Antony Flew

Antony Garrard Newton Flew

Antony Flew
Born (1923-02-11)11 February 1923
London, England
Died 8 April 2010(2010-04-08) (aged 87)
Berkshire, England, United Kingdom
Alma mater SOAS, University of London
St John's College, Oxford
Era 20th-century philosophy
Region Western Philosophy
School Analytic
Main interests
 Philosophy of religion
Notable ideas
 No true Scotsman
The Presumption of Atheism
Negative and positive atheism

Antony Garrard Newton Flew (/fluː/; 11 February 1923 – 8 April 2010)[1][2] was an English[3] philosopher. Belonging to the analytic and evidentialist schools of thought, Flew was most notable for his work related to the philosophy of religion. During the course of his career he taught at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, and at York University in Toronto.

For much of his career Flew was known as a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces. He also criticised the idea of life after death,[4] the free will defence to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God.[5] In 2003 he was one of the signatories of the Humanist Manifesto III.[6] However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, more specifically a belief in the Aristotelian God. He stated that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believed in the existence of a God.[7]

In 2007 a book outlining his reasons for changing his position, There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind was written by Flew in collaboration with Roy Abraham Varghese. The book (and Flew's conversion itself) has been the subject of controversy, following an article in The New York Times Magazine alleging that Flew's intellect had declined, and that the book was primarily the work of Varghese;[8] Flew himself specifically denied this, stating that the book represented his views, and he acknowledged that due to his age Varghese had done most of the actual work of writing the book.[9]

He was also known for the development of the no true Scotsman fallacy, and his debate on retrocausality with Michael Dummett.

Life and career

Flew, the son of Methodist minister/theologian Robert Newton Flew (1886–1962) and his wife Winifred née Garrard (1887–1982), was born in London. He was educated at St Faith's School, Cambridge followed by Kingswood School, Bath. He is said to have concluded by the age of 15 that there was no God.[10] During the Second World War he studied Japanese at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and was a Royal Air Force intelligence officer. After a period with the Inter-Services Topographical Department in Oxford, he was posted to Bletchley Park in June 1944.[11]

After the war, Flew achieved a first class degree in Literae Humaniores at St John's College, Oxford (1947). He also won the John Locke Scholarship in Mental Philosophy in the following year.[12] Flew was a graduate student of Gilbert Ryle, prominent in ordinary language philosophy. Both Flew and Ryle were among many Oxford philosophers fiercely criticised in Ernest Gellner's book Words and Things (1959). A 1954 debate with Michael Dummett over backward causation was an early highlight in Flew's career.[13]

For a year, 1949–50, Flew was a lecturer in philosophy at Christ Church, Oxford.[14] From 1950 to 1954 he was a lecturer at the University of Aberdeen, and from 1954 to 1971 he was a professor of philosophy at the University of Keele.[14] He held a professorship at the University of Calgary, 1972–73.[14] Between 1973 and 1983 he was professor of philosophy at the University of Reading. At this time, he developed one of his most famous arguments, the No true Scotsman fallacy in his 1975 book, Thinking About Thinking. Upon his retirement, Flew took up a half-time post for a few years at York University, Toronto.

Politically Flew was a libertarian-leaning conservative and wrote articles for The Journal of Libertarian Studies. His name appears on letterheads into 1992 as a Vice-President of the Conservative Monday Club, and he held the same position in the Western Goals Institute.[15] He was one of the signatories to a letter in The Times along with Lord Sudeley, Sir Alfred Sherman, and Dr. Harvey Ward, on behalf of the Institute, "applauding Alfredo Cristiani's statesmanship" and calling for his government's success in defeating the Cuban and Nicaraguan-backed communist FMLN terrorists in El Salvador.[16]

Flew married on 28 June 1952. He had two daughters.[17] Flew died on 8 April 2010, while nursed in an Extended Care Facility in Reading, England, suffering from dementia.[18][19]

While an undergraduate, Flew attended the weekly meetings of C. S. Lewis's Socratic Club fairly regularly. Although he found Lewis to be "an eminently reasonable man" and "by far the most powerful of Christian apologists for the sixty or more years following his founding of that club", he was not persuaded by Lewis's argument from morality as found in Mere Christianity. Flew also criticised several of the other philosophical proofs for God's existence. He concluded that the ontological argument in particular failed because it is based on the premise that the concept of Being can be derived from the concept of Goodness. Only the scientific forms of the teleological argument ultimately impressed Flew as decisive.[20]

During the time of his involvement in the Socratic Club, Flew also wrote the article "Theology and Falsification", which argued that claims about God were merely vacuous where they could not be tested for truth or falsehood. Though initially published in an undergraduate journal, the article came to be widely reprinted and discussed.

