Anthony Flew’s Deism
November 6th, 2007 | Published in Thoughts, Religion | 11 Comments
Anthony Flew was a defender of atheism for over 50 years. Then something amazing happened — he embraced deism in 2004. This was astounding news and celebrated by Christians: one of the most prominent academic defenders of atheism no longer disbelieved in God! The evidence for this first came in a video from May 2004, with Flew conversing with “the Orthodox Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder and the Christian philosopher John Haldane”:
When at last Flew speaks, his diction is halting, in stark contrast to Schroeder and Haldane, both younger men, forceful and assured. Under their prodding, Flew concedes that the Big Bang could be described in Genesis; that the complexity of DNA strongly points to an “intelligence”; and that the existence of evil is not an insurmountable problem for the existence of God. In short, Flew retracts decades’ worth of conclusions on which he built his career. At one point, Haldane is noticeably smiling, embarrassed (or pleased) by Flew’s acquiesence. After one brief lecture from Schroeder, arguing that the origin of life can be seen as a form of revelation, Flew says, “I don’t see any way to meet that argument at the moment.”
In other words, it seems Flew might have embraced deism due to his declining mental facilities, not because of new arguments or insight. It would be similar to Billy Graham becoming an atheist today – we wouldn’t say it was because of a new mental clarity, but rather because of mental confusion from old age.
Flew’s new book has been ghostwritten on a number of levels by theist friends, and Flew cannot remember many of the names or ideas he cites throughout the book with his name on it:
In “There Is a God,” Flew quotes extensively from a conversation he had with Leftow, a professor at Oxford. So I asked Flew, “Do you know Brian Leftow?”
“No,” he said. “I don’t think I do.”
“Do you know the work of the philosopher John Leslie?” Leslie is discussed extensively in the book.
Flew paused, seeming unsure. “I think he’s quite good.” But he said he did not remember the specifics of Leslie’s work.
“Have you ever run across the philosopher Paul Davies?” In his book, Flew calls Paul Davies “arguably the most influential contemporary expositor of modern science.”
“I’m afraid this is a spectacle of my not remembering!”….
He didn’t remember talking with Paul Kurtz about his introduction to “God and Philosophy” just two years ago. There were words in his book, like “abiogenesis,” that now he could not define. When I asked about Gary Habermas, who told me that he and Flew had been friends for 22 years and exchanged “dozens” of letters, Flew said, “He and I met at a debate, I think.” I pointed out to him that in his earlier philosophical work he argued that the mere concept of God was incoherent, so if he was now a theist, he must reject huge chunks of his old philosophy. “Yes, maybe there’s a major inconsistency there,” he said, seeming grateful for my insight. And he seemed generally uninterested in the content of his book — he spent far more time talking about the dangers of unchecked Muslim immigration and his embrace of the anti-E.U. United Kingdom Independence Party.
As he himself conceded, he had not written his book.
If this is true, it is disturbing. Is Flew being exploited in his old age by his theist friends? Read the article and decide for yourself.
Update: Roy Varghese responds to the Oppenheimer article in a comment on Christian Today’s blog.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:58 am (#)
Hi Josh,
There seems to be an implication in the above discussion that I suspect is inconsistent with the truth of scripture. The implication would be that reason should lead man to the truth about God. Certainly I believe that reason uncorrupted by man’s fallen sinfulness should lead man to the truth about God, but the Bible doesn’t teach that man’s reasoning is uncorrupted. I think defenders of theism and atheists alike generally miss the main point when they go about arguing for or against the existence of God. The Bible doesn’t teach that man’s problem is poor reasoning (and that better reasoning is the path to salvation); the Bible teaches that man’s problem is sin that has corrupted him to the core (and what God incarnate did on our behalf while we were yet his enemies is what brings us salvation.)
If believers implicitly argue that atheists ought to see the truth in their reason, then believers are denying their opponents’ real problem (as taught in scripture), and in the process, their denying the work of the real savior. I think our arguments are counterproductive if they implicitly deny the core problem of sin and therefore the sole solution of Jesus.
Eric
November 10th, 2007 at 12:59 pm (#)
Eric,
If reason is corrupted by the fall, none of us have hope. Christians and atheists must reason to their conclusions. There is no way around it. Christians must reason that the Bible is the word of God, that revelation can be trusted, that events really happened, that we’re not being tricked.
If reason is corrupted, then nothing really matters, because we could never know anything.
Josh
November 11th, 2007 at 7:59 am (#)
Hi Josh,
> If reason is corrupted by the fall, none of us have hope.
Indeed, none of us has hope unless the Spirit moves in us. If reason could lead us to righteousness, what’s the point of Jesus (his incarnation, resurrection, etc.)? Do you, Josh, have hope in your own abilities, in your own reason?
