Research On a Conversion

After reading the book written in his name, I have been investigating the conversion and writings of this once philosophical mind, Antony Flew. The first thing a reading of the book made very clear was that it totally lacked a counter argument for Flew's own views. Considering the history and bibliography of this man, I would think that this alone represents a ridiculous circumstance of the book's writing. A circumstance that has an obvious explanation; it was not written by the man named on its cover, nor could he have had any input into its authoring. An idea shared by many other reviewers of this work. Which is why I originally opted to not blog the results of my research. There were many other blogs on the topic appearing on the web at that time. I only proffer this minor blog on the topic as a listing of some of the points I found on the net over the years.

     Now, after being put in the position of reading an argument that begins as a misrepresentation (Isn't it funny how so many religious apologetics begin life this way?), I thought I would consider the presented arguments on their own merit—just for giggles and grins.

     First, I'll say that the book, There Is No A God  qualifies, and Richard Carrier concurs, as the weakest argument put forward that I have ever read. Ok, I must admit that I have actually been reading on this conversion of an "atheist" for many years and trying as much as possible to understand Antony's motivation, reasoning, or lack thereof. As such, I come across many opinions on this subject but, none are as coherent as Richard Carrier's Blog and Richard brings up many points due to his correspondence with Flew since 2000. There are many links to insightful writings by Flew and others on one of Richard's other postings at Infidels not to mention the most complete history of this whole sorted story. Also, the New York Times cover by Mark Oppenheimer is a good piece on the unfolding of this book's back story. The story actually starts in 1950 with the publication of Flew's Theology and Falsification and ends with the publication of this junk. In the words of Richard Dawkins, "it's sad." Some examples of the writings on the subject, from Open Society Journals between Antony Flew and Raymond Bradley even the hard to find replies from both gentlemen.

Of course, there are a plethora varying opinions on the book's authorship, veracity, and strength of argument, but that is all they are—opinions. Let the facts—and only the facts—speak for themselves.

Personally I feel Antony Flew is owed an apology, but it is not mine to offer.

I ask, "Would you convert for cash Antony Flew?"

The religious are clambering all over each other to hail Antony Flew, the alleged ex-atheist who supposedly "changed his stance on the existence of god" and then wrote a book about it. But wait, with all the new atheist authors out there, eg. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, et al. how could someone stand stand against that crowd? I thought. Then this idea came to me.

As I read the book that was supposedly Flew’s arguments, I was very interested to find the evidence that changed his mind, of course. His original position was powerful and I was desperately looking for this new evidence, and especially how he was going to rebut his own, earlier arguments. After all, I am convinced few people, who are presently thoughtful atheists, would be easily convinced that there is evidence for a supernatural entity. Atheists rely on evidence. 

But I was sorely disappointed. It was as if Flew, who, as it turned out, was only interviewed for the book, it seems he either forgot his earlier arguments against God,  pretended he didn’t have any, or this was some sort of shady hit and run interview where pointed questions are asked and scientific answers are manipulated to fool the pious and scientifically illiterate. For several hours I pondered over this issue. The book was very short and written by a pan handling Christian apologist with a less than stellar resume named Roy Abraham Varghese. But still, how could someone who was once so sharp and so logical just pretend his earlier arguments didn’t exist? How could he ignore what he had professed, or written earlier in his career? I mean, if he couldn’t really answer his earlier arguments against God, (in the book he omitted discussing most of them at all) how in the world did he change his mind? I have viewed this video of him seemingly incoherently answering an interviewers questions, as if his mental faculties are diminished due to age. What I thought I saw in that interview may have had more to do with my interpretation than with Flew's condition, but I think there is something to the notion that he may be loosing the edge, he is an octogenarian now. Then...

Flew, you sly old dog. I’m on to you. Although, I can understand why you would do it, for you, it makes perfect sense. Since, just bare with me a moment, you know there isn’t some imaginary sky fairy watching you, you really have nothing to worry about as far as retribution in an afterlife. You don’t have to worry if you, dare I say, lie! I can see what would motive someone to this contrivance. Your fame is dying down, the New Atheists are being hailed as the rationalists to reckon with, maybe... stealing your thunder? Damn that Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, etc. What else can an old man like you bring to the debate? Why would people want to read what you have left to say? If only you could get into that religious book market. But you would need to change your story, then you would have the whole religious community “worshipping” you - "the famous atheist who was smart enough to see the light." Cough! Then, once again, you will become an intellectual hero. Anyway, who cares, which side of a philosophical point is idolizing you, hailing your name, or at least making you famous? Christians, atheists; does it even matter to you? Of course not! If they buy the book, maybe speak your name, you’ll be happy.

So, how could you do this, without demolishing your hard earned reputation in philosophy? Change your story, of course, but how? A death bed conversion would only put your reputation in disrepute, not enough time for a book deal or those insistent interviews. But if you were to, say, convert now - but not a full Christian conversion, no - to a god of the gaps deistic meta physic, that holds to an a priori creator. This doesn't contradict all of your prior work, not all of it. So, that’s what you did, isn't it. But hey, now you’re back in the limelight. Now your name (and book) is back on the world stage. Sure, you had to jump the fence. Tell me, is it easier to play stupid or sophistic?

Undoubtedly you had to go against your own mind, but who cares, right? There’s no punishment waiting for you after you die. But there are those pesky New Atheists out there that have seen this world through similar eyes as yours. We both know this. But hey! Why not, I mean it's not like you are making a difficult life worse for the rest of us? Go ahead, change your tune, become famous again - rake in that cash. I’m sure the income and notoriety will cleanse that taste out of your mouth after your conversion. But what if your family is forced to live in a new age of bigotry, zealotry, or hate mongering that your new found world view heralds, your recent conversion bolstered. What if! Ah, what do you care? Denial, is a great thing. Isn't it?

And as for your new audience, it's great isn't it, they’re willing to believe anything and I mean anything. To them, you will be almost as famous as JC himself, maybe more famous to those clinging to what is left, of a belief in the belief. You should have no problem becoming their poster child, no problem at all. Right, Antony? All you have to do is forget what you professed earlier, which I can attest you have done so well as to have many of your would be ideological compatriots thinking in terms of Alzheimer's, or another dementia, touché. Even in your book, apparently, since you failed to reconcile your own arguments, just as many Christian apologists fail to do.

I understand. The money, the fame, they can drive some to do...  things. And since we both know there’s no evidence supporting a supernatural realm, or anything relating to the supernatural that has ever been verified in the history of mankind, it's safe to logically predict there isn't much of a chance we will find a deistic realm. Let alone, a supernatural realm for some mystic to be keeping score of our lives, so, why the hell not?
Enjoy your money and fame Flew. The turmoil you have left in this revolution is not insurmountable, the turbulence you stir in your wake will only hone my skills of insurrection, so go ahead Flew, forget what you have learned. In the end, I’ll have my dignity. But who knows, I might convert to deism myself, if that is what it takes to stop the bigotry. But seriously, I doubt it. I like fighting toe to toe, way too much Mr. Flew.

And so I did. Finding the work of Richard Carrier, philosopher, historian of science, and writer. I found links to the real story and all the evidence showing that Roy Varghese was more of a conman than I originally thought. Anthony Flew didn't change his position at all. He did what every honest philosopher would do. He left room for intellectual honesty in the lightfootedness of his stance. His mistake was in assuming the forthrightness of his interviewer. Sorry old man, I should have better. You were always quick to accommodate.