Flew was also critical of the idea of life after death and the free will defence to the problem of evil. In 1998, he debated Christian philosopher William Lane Craig over the existence of God.[21]

Atheism and deism

The Presumption of Atheism

One of Anthony Flew's most influential professional works was his 1976 The Presumption of Atheism[22] in which Flew forwarded the proposition that the question of God's existence should begin with the Presumption of Atheism:

"What I want to examine is the contention that the debate about the existence of God should properly begin from the presumption of atheism, that the onus of proof must lie upon the theist. The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God, I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively... in this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist.
The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. 'Whyever', it could be asked, don't you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?[23]

Flew's proposal to change his profession's use of the term atheism saw limited acceptance in the 20th century, but in the early 21st century Flew's negative sense of 'atheism' came to be forwarded more commonly.[24][25] The impact of Flew's proposed negative atheism, which is often referred to today as 'weak atheism' or 'soft atheism', is illustrated by analytic Philosopher William Lane Craig's 2007 assessment that the Presumption of Atheism had become "one of the most commonly proffered justifications of atheism."[26] And BBC journalist William Crawley 2010 analysis: "The Presumption of Atheism (1976) made the case, now followed by today's new atheism, that atheism should be the ... default position".[27][28] In recent debates, atheists often forward the Presumption of Atheism referring to atheism as the "default position"[29][30][31][32] or has "no burden of proof"[33][34] or asserting that the burden of proof rests solely on the theist.[23][35][36]

Revised views

Conversion to deism

On several occasions, starting in 2001, rumors circulated claiming that Flew had converted from atheism to deism. Flew denied these rumours on the Secular Web website.[37]

In January 2004 Flew and Gary Habermas, his friend and philosophical adversary, took part in and conducted a dialogue on the resurrection at California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo. During a couple of telephone discussions shortly after that dialogue, Flew explained to Habermas that he was considering becoming a theist. While Flew did not change his position at that time, he concluded that certain philosophical and scientific considerations were causing him to do some serious rethinking. He characterized his position as that of atheism standing in tension with several huge question marks.[38]

In a 2004 interview (published 9 December), Flew, then 81 years old, said that he had become a deist.[39] In the article Flew states that he has renounced his long-standing espousal of atheism by endorsing a deism of the sort that Thomas Jefferson advocated ("While reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings"). Flew stated that "the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries" and that "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it". He also answered in the affirmative to Habermas's question, "So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?". He supported the idea of an Aristotelian God with "the characteristics of power and also intelligence", stating that the evidence for it was stronger than ever before. He rejected the idea of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (he explicitly states that God has created "a lot of" evil), and of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact, although he has allowed a short chapter arguing for Christ's resurrection to be added into his latest book.[39]

Flew was particularly hostile to Islam, and said it is "best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab imperialism."[39] In a December 2004 interview he said: "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins".[40]

Controversy over his position

In October 2004 (before the December publication of the Flew–Habermas interview), in a letter written to the historian and atheist Richard Carrier of the Secular Web Flew stated that he was a deist, and wrote "I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations."[41] Flew also said: "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."[41]

In the months following the Habermas interview, Flew contradicted some statements made in the interview and retracted others. When asked in December 2004 by Duncan Crary of Humanist Network News if he still stood by the argument presented in The Presumption of Atheism, Flew replied he did but he also restated his position as deist: "I'm quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god." When asked by Crary whether or not he has kept up with the most recent science and theology, he responded with "Certainly not," stating that there is simply too much to keep up with. Flew also denied that there was any truth to the rumours of 2001 and 2003 that he had converted to Christianity.[42] In letter to Carrier of 29 December 2004 Flew retracted his statement that a deity or a "super-intelligence" was the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature. "I now realise that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." He blamed his error on being "misled" by the (supposed) fact that Richard Dawkins had "never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter."[41] His 2007 book There is a God (see below) revisited the question, however, and questioned contemporary models: "the latest work I have seen shows that the present physical universe gives too little time for these theories of abiogenesis to get the job done."[43] He added: "The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and 'coded chemistry'? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem."[43]

