James Beverley, professor of Christian apologetics at Tyndale Seminary, has a good article on why Antony Flew now believes in God. Reading the words of Richard Carrier accusing Flew of "willfully sloppy scholarship" I am struck by how quickly partisan intellectual controversy can turn nasty. A marked contrast can be seen in the collegial words Flew and his theist interlocutors have for one another.
The words of the skeptical blogger at the beginning of the article put me in mind of something else I have been thinking of lately. The skeptical blogger gives a jaundiced psychological account of why Flew would switch from being an atheist to a theist. In a good sign for rationalism Flew reports that he was convinced by the arguments. Why should someone doubt his first person report in favor of the least charitable interpretation of his change of mind? Proponents of naturalism seem to often come up with speculative Freudian explanations to explain religious belief. However, I have yet to see a theist resort to such a move to explain an atheist's lack of belief. Perhaps theists should start telling Freudian stories about theists just show the absurdity of such accounts. Feel free to leave your best Freudian explanation of atheism in the comments.
You asked,
Why should someone doubt his first person report in favor of the least charitable interpretation of his change of mind? Proponents of naturalism seem to often come up with speculative Freudian explanations to explain religious belief?
What I've overheard in discussion are people saying that Flew is too clever to be taken in by the reasons behind his (alleged) conversion so there must be some further factors at work clouding his judgment. I don't know what his reasons were, I've heard conflicting reports about his 'conversion', and to be perfectly honest I don't really see what the hype is.
Well I think the hype should be about the import of a philosopher making something of a radical change in his thinking. Putnam aside I haven't seen many prominent philosophers making such radical shifts. I do not know any Christian philosophers who have gotten over excited over Flew's shift since he still repudiates reveal religion. I think the move is rather significant, but theists have to bear in mind that he's only a deist which is the theist minimum.
Why alleged conversion? Is there some reason to doubt that he has not changed his position, or was he always a theist in disguise? Every reputable source I have read reports that Flew was simply following the evidence and the arguments. By his own report he still does not believe in the afterlife so I do not see how these speculative Freudian accounts can be close to the mark. Perhaps the discussion you heard suggested that because of his age his mind is faltering, but I have not seen or heard any such suggestion.
When I was an undergraduate I remember seeing Paul Vitz, author of The Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism, give a pseduo-Freudian psychological explanation for atheism, or at least what I remember him calling "militant" atheism. As I recall, the argument wasn't very convincing, but it least demonstrates that there are theists who resort to psychological explanations for atheism.
While reading about the whole Flew flap a couple of months ago, it struck me that Christian philosophers were as ecstatic as they were, when Flew's "conversion" so aptly demonstrates the limitations of Christian apologetics based on design arguments (or natural theology in the seminarian's argot). Those arguments usually tend, as far as I can tell, toward the kind of deism that Flew seems to suggest, and not at all to a robust trinitarian concept of God. As the CT article shows, apologists who use these arguments are then left hoping that interlocutors like Flew "will become even more curious about whether or not God has ever made himself clearly known to humanity." Or they are left rejoicing that people like Flew are "somewhat closer to the side of the angels." But why should Flew become more curious about Christianity, when the Christian apologetics he is engaging with settle for proofs of the existence of a philosopher's God? It seems highly tendentious to say that Flew is really "closer" (in more than a rhetorical sense) to the "side of the angels" at all. He doesn't need to believe in angels, or even in God, in order to believe there is a god.
I'm not absolutely opposed to the kinds of apologetics that Christian analytical philosophers like Plantinga or van Inwagen pursue, but it seems like Flew's supposed conversion should have sparked some reflection about the limits of those kinds of tactics. Surely Flew is the paradigmatic success story for these arguments, but that means that the paradigmatic success, from a Christian perspective, is minimally successful.
Tangentially, one of the quotes from the article left me wondering whether Flew really is thinking a lot straighter. There's absolutely no reason to believe in Islam, but there's prima facie reason to believe in Christianity because Jesus is so "charismatic"? That sounds downright Marcus Borgian, a paradigmatic exemplar (in my humble opinion) of "sloppy" thinking.
On a final personal note, I wanted to say hello to Jon Kvanvig. He may remember me from the BA and MA programs at A&M. I've been lurking in the background reading Prosblogion for a while, but have rudely never said hi until now. Hope all is well in Missouri.
Matthew,
I'm somewhat surprised that you haven't come across the suggestion that Flew's mind is faltering. I'm pretty sure I've come across this on at least two occassions and I've not read nearly as much on this as you have (I think Leiter suggested something along these lines). I know some pretty sharp philosophers who have 'converted' to atheism but as atheists generally care less about philosophy of religion, it isn't all that surprising that there isn't much triumphalism.
Anyway, do you have a link to some source where it describes his reasons in detail? I only come across snippets that suggest he bought into some sort of god of the gaps reasoning. I'd be really interested to see what his take is on his article concerning theism and falsification.
Hi Caleb, good to see you're following the blog!
On the point of theistic explanations of atheism, I think there's quite a bit of this. For conservative Christians, the usual appeal is to something like what St. Paul says in the first couple of chapters of Romans: they have a darkened understanding. Not surprising to find each camp trying to explain away contrary opinion; that's the usual epistemic pattern in the face of disagreement.