Moreover, if reason is what leads us to right religion, what are we saying about unbelievers? They’re stupid and we’re just smarter than they are? Or we’re just more reasonable? “Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards…But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise…so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God–that is, our righteousness, holiness, and redemption.” (1 Cor 2:26-30)
> Christians and atheists must reason to their conclusions. There is no way around it.
Isn’t that why the gospel is good news? Jesus is the way around it, right? “Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded.” (Rom 3:27a)
> If reason is corrupted, then nothing really matters, because we could never know anything.
Isn’t that something of an exaggeration? I mean, yes, we can never know anything perfectly, we can never know anything purely objectively, we can never understand anything without that understanding being shaped by who we are, but we do know things imperfectly as finite men with biases (most significant, our overwhelming natural bias to sin.) Don’t histories most dramatic villains (Mao Tse Tung, the Khmer Rouge, Julius the warrior pope, Monsanto, etc.) demonstrate most dramatically how corrupted reason really is?
“For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.” (1 Cor 2:2-5)
It doesn’t sound to me like you, Josh, are describing a faith that does “not rest on men’s wisdom”. How do you reconcile what you said above to the Bible’s teaching?
“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor 2:14)
“…men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them….For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish heart were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…” (Rom 1:18,19,21,22)
Doesn’t the Bible (particularly the Romans passage above) describe our problem as suppressing by wickedness what we plainly know? Where then is reason? Is it not “futile” apart from a “righteousness *from God*” (Rom 3:22)? Is it Jesus that redeemed us (believers) or our reason?
Best,
Eric
November 11th, 2007 at 12:34 pm (#)
“Do you, Josh, have hope in your own abilities, in your own reason?”
That’s a loaded question, Eric. Since I unmistakably come from the Reformed tradition, the answer must be no. But of course I do. And so do you. If I didn’t, how could I know it was “the Spirit” moving me? How could I discern it wasn’t demonic or worldliness? Nobody should just accept some kind of feeling in their bosom, or they’ll become anything. If our reason is corrupt — I wasn’t exaggerating here — then I think we have no hope whatsoever of finding any truth. We might as well decide what to believe what a pair of dice.
If my reason is corrupt, I couldn’t interpret any of the Scriptures you quoted. Or rather, my interpretation would always be wrong. To quote Scriptures to someone means you think they can understand them, which means their reason must be working. I just don’t see any way around it.
I don’t believe God magically zaps people to make them see him. God always uses means. I believe he uses reason, friends, experiences, and other influences to guide people to himself.
Josh
November 11th, 2007 at 5:49 pm (#)
Hi Josh,
I hadn’t meant to throw a loaded question at you — just a leading one.
> To quote Scriptures to someone means you think they can understand them, which means their reason must be working. I just don’t see any way around it.
It’s not that I think mankind (and you as a part of mankind) can reason soundly; it’s that I think the Spirit is at work in you. After all, as I quoted from 1 Corinthians above, “The man without the Spirit…*CANNOT* understand [the things that come from the Spirit of God], because they are spiritually discerned.” (my emphasis, of course)
That’s not to say I don’t believe God uses means. I believe he does. I also very much agree that we shouldn’t be putting our faith in some feeling in our bosom, which I think is a real danger. I believe we can understand God and his Word largely through the faculties of reason, but doesn’t the Bible clearly teach that reason apart from the Spirit can get us nowhere??? It certainly can’t lead us to righteousness or spiritual discernment, not according to the Bible.
I guess what I see as the biblical bottom line here is that the unbeliever’s reason is absolutely corrupted by the fall (albeit perhaps in subtle ways) such that the unbeliever is completely without hope, and the believer’s reason retains elements of that corruption despite the seed of new and uncorrupted hope.
> If I didn’t [have hope in my own reason], how could I know it was “the Spirit” moving me? How could I discern it wasn’t demonic or worldliness?
Are you saying the unbeliever has the reasoning ability to discern the falsehood of his own false religion? If an unbeliever were moved by demonic or worldly forces, I certainly wouldn’t trust his reason to save him. And so I don’t see that these things turn on the issue of reason. Biblically, I think it’s clear that they don’t turn on the issue of any our faculties, but only on the Spirit.
What do you think?
November 13th, 2007 at 11:41 am (#)
Eric,
I think we simply disagree with the base premise “was reason corrupted by the fall.” You seem to think it was, and I do not. The rest is all extrapolation from that presupposition. I’m not aware of anything in the bible that teaches reason was corrupted by the fall — in fact, I think reading the Bible presupposes we can reason soundly.
Christians can get confused just as much as non-Christians. I mean, Peter denied Jesus, after all, even though that wasn’t reasonable. Christians can be just as irrational as evangelical atheists, and atheists can be just as rational as Christian theologians. I’m not even sure what it would mean for our reason to be corrupted. We couldn’t have logic or science or mathematics if it was.
