Fire and Knowledge

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.

Here’s a comment I made on Justin Taylor’s blog about whether atheists can trust their reasoning abilities or not. It was in response to an Alvin Plantinga lecture arguing that atheists could not trust them.

Plantinga argues in the last talk that a naturalist cannot trust his own mental facilities. That might be true, but that is why methods like the scientific method exist and are used — it takes something out of the mind in order to test if something is really predictable and testable (and thus, scientifically “true”).

So even if we doubt our facilities, the fact is, we can test our deductions. That will help us determine if our minds our reliable in their deductive abilities. It doesn’t matter whether it is probable or not that we can trust them — the question is, can we?

For instance, we may hypothesize that every time we drop a large stone, on earth, under normal conditions, it will fall. We could doubt that it is true – our minds could be tricking us – but that is why we test it. And we find that every time we test it, it happens. So that would lead us, after thousands of years of testing and theorizing and philosophizing, that our faculties are not all that bad after all, which allows us to put more trust in ourselves for higher levels of thinking. (And thus understand and debate on the concepts of mind and reason and truth!)

So I think the naturalist/atheist has every right to trust their mental faculties just as much as a theist. Both the theist and the atheist can be mentally tricked and lead astray, and both have explanations on why that can happen. And both recognize that and seek to minimize it through methods.

In the end, the theist believes that man is able to reason. So does the atheist. And the atheist believes the theist can reason, and the theist believes the atheist can reason. So, ultimately, they can start at the same place to begin building methods, which is why theists and atheists can both (for instance) be scientists and come to the exact same conclusions when running the same test. (And why they are able to argue about it if they come to different conclusions!)

For most people who are serious about learning, anything over a B. A. is a waste of time and money — unless it is needed for a career. In a world of cheap books, public libraries, easy recommendations, digital lectures, meetups, and the internet, self-education is easier and cheaper than ever.

That’s why when I saw The Personal MBA Manifesto, I couldn’t help but pass it along. Why spend 3-4 years and $100,000+ working on an MBA? I have no idea. I owned and sold a business and worked as a freelance web designer without an MBA. My mom owned, sold and started another business without any college education. Many of my friends have, too. It’s done all the time.

So for those who are considering starting a business or “advancing their career” and thus considering an MBA or similar degree, consider reading the books on your own time — and budget — instead of making 4 years of your life (and your family’s life!) miserable by going into debt and squeezing in night classes.

If you need accountability, join or create a club for those who are doing something similar. Or if you are a aural or visual learner, consider listening or watching lectures from The Teaching Company, where they have some of the best professors around the country teaching a wide range of subjects.

You’ll learn quite a bit — maybe even more than those cramming for exams — quickly, cheaply, and at your own pace.

(Or if you want a real degree, check out these online MBA rankings and find a program to enroll in where you don’t need to leave your house!)

I rediscovered the public library last weekend. I used to go quite a bit as a kid, but as I got older I always preferred to purchase books instead. But I’m slowly realizing the futility and expense of that, so my new plan is to only purchase books I know I will re-read or use often for reference. The rest I will check out from the library.

(In my battle for simplicity, I went through my personal library and weeded out over 150 books and donated them to a thrift store. Two months ago I would have rather donated my fingers.)

Though there were quite a few people at the library, few were there for the books. Most were there for the computers, which they had everywhere. Naturally being a busybody, I walked around to see what was so interesting.

The first thing I saw was a half-naked man and teenage girls chuckling. Then there were small kids browsing rap artist websites. After that was another kid playing an online game. The rest were browsing either myspace or facebook, with the obligatory half-naked photo of their online buddy and tiled backgrounds that make you want to tear your eyes out. (Or is it just me?)

That doesn’t seem like what library internet access is for. Isn’t library internet for research and email? Why isn’t there a filter on it that blocks myspace and facebook and games? Kids can browse those websites at home. The library is for reading and research, not online social networking and electronic games.

Or maybe I’m just old-fashioned and think libraries have something to do with public education.

Every tax paper tells us it has been “furnished to the IRS.” Why furnished — instead of say, sent or given — is unknown to me, but it got me thinking: if all our records are provided to the IRS, why doesn’t the IRS provide a website where we can login and make use of it? Then we could add our other income and deductions and be done with taxes quickly. Taxes would be simple and accurate. Our information would transfer from last year, and there would be less of a chance that any numbers would be inputted incorrectly (as they would already be there).

Instead, we enter all of our records so that they can be verified with the same records that were “furnished” to the IRS. Pretty inefficient for the 21st century.

I read an article on how science hopes to change events that have already occurred. The title was so frightening that I had to read it. I mean, science changing the future is scary enough — but the past? What are we going to change? For the few things we could actually change for the better (though I doubt we could change anything without messing everything else up) there would be countless tragedies. For the doctor who cures a plague (which of course would change the outcome of everything today, so the doctor would no longer exist, and thus the cure could never have happened… oh the paradoxes of retrocausality!), there would be countless crimes. For instance, someone with a grudge against America could go back to 1776 with a machine gun.

Researchers are on the verge of experiments that will finally hold retrocausality’s feet to the fire by attempting to send a signal to the past…. If retrocausality is confirmed — and that is a huge if — it would overturn our most cherished notions about the nature of cause and effect and how the universe works.

First, how would we confirm a signal to the distant past? Who would know how to confirm it to us? Second, if the future had sent a message to the past, wouldn’t we already know about it? And thirdly, if this was really possible, wouldn’t our entire past be filled with messages and people (and advertisements!) from the future?

If retrocausality is real, it might even explain why life exists in the universe — exactly why the universe is so “finely tuned” for human habitation.

Let me get this straight. We were created. Then we realized it was impossible for us to be created, so we created ourselves through retrocausality. That sounds like a lot of nonsense to me.

Regardless, we can’t even get the present in order. What business do we have with the past if we can’t even deal with the present responsibly? Let’s try and fix our present before we even attempt to meddle with the past.

If Steve Jobs wants DRM-free music (and we all do, I hope), why doesn’t the iTunes Store let musicians offer their music without DRM? That seems like a good first step.

Dear _________,

I see you’ve posted your latest played songs on your website. It’s interesting to know someone has found satisfaction in listening to David Hasselhoff and Bubba Sparxxx, but I could have lived not knowing it was you.

Your entire music history is at last.fm – every song you have listened to since you signed up. Neat. Unfortunately this makes it horribly tempting to make fun of you, seeing you’ve listened to “A Whole New World” from Aladdin 350 times this month. (Yes, you forgot to check the “private” option for that song. I see you’ve remedied that now.)

Why are you posting this to the world? Does it make you feel cool? Elite? Seriously, what’s the appeal? Why give this information to everyone? What’s the benefit? When you want to listen to something that isn’t cool, do you make those songs private? Or do you just not listen to them? Does it excite you to know that someone visiting your website knows the last five songs you listened to? Do you realize they don’t care?

If you want to recommend music to others, please do so. I’m sure you know some obscure indie math-rock emo-core band nobody but you knows about. (Probably because it consists of you, your mom and Garageband.) By all means, introduce us to cool new music to find our identities in. But we don’t need — don’t want — to know your entire music history or even your latest played songs.

Best,

Josh