Expert: Philip A. Stahl - 8/15/2011

Question
hello sir,i would like to know your view about antony flew and  about his believe in a higher intelligent being existence which created everything and his believe in deism.

Answer
Hello,

It's important to recognize that so far as we can tell (based on actual interviews Flew gave before he died), his belief in a 'higher intelligent being' was the same as his Deism. In one interview, see e.g.


http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm

He responds to a question (from Habermas) on his belief in the existence of God by saying:

"Well I  don’t believe in the God of any revelatory system, although I am open to that. But it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before."

Note here, that the "Aristotelian God" is exactly the same one as postulated by Deism. Yes, it created the cosmos as an initial non-specific and impersonal "Intelligence", but then after this "first cause" is proposed, every distinction with the Christian God is magnified. This entity is NOT personal, and does not and has not intervened in the cosmos since the creation. Further, it has not imparted any Trinity, nor any son who goes by the name of Christ.

The Deist God, to give an analogy, is analogous to a child who makes a toy with a gear wheel, and the toy has the ability to move after being wound up and released. Thus, the child makes the toy (he's a clever kid) winds it up, releases it down the sidewalk, then walks away never to glance at it or its final outcome, destination. In this case, the child plays an analogous role to the ambiguous first cause of deism and the toy is analogous to the universe.

This is why I've often said (as in my book, Atheism: A Beginner's Handbook) that Deism is but one rung removed from atheism. Atheists accept no trasncendent entity that created anything, Deism does - but then the entity leaves its "creation" behind as if it never existed!

So - in many ways- excepting the wordly window dressing- it's the difference between tweedledee and tweedledum. Strictly speaking, therefore, Deism treated in its orthodox and traditional manner is not Theism!

This is why I think a much bigger fuss was engendered over Flew's "conversion" than actually cold be substantiated. And, as he noted, he certainly didn't convert to any recognizable Christianity.

What is the bottom line here? As I keep saying (and writing) over and over until I'm blue in the face, it's not just to say or assert "This or That Atheist now 'Believes in God'" but WHAT KIND OF GOD? There are more than ten thousand conceptual variations of deity that have been germinated in the human noggin over eons. The key question is what is the nature of any one vis-a-vis any other? In most cases, when you press Christians on this, they punt - and refuse to even provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for their own deity to exist. Then, they expect us (as Atheists) to take them seriously!

For them to therefore sashay around and clap their hands because an "unbeliever suddenly becomes a believer in God" means nothing, unless that change of heart or mindset means something definable or recognizable. Otherwise, it's all just words and words are cheap. In effect, this wondrous "conversion" may only mean the former unbeliever now accepts a nebulous "superior being" bigger than himself, but which is still impersonal and which doesn't include acceptance of any biblical revelations or salvation themes, so is still unrecognizable as a god in any orthodox sense -say that would truly be of more than passing utility to a crowing Christian braggart.

But never mind. The deluded, reality-challenged Christians (always on the lookout for atheism defectors) will find some way to parlay **any nonbeliever's changes in belief**, into a belief in THEIR God!

It's truly pathetic!

Hope this sheds some light on the whole Antony Flew incident.