Josh
November 13th, 2007 at 2:15 pm (#)
Hi Josh,
Thanks for the reply. It would indeed seem we disagree about the premise “was reason corrupted by the fall,” but what I’m hung up on is how you can reconcile your position to the Bible. The Bible, indeed, doesn’t say “reason was corrupted by the fall,” certainly not in those words, but it does say, “…think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards…” I don’t see a lot of difference in those two statements. Are you suggesting there’s a critical difference between “sound reason” and “wisdom”? If so, what is it?
If you think I’m misguided, can you at least see how I might think what I think follows from the verses I cited? And if so, where do you think I’m going wrong?
Your arguments seem to disregard what the Bible does tell us.
You said:
> If my reason is corrupt, I couldn’t interpret any of the Scriptures you quoted. Or rather, my interpretation would always be wrong. To quote Scriptures to someone means you think they can understand them, which means their reason must be working. I just don’t see any way around it.
Is that not equivalent to saying, “men, through the powers of reason, can understand Scriptures”? If not, why not? If so, how do you reconcile that to the Bible saying, “The man without the Spirit…*CANNOT* understand [the things that come from the Spirit of God], because they are spiritually discerned”? It just seems like you’re directly contradicting the explicit teaching of Scripture. What could I be missing?
It seems to me you’re advocating a “faith…[that] rest[s] on men’s wisdom”. 1 Corinthians obviously makes clear that that’s bad. If that’s not what you’re advocating, what’s the difference? In other words, what else could a faith that rests on men’s wisdom mean, but what you’re defending?
If you like, I could try to discuss with you why reading the Bible doesn’t presuppose we can reason soundly, or why we can have logic or science or mathematics despite corrupted reason, but I’d rather make those thoughts fit with the Bible than vice versa, and so I think the direct biblical questions should take priority.
Obviously, this is a very consequential difference, particularly in how we deal with unbelievers. Is the gospel message we should be speaking, “wise up, fool,” or “repent and believe, sinner”? One message speaks to a problem of reasoning, the other to a problem of sin. (Perhaps that’s an unfair summary. Please don’t let it distract from my central biblical questions. I only add this to show why I find this point so important.)
Best, Eric
November 14th, 2007 at 3:41 pm (#)
Eric,
> it does say,
> “…think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by
> human standards…” I don’t see a lot of difference in those two statements.
> Are you suggesting there’s a critical difference between “sound reason” and
> “wisdom”? If so, what is it?
I do think there is a difference. Someone can have unsound reasoning yet have the ability to reason soundly. I reason unsoundly all the time, then someone points it out, and sometimes I see that they are right.
I think non-Christians have the ability to use rational ability just as much as Christians. Again, what would it mean for people not to? How would you know? How would they know? How could they test that? Can you prove it to them? When and how does reason get corrected? Was it like this before Christ? If so, was Adam never able to reason correctly after the fall? He didn’t do such a bang-up job of reasoning before the fall, either, though…
> Is that not equivalent to saying, “men, through the powers of reason, can
> understand Scriptures”? If not, why not? If so, how do you reconcile that to
> the Bible saying, “The man without the Spirit…*CANNOT* understand [the things
> that come from the Spirit of God], because they are spiritually discerned”?
> It just seems like you’re directly contradicting the explicit teaching of
> Scripture. What could I be missing?
I believe non-Christians can interpret the Scriptures – they were written by real people in a real historical context in a real language. Whether they can believe it on their own, however, is a different issue entirely and not one we are discussing.
You’re taking that passage to mean that “a natural man” (a non-Christian) cannot understand Scripture, but I don’t think that is the case. It’s saying that unbelievers are not spiritually discerning, which is different from saying they can’t understand the words Paul was writing.
> It seems to me you’re advocating a “faith…[that] rest[s] on men’s wisdom”.
> 1 Corinthians obviously makes clear that that’s bad. If that’s not what
> you’re advocating, what’s the difference? In other words, what else could a
> faith that rests on men’s wisdom mean, but what you’re defending?
Actually I’d say faith is belief in something that cannot be proven (otherwise it’s fact, not faith), and requires trust in something more than what seems real by nature. Though come to think of it, I suppose that is based on reason, too, because it’s a decision that must go through the intellect until it can be believed. (That is, I must say, “I know this seems foolish to the world, but yet I believe.” It is a rational decision.)
> Obviously, this is a very consequential difference, particularly in how we
> deal with unbelievers. Is the gospel message we should be speaking, “wise up,
> fool,” or “repent and believe, sinner”? One message speaks to a problem of
> reasoning, the other to a problem of sin. (Perhaps that’s an unfair summary.
> Please don’t let it distract from my central biblical questions. I only add
> this to show why I find this point so important.)