The work of the Orthodox Jewish nuclear physicist Gerald Schroeder had been influential in Flew's new belief, but Flew told Carrier that he had not read any of the critiques of Schroeder that Carrier referred him to.

However, in spring 2005, when atheist Raymond Bradley, emeritus professor of philosophy at Simon Fraser University and a member of the editorial board of The Open Society journal, wrote an open letter to Flew accusing him of not "check[ing] the veracity of [Schroeder's] claims before swallowing them whole," Flew responded strongly to that charge in a letter published in the same journal in summer 2006, describing the content of Bradley's letter "extraordinarily offensive" and the accusation made by him as an "egregiously offensive charge"; he also implied that Bradley was a "secularist bigot," and suggested that he should follow Socrates's advice (as scripted in Plato's Republic) of "follow[ing] the argument wherever it leads."[44] Other prominent atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, suggested Flew's deism was a form of God of the gaps.[45]

Concerning other atheists, Flew said in December 2004:[46]

I have been denounced by my fellow unbelievers for stupidity, betrayal, senility and everything you can think of and none of them have read a word that I have ever written.

Restatement of position

A letter on evolution and theology which Flew published in the August/September 2004 issue of Philosophy Now magazine closed with, "Anyone who should happen to want to know what I myself now believe will have to wait until the publication, promised for early 2005, by Prometheus of Amherst, NY of the final edition of my God and Philosophy with a new introduction of it as ‘an historical relic’."[47]

The preface of God and Philosophy states that the publisher and Flew went through a total of four versions (each extensively peer-reviewed) before coming up with one that satisfied them both. The introduction raises ten matters that came about since the original 1966 edition. Flew states that any book to follow God and Philosophy will have to take into account these ideas when considering the philosophical case for the existence of God:[48]

  1. A novel definition of "God" by Richard Swinburne
  2. The case for the existence of the Christian God by Swinburne in the book Is There a God?
  3. The Church of England's change in doctrine on the eternal punishment of Hell
  4. The question of whether there was only one big bang and if time began with it
  5. The question of multiple universes
  6. The fine-tuning argument
  7. The question of whether there is a naturalistic account for the development of living matter from non-living matter
  8. The question of whether there is a naturalistic account for non-reproducing living matter developing into a living creature capable of reproduction
  9. The concept of an Intelligent Orderer as explained in the book The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God by Roy Abraham Varghese
  10. An extension of an Aristotelian/Deist concept of God that can be reached through natural theology, which was developed by David Conway.

In an interview with Joan Bakewell for BBC Radio 4 in March 2005, Flew rejected the fine-tuning argument as a conclusive proof: "I don't think it proves anything but that it is entirely reasonable for people who already have a belief in a creating God to regard this as confirming evidence. And it's a point of argument which I think is very important – to see that what is reasonable for people to do in the face of new evidence depends on what they previously had good reason to believe." He also said it appeared that there had been progress made regarding the naturalistic origins of DNA. However, he restated his deism, with the usual provisos that his God is not the God of any of the revealed religions.[49] In the same interview, Flew was asked whether he was retracting belief in an Aristotelian God, but answered no.

One month later, Flew told Christianity Today that although he was not on the road to becoming a Christian convert, he reaffirmed his deism: "Since the beginning of my philosophical life I have followed the policy of Plato's Socrates: We must follow the argument wherever it leads."[50]

In late 2006, Flew joined 11 other academics in urging the British government to teach intelligent design in the state schools.[51]

In 2007, in an interview with Benjamin Wiker, Flew said again that his deism was the result of his "growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe" and "my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source." He also restated that he was not a Christian theist.[52]

Book with Varghese

In 2007, Flew published a book titled There is a God, which was listed as having Roy Abraham Varghese as its co-author. Shortly after the book was released, the New York Times published an article by religious historian Mark Oppenheimer, who stated that Varghese had been almost entirely responsible for writing the book, and that Flew was in a serious state of mental decline, having great difficulty remembering key figures, ideas, and events relating to the debate covered in the book.[8] His book praises several philosophers (like Brian Leftow, John Leslie and Paul Davies), but Flew failed to remember their work during Oppenheimer's interview.