Flew has not converted to anything other than a philosophical view. Those who have described it as a religious conversion are just wrong. On the other hand, there are erroneous reports that he was denying that he had become a deist after his conversion to deism had already taken place. Someone went around to every blog announcing his change in mind, and they all had a post on this linking to his statements saying that he was still an atheist. The only problem is that the link went to something he'd say way back in 2001. I suspect that's the mixed report Clayton is talking about, but there's nothing to it.
Lots of theists believe that atheists are atheists for psychological reasons. I don't think most people believe much about God for purely intellectual reasons. What people who offer psychological accounts are doing is stronger than that, though. They're trying to explain belief or non-belief in merely psychological terms, as if someone couldn't so believe (or not believe) on the basis of arguments. This is consistent with Paul's statements, but I think it goes beyond them. That stronger sort of view, I believe, is deeply offensive to anyone who is a philosopher, because it rules out the ability to be convinced by arguments a priori. I think enough theists who know atheist philosophers are just so used to having this said about them that they're less likely to say it about others. In other contexts it's common enough, as Jon said.
"I have yet to see a theist resort to such a move to explain an atheist's lack of belief."
Here is one prominent example: Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism.
I'll add that as an atheist I have no problem whatever with this move per se, though I can't say I find Vitz' arguments (as he's restated them elsewhere--I haven't actually read the book) very impressive.
Flew discusses the reasons for his apparent conversion to Deism (and for his continuing disbelief in Christianity) in in a recent BBC radio interview. You can listen to it at this address: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/belief/flew.ram
Perhaps if theists are more reluctant than atheists to resort to psychological explanations of others' beliefs, it is because theists are more likely to have read C. S. Lewis's The Pilgrim's Regress, with its masterly destruction of all such attempts at psychoanalysing an opponent's position away. (Elsewhere Lewis points out, less vividly but just as effectively, that psychological explanations of belief simply cancel each other out: it's safe to assume that most of us have beliefs with non-rational causes, and none of us has a monopoly on pure rationality, so we're all in the same boat.)
But interestingly, Flew has used the psychologizing device himself, in his article "Tolstoi and the Meaning of Life", a response to Tolstoy's My Confession. Tolstoy suffered what he described as an "arrest of life" during middle age that convinced him an ordinary life was meaningless unless it was informed by love of God; Flew argues that this just meant Tolstoy suffered from a mental illness which he cured himself of through a change of attitude that came to him as a religious conversion. As an undergraduate, I once wrote an essay attempting to undermine Flew's position; I may dig that essay up one of these days and see if it's worth expanding into something more substantial...
When I wrote the post I knew somebody was sure to point out that there was a theist who has given a Freudian account of atheism. I suppose I should have been more restrictive and said I don't know of a theist philosopher who has done this. This would still leave the door open for me to be shown wrong, but given what Jeremy and Katherine say I think it would be odd for a theist philosopher to make such a move. In the end I think the broader point is that these Freudian accounts are very speculative and not very convincing.
Caleb-
Good point about gap between philosophical arguments for God and specific religions conception of God. I recall someone pointing out this problem to C. Stephen Evan to which he replied something to the effect that the newly converted person will need to spend some time with a holy person to get over the gap. It may well be the case that living with a holy person would have this effect, but I think as philosophers there are other arguments that could be brought to bear at that point. So once a person believes in God simpliciter then arguments from historical accounts, for religious exclusivism, etc can help get over this gap.
I'm not sure what Flew was getting at with the Islam slap. It does smack of personal prejudice, but perhaps Flew is suggesting that Islam doesn't have paradigmatic example of a moral exemplar like Jesus Christ which lends plausibility to the Christian claim. I’m sure Imran would differ, but I can imagine someone offering such an argument. I also suspect that Flew simply isn't that informed in regards to Islam.
Clayton-
The couple of times that I've come across the suggestion that Flew's mind is faltering it was embedded in so much vitriol I could hardly find it credible. The only evidence I've heard offered for this thesis is that Flew has changed his mind.
I don't think it is simply that Flew is a sharp philosopher, but that he is someone who has argued for years against theistic belief. I'm sure there have been many sharp theist philosophers who have flipped, but unless they are philosophy of religion folks it would hardly be remarkable. Suppose thought that either Swinburne, Craig, Moreland, etc suddenly announced they were an atheist. Well that would seem rather remarkable. By the way I hope you don't think I'm being triumphalistic about this. I simply find it a remarkable turn of events.
Jeremy-
Well as usual I pretty much agree…
J-
Thanks for the excellent link!
Katherine-
I'm once again reminded that I'm going to have to get beyond the Chronicles of Narnia!
Robert Nozick has publicly said he resists the idea that there is a God because he hates the thought that theism might be true.
Did I say people are weird?
I don't think it's wrong to look for psychological reasons behind some people's beliefs when they cannot provide any rational explanations. In this set-up, I don't think it's a fallacy.
Ben, I think what you're assuming is that someone can't have good reasons for believing something without being able to provide those reasons to someone else. There are plenty of cases when someone can't provide reasons because there are none (or the person has none), but the inability to present those reasons doesn't mean the person has none. Psychological accounts (as an argument against theism) seem to me to assume that inference, and I do think it's a fallacious inference.
This is probably a bit left field, but speaking of C.S Lewis's attack on psychologically explaining away arguements, has anyone noticed how eriely relevant it is to Postmodernism, especially the bit when the guard says "You only say 2+2=4 because you are a mathematician. Anyway, sorry if it's a bit irrelevant but I just think it's intresting.