I think both are necessary. In order for someone to repent of sin and believe in Christ, they must first be convinced that Jesus is real and was the son of God. Personally I’ve gone back and forth on this issue, which is an argument between evidentialist and presuppositionalist apologetics. I started out as an evidentialist, became presuppositionalist for many years, and now I’m somewhere in the middle.
> If you think I’m misguided, can you at least see how I might think what I
> think follows from the verses I cited? And if so, where do you think I’m
> going wrong?
I really do understand where you’re coming from. I used to think the same thing. I can see we’re you’ve come to that conclusion from Scripture, but people have come to many conclusions about this throughout history. You’re taking one historical position, and I’m taking another. I find mine more in line with how I see the world, and how I read and understand non-Christians. And I don’t think it contradicts Scripture.
Thanks for discussing.
Josh
November 15th, 2007 at 6:01 am (#)
Josh,
Thanks again for all the interaction on this subject.
> Whether they can believe it on their own, however, is a different issue entirely and not one we are discussing.
But isn’t that the crux of the matter? And if you’re saying reason can’t lead us to belief, how is that different from my objection to saying/implying reason should lead the unbeliever to the truth about God?????
Did reason play a part in our salvation? Of course, but I don’t see that it played any more a part than hearing or language or any number of other things. Critically, what differentiates a believer from an unbeliever (and actually counts for anything in the “debate” about whether God exists) has nothing to do with differing faculties or attainments of reason. Josh, you would agree, I assume, that your belief owes nothing to your relative (to unbelievers) ability to reason?
> You’re taking that passage to mean that “a natural man”
> (a non-Christian) cannot understand Scripture, but I
> don’t think that is the case. It’s saying that
> unbelievers are not spiritually discerning, which is
> different from saying they can’t understand the words
> Paul was writing.
Obviously, unbelievers can read the words and even write essays (or preach sermons) from that “understanding,” but I think the point is that it’s ultimately an incorrect and ineffectual understanding, which is to say natural man really cannot understand Scripture. The gospel is veiled to those who are perishing (2 Cor 4:3), right?
Eric
November 15th, 2007 at 10:06 am (#)
> Josh, you would agree, I assume, that your belief owes nothing to your
> relative (to unbelievers) ability to reason?
If it was pitched very philosophically precise, I might agree. But practically I believe God uses means, and that God appeals to reason. (After all, in the famous verse in Isaiah, God says “let us reason together.”)
God is the only one who can bring a person to himself, but he doesn’t zap them. He makes himself look beautiful and glorious to unbelievers through means, like another person talking or a book or an experience. Thus the only rational action would be to believe. Without reason, a decision could not be made. I believe everyone has this built in, and it’s a part of being human. I don’t see how else to understand the world around us. Again, if our reason is corrupted and we *cannot* “reason soundly” before becoming Christians, we have no hope of becoming Christians and no hope of ever finding the truth.
Honestly, you can find both sides in the Bible if you’re looking for it. If you’re looking for reason being corrupted, there are verses that seem to say that. And if you’re looking for reason not being corrupted, there are verses that see to say or imply that. As usual, our presuppositions color everything.
Josh
November 15th, 2007 at 12:25 pm (#)
> If it was pitched very philosophically precise, I might
> agree. But practically I believe God uses means, and that
> God appeals to reason. (After all, in the famous verse in
> Isaiah, God says “let us reason together.”)
I agree with everything you said in that first paragraph, although I wouldn’t put things so hesitantingly. In other words, I think glorifying God as we should calls for enthusiastically denying our merit, praising God for saving us in the midst of our foolishness and our enmity with Him, excluding boasting, saying we are unworthy servants, boasting only in the cross, etc.
> Honestly, you can find both sides in the Bible if you’re looking for it.
Do you have any examples from Scripture that you think, rightly understood, indicate that our reason isn’t corrupted? I honestly haven’t encountered any verses that leave me any doubt on this issue, although there are verses that trouble my understanding of other things I believe.
> Again, if our reason is corrupted and we *cannot* “reason soundly” before becoming Christians, we have no hope of becoming Christians and no hope of ever finding the truth.
We have as much hope as a set of dry bones in the desert, which is what God promises to give life to in Ezekiel. With God, all things are possible. I think you’re shortchanging God’s act of salvation.
> Thus the only rational action would be to believe.
I don’t think the Bible validates that way of thinking. Was it rational for Pharoah to resist God after the ten plagues? Was it rational for Nathaneal to believe because Jesus said he saw him sitting under a fig tree? I just don’t think (and I don’t see in Scripture) where reason has the power to compel people to believe. Paul says, in fact, that when he came to the Corinthians and they believed that he did NOT come with superior wisdom, and he goes on to say that that’s how real faith comes about, “not with wise and persuasive words.”
Have you read Ezekiel chapter 37 or 1 Corinthians chapters 1 & 2 lately?
SDG ;)