A further article by Anthony Gottlieb noted a strong difference in style between the passages giving Flew's biography, and those laying out the case for a god, with the latter including Americanisms such as "beverages", "vacation" and "candy". He came to the same conclusion as Oppenheimer, and stated that "Far from strengthening the case for the existence of God, [the book] rather weakens the case for the existence of Antony Flew".[53] Varghese replied with a letter disputing this view.[54]

Flew later released a statement through his publisher stating:

I have rebutted these criticisms in the following statement: My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 percent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I’m 84 and that was Roy Varghese’s role. 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."[55]

An audio commentary by William Lane Craig[56] concurs with this position, but Richard Carrier disputed this view.[57] In June 2008, Flew stated his position once again, in a letter to a fellow of the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship.[9]

Christian writer Regis Nicoll claims that "Moreover, in a signed, handwritten letter (a copy of which I now have) sent to Roy Varghese, the legendary philosopher reaffirmed his conversion while criticising Oppenheimer for drawing attention away from the book’s central argument: the collapse of rationalism."[58] He argues that "Even Mark Oppenheimer described the ex-atheist 'flaunt[ing] his allegiance to deism' in May 2006 to a Christian audience at Biola University."

Perhaps most definitively, Christian apologist Anthony Horvath corresponded with Antony Flew before it was publicly known there would even be a book. In 2010, he published his letters. The letters contain Flew's description of the outline of the book, his deism in the pattern of Einstein's, and his high praise of N.T. Wright's arguments for Christianity. All of these elements are present in the book.[59]

Awards

Flew was awarded the Schlarbaum Prize by the Ludwig von Mises Institute for his "outstanding lifetime achievement in the cause of liberty."[60] Upon acceptance of the award in Auburn, Alabama, in September 2001, Flew delivered an address entitled "Locke versus Rawls on Equality." Of his choice of topics, he stated "I am the first Englishman and the first professional philosopher to receive the Schlarbaum Prize. So it seems appropriate to begin by talking about the greatest English philosopher, John Locke."[61]

On 11 May 2006, Antony Flew accepted the second "Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth" from Biola University. The award, named for its first recipient, was given to Flew "for his lifelong commitment to free and open inquiry and to standing fast against intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression". When informed of his award, Flew remarked, "In light of my work and publications in this area and the criticism I’ve received for changing my position, I appreciate receiving this award".[62]

He was an honorary associate of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists[63] and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.[64] In 1985, Flew was awarded the In Praise of Reason Award the highest honor the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry awards. The award was presented by Chairman Paul Kurtz in London "'[I]n recognition of his long-standing contributions to the use of methods of critical inquiry, scientific evidence, and reason in evaluating claims to knowledge and solving social problems."[65]

