism. These charges are false, and I have thought hard about what they could be based on.

It is true that Antony Flew was never a supporter of the A.N.C. (which has been in power for 13 years in South Africa) and was (in the 1980's and before) very critical indeed of its communist wing. However, this is hardly the same thing as being a supporter of apartheid. As for protectionism, how an old free trader like Antony Flew could be accused of protectionism is beyond me.

Paul Marks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.149.30 (talk) 19:22, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Hey is someone going to add the fact that Flew has just published this new book? http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335290/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-9879593-7946333?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192020772&sr=8-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.103.184 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks are against WP policy

Personal attacks are against WP policy. They will be removed from this page, and may have further consequences for those posting them. This page has been edited to archive the old discussion from January. Charles Matthews 06:00, April 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article is libelous

"Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."

An article of an encyclopedia must contain information and the writer is meant to be objective and not to make a judgement about the subject of the article. This awful article is a libel. The writer try to discredit the thinking of Antony Flew instead of giving information. It is OK to give an opinion but an encyclopedia is not the place to do this.

See some sentences:

"the new introduction failed to conclusively answer the question of Flew's beliefs" (well, this is an opinion not a fact. The writter makes a judgement about the new introduction)

"left the world hanging when it closed with..." (well, I suppose this is an opinion. The writer thinks the world has been left hanging" but not an objective fact. I haven't seen the world hanging so far.).

"Flew admitted to Carrier that he had not read any of the scientific critiques of Schroeder that Carrier referred him to" (please, what is this? A soap opera? Would you imagine this sentence in a serious encyclopedia?)

Would you accept this in a encyclopedia like Encyclopaedia Britannica? I would like for the reviewers of this encyclopedia to mark this article as controversial and to rewrite this impartially (nor supporting neither discrediting antony flew, but giving information) finsalscollons 83.53.126.58 09:42, April 8, 2007 (UTC)

See also:

BLP noticeboard, Antony Flew section. — Athænara ✉ 02:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent New York Times article

The Turning of an Atheist throws considerable doubt over whether the opinions contained in There Is a God can be legitimately considered to be Flew's own, as its co-author, Varghese, admits to having "done all the original writing for it", and as Flew apparently can no longer remember much of its contents. Also it seems that Flew's opinions have become increasingly malliable and incoherent in his old age:

“

But it seems somewhat more likely that Flew, having been intellectually chaperoned by Roy Varghese for 20 years, simply trusted him to write something responsible. Varghese had done him so many kindnesses. He introduced Flew to Gerald Schroeder and John Haldane, and, I learned, he flew to England to chauffeur Flew to meetings with Leftow and the Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne (although when Leftow and Swinburne appear in the book, the conversations are described as if Varghese were not present). Varghese also gave Flew adventures, jetting him to Dallas and New York, putting him in a DVD documentary, getting his name in the papers. If at times Flew could be persuaded, by a letter or a phone call from an American atheist, that Varghese and his crew were not the eminent authorities on science they made themselves out to be, he was always happy to change his mind back. These Christians were kind and attentive, and they always seemed to have the latest research.

”

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! This article is in worse condition than I could have imagined. That NYT article is a good source to look first at when trying to record Mr. Flew's narrative--that is, without it sounding too much like a commercial for religion. In any case, someone has to save this article. I just heard about Mr. Flew's "conversion", simultaneously with his new-found dementia-like symptoms; and, as the NYT story manifestly shows, of the controversy afoot about Flew as an "author" now supporting Deism, namely that he can't seem to recall the arguments or evidences from the book he allegedly co-authored, and that Varghess, therefore, is using Flew as a mouthpiece for his view that there is an underlying logic to Christian fundamentalism that makes it a serious choice for even the most critical mind. This information should be in the article; let's never forget NPOV and reliability. Unfortunately I have no time to revise this myself, but I hope somebody takes on the mantle. 24.161.156.125 (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)