References

  1. ↑ "Antony Flew", The Times (obituary), UK: Legacy.
  2. ↑ "Professor Antony Flew", The Daily Telegraph (obituary), UK: Legacy, 14 Apr 2010.
  3. ↑ Antony Flew self identified as English not British: "I am the first Englishman and the first professional philosopher to receive the Schlarbaum Prize. So it seems appropriate to begin by talking about the greatest English philosopher, John Locke." Flew, Antony. "Locke versus Rawls on Equality" Mises. 24 October 2001.
  4. ↑ Flew, Anthony (1998), Could We Survive Our Own Deaths?, Internet Infidels.
  5. ↑ Flew, Anthony (2000), Theology & Falsification: A Golden Jubilee Celebration, Internet Infidels.
  6. ↑ "Notable Signers". Humanism and Its Aspirations. American Humanist Association. Archived from the original on 5 October 2012. Retrieved 28 September 2012.
  7. ↑ Habermas 2004.
  8. 1 2 Oppenheimer, Mark (11 April 2007), "The Turning of an Atheist", The New York Times Magazine.
  9. 1 2 Flew 2007.
  10. ↑ http://www.fwponline.cc/v27n1/reviewone_editor.html
  11. ↑ Smith, Michael (2000), The Emperor's Codes, Bantam, p. 246
  12. ↑ http://infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/flew-bio.html
  13. ↑ Faye, Jan (29 August 2005). "Backward Causation". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  14. 1 2 3 Who's Who, 1974, London : A. & C. Black, 1974, p. 1118
  15. ↑ Labour Research, November 1988, p. 2.
  16. ↑ The Times, 29 September 1989.
  17. ↑ "Flew's biography". Wisconsin University. 10 December 2003. Archived from the original on 10 December 2003. Retrieved 10 March 2012.
  18. ↑ Grubbs, Kenneth (21 April 2010), "Antony Flew, 1923–2010 – Following the Argument Wherever it Leads", eSkeptic, Skeptic.
  19. ↑ Grimes, William (16 April 2010). "Antony Flew, Philosopher and Ex-Atheist, Dies at 87". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 July 2011.
  20. ↑ Habermas 2004, p. 2.
  21. ↑ Flew, Antony; Craig, William Lane (28 January 1998), Does God Exist? (Google You tube video) (debate), University of Wisconsin.
  22. ↑ Flew 1984.
  23. 1 2 Flew, Anthony (1976). The Presumption of Atheism (PDF). Common Sense Atheism.
  24. ↑ "Atheists, agnostics and theists". Is there a God?. Retrieved 28 September 2016. But it is common these days to find atheists who define the term to mean “without theism”... Many of them then go on to argue that this means that the “burden of proof” is on the theist...
  25. ↑ Day, Donn. "Atheism – Etymology". The Divine Conspiracy. Retrieved 28 September 2016. In the last twenty years or so atheists and theists have taken to debating on college campuses, and in town halls, all across this country. By using the above definition, atheists have attempted to shift the burden of proof.
  26. ↑ Craig, William Lane (2007). Martin, Michael, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, pp. 69–85. Ed. M. Martin. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. pp. 69–85. ISBN 9780521842709. [The Presumption of atheism is] One of the most commonly proffered justifications of atheism has been the so-called presumption of atheism.
  27. ↑ Crawly, William (16 April 2010). "Antony Flew: the atheist who changed his mind". British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 28 September 2016. His books God and Philosophy (1966) and The Presumption of Atheism (1976) [Flew] made the case, now followed by today's new atheists, that atheism should be the intelligent person's default until well-established evidence to the contrary arises
  28. ↑ "Atheism; Atheistic Naturalism". Internet Encyclopedia of Atheism. Retrieved 26 September 2016. A notable modern view is Antony Flew’s Presumption of Atheism (1984).
  29. ↑ "Atheism Isn't Simply a Lack of Belief". Stand to Reason. Retrieved 28 September 2016. Many atheists ... take atheism to be just the default position...Given this redefinition, most atheists are taken aback when theists demand they provide evidence for their atheism.
  30. ↑ Rauser, Randall (1 October 2012). "Atheist, meet Burden of Proof. Burden of Proof, meet Atheist.". The Tentative Apologist. Retrieved 27 September 2016. There are very many atheists who think they have no worldview to defend.
  31. ↑ Parsons, Keith M. (14 December 1997). "Do Atheists Bear a Burden of Proof?". The Secular Web. Retrieved 27 September 2016. The 'evidentialist challenge' is the gauntlet thrown down by atheist writers such as Antony Flew, Norwood Russell Hanson, and Michael Scriven. They argue that in debates over the existence of God, the burden of proof should fall on the theist. They contend that if theists are unable to provide cogent arguments for theism, i.e. arguments showing that it is at least more probable than not that God exists, then atheism wins by default.
  32. ↑ "The burden of truth". Rational Razor. 20 July 2014. Retrieved 27 September 2016. The default position is neutral on the position of God’s existence. The burden of proof is on the claim maker to justify his claim by evidence. At the least, negative atheism does not bear a burden of proof
  33. ↑ Antony, Michael. "The New Atheism, Where’s The Evidence?". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 27 September 2016. Another familiar strategy of atheists is to insist that the burden of proof falls on the believer.
  34. ↑ Samples, Kenneth (Fall 1991). "Putting the Atheist on the Defensive". Christian Research Institute Journal. Retrieved 28 September 2016. When Christians and atheists engage in debate concerning the question, Does God exist? atheists frequently assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian.
  35. ↑ "The burden of truth". Rational Razor. 20 July 2014. Retrieved 27 September 2016. Atheists tend to claim that the theist bears the burden of proof to justify the existence of God, whereas the theist tends to claim that both parties have an equal burden of proof.
  36. ↑ Playford, Richard (9 June 2013). "Atheism and the burden of proof". The Christian Apologetics Alliance. Retrieved 2 October 2016. In this article I will show that atheism is a belief about the world and that it does require a justification in the same way that theism does.
  37. ↑ Flew, Antony (31 August 2001), "Sorry to Disappoint, but I'm Still an Atheist!", Internet Infidels, Sec Web.
  38. ↑ "Atheist Becomes Theist". Biola University. Retrieved 10 March 2012.
  39. 1 2 3 Habermas 2004, p. 6.
  40. ↑ Ostling, Richard N. (10 December 2004), "Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God", Associated Press, Mail archive.
  41. 1 2 3 Richard Carrier. "Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of". The Secular Web. Archived from the original on 21 May 2014.
  42. ↑ Duncan Crary. "No longer atheist, Flew stands by "Presumption of Atheism"". Humanist Studies.
  43. 1 2 Antony Flew; Roy Abraham Varghese (2007), There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, New York: Harper One, p. 124, ASIN B0076O7KX8.
  44. ↑ Flew, Antony (Spring 2006), "A response to Raymond Bradley" (PDF), The Open Society, 79 (4).
  45. ↑ Evans, Robert. "Humanists, Atheists Look to Higher Global Profile". Mukto-mona. Retrieved 10 March 2012.
  46. ↑ Wavell, Stuard (19 December 2004), "In the beginning there was something", The Sunday Times (article).
  47. ↑ Flew, Antony, "Darwinism and Theology", Philosophy Now (letter) (47).
  48. ↑ Flew 1966.
  49. ↑ "Professor Antony Flew", Belief (interview), UK: BBC, 22 March 2005.
  50. ↑ Beverley, James A (29 April 2005), "Thinking Straighter", Christianity Today.
  51. ↑ "Creationism gains foothold in schools", The Times, UK: Times Online.
  52. ↑ Wiker, Dr. Benjamin (30 October 2007), Exclusive Flew Interview, To the source.
  53. ↑ Gottlieb, Anthony (23 December 2007), "I’m a Believer", The New York Times.
  54. ↑ Varghese, Roy (13 January 2008), "Letter to the Editor", The New York Times.
  55. ↑ "Times Magazine Piece on Former Atheist Kicks Up Controversy", Publishers’ weekly
  56. ↑ "Dr. Craig's Current Events Audio Blog". RF Media. 11 November 2007. Retrieved 10 March 2012.
  57. ↑ Carrier, Richard (27 December 2007). "Craig the Annoyed" (Blogger) (World wide web log). Google. Retrieved 10 March 2012.
  58. ↑ "From UnChristian to Christian". Crosswalk. Retrieved 10 March 2012.
  59. ↑ "The Flew-Horvath Correspondence". antonyflew.com. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
  60. ↑ "Antony G.N. Flew", Schlarbaum Laureate, Mises, 2001.
  61. ↑ Flew, Antony. "Locke versus Rawls on Equality" Mises. 24 October 2001.
  62. ↑ "Former Atheist to Receive Award at Biola". Biola News. 27 March 2006. Archived from the original on 22 May 2006.
  63. ↑ Honorary Associates, NZ: NAZRH.
  64. ↑ "CSI Fellows and Staff". About. Center for Inquiry. Retrieved 20 June 2012.
  65. ↑ "'In Praise of Reason' Award Goes to Antony Flew". The Skeptical Inquirer. 10 (2): 102, 104. 1985.

Works

References

Wikiquote has quotations related to: Antony Flew

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.