In order to better get a sense of my overall picture of things, you might (after reading the story below) want to read my short story titled, to your surprise no doubt, “Mother Teresa Goes to Heaven.”

Antony Flew Goes to Heaven

When the man opened his eyes the first thing he beheld was a garden.  It was the assault on his being that alerted him to this fact.  His sensory scouts went out and scoured his surroundings and came back with the report- first from the nostrils:  here were delicate scents of flowers and dirt; and then the eyes: there were well ordered paths with ivy crawling up rocky walls; now touch:  he realized he was lying on his back with blades of grass tickling his ear and when he flexed his fingers into the earth there was that soft moistness you always associated with good soil;  the ears came announcing:  birds here, birds there, birds everywhere, and somewhere yet unspotted a fountain, detected by alternating gurgles and tinkling; taste came back disappointed, as it had nothing yet to disclose.

It was comforted soon enough.  The man sat up and saw at once the hanging branches of a fruit-laden tree.  While feeling no pangs of hunger he knew he was famished.  He stood up and strode with purpose to the tree and helped himself liberally.  In his subconscious a fear flickered that he may be plucking his lunch from Augustine’s orchard.  He set the fear aside and ate his fill.

He returned to the patch of soft grass that he had been lying when he had first awoken.  There seemed nothing else to do.  So he sat.  It was the cool of the day and he was content enough to enjoy the tender breeze that played on his cheeks.  That breeze, the man couldn’t help but think, seemed to be made just for him each and every time.  It was the cool of the day, and suddenly the man knew that he was not alone.

“Alo there!” called out a man from one of the previously surveyed walking paths.

Our man stood up startled.  Even as he knew the man had no ill intentions towards him he could not help feel a little awkward.  He struggled to put it into words.  It would not have surprised him if that very moment this man declared he was Augustine after all, come upon a trespasser.  And he was the one trespassing.   Even Augustine’s welcoming cry assured him that he was there invited would not displace the awkward feeling that he had imposed himself somewhere he didn’t belong.  That is about how he felt as the man drew closer.

“Happy to meet you,” declared the new man to the old man.  “May I have your name?”

“Tony, I think.  I have a little trouble with names…” Tony was sheepish.

“No worries, dear sir,” the man comforted him.  In respect for Tony’s nervousness, the man halted his approach about ten feet off.  He was wearing a beige button down shirt with dirt stains on it and his hands were stuffed into loose fitting blue jeans that were likewise stained.  There the hands remained, safe.  There was no chance that the man could get his hands out of those pockets and around Tony’s neck without Tony having a chance to protect himself.  So Tony reasoned, and so apparently the man deduced.

“I’m sorry that I’ve trespassed in your garden, sir.  To be honest I don’t quite know how I’ve gotten here.  I have some recollection of falling into a deep sleep- where I do not recall- and when I opened my eyes, I was here,” Tony apologized.

“You needn’t be so concerned about it,” the man smiled.  “After all,” said he, “what makes you think this is a garden at all, let alone one that is mine?”

“Oh well, that is an interesting question, now that you ask it!” Tony smiled.

“And how do you answer it?” the man smiled back.

“I suppose I leapt to a conclusion, didn’t I?” Tony began thinking aloud.

“In what way?” the man coaxed.

“Well, this brick wall here with ivy all the way up.  I suppose if one allows that there is enough time and enough opportunity it is inevitable that the forces of nature will churn out a rock wall, somewhere.”

“And the fountain over yonder?” the man inquired, cocking his head in the direction of the previously undetected fountain.

Tony turned his gaze in that direction.  Indeed, about thirty yards away, largely tucked away behind a bend in the path but visible when the breeze pushed aside the large leaves that concealed it, was a fountain.  The breeze seemed to rise up for the task and Tony had a good look at it.  A perfectly round and very large basin held what Tony knew without knowing why he knew was the fiercest cherubim he’d ever seen.  Water poured out of an elegant vase that the angel was holding and fell into the basin.  Where it went after that, Tony couldn’t tell.

“I suppose that settles it, then,” said Tony.

“Settled it how?” the man asked.

“Obviously an artifact and something outside the natural order.  We must be in a garden,” Tony reasoned.

“But what about your latent assumption a moment ago?  Why shouldn’t the forces of nature be as likely to finally spit out an angelic water fountain as a vertical wall with interlocking rocks?” the man probed.

“Alright, but then we must account for the many walking paths and the fruit trees and all of the flowers so obviously arranged…”

“Surely none of these can be more difficult for nature to achieve, given enough time, then the fountain?” the man winked.

“Well, now.  Given enough time.  I suppose the presumption ought to be that purposeless forces could have done all this…”  That is what Tony said, but he was not convinced.

“You don’t sound very confident,” the man asked, his eyes twinkling.

“Well, you make a good point and one that more or less I’ve adhered to in my life.  But a fountain?  And you dismissed the walking paths quick enough but did you see the flower boxes that border them?”

“But given enough time…”

“Yes, of course.  Given enough time, what we might at first glance declare as obviously designed, we can just as well conclude that it is only apparently designed.”

But Tony was still uncertain.  He couldn’t put his finger on what was troubling him.  He began to wonder too if it were a trap:  here he had found himself in this lovely man’s lovely garden and the man was trying to trick him into saying something insulting in order to justify expulsion.

The man intervened.

“What if,” the man suggested, “we supposed that there was a gardener?  That might help cinch it, no?”

“Well, yes, of course.  If there was a gardener, indeed, that should change things quite a bit.”

“Then let us sit down here in the grass and wait and see if one comes upon us,” the man proposed.

“Yes, let’s.”

Tony sat down and watched out of the corner of his eye as the man sat down, too.  The man seemed very much at ease with the situation.  He was leaning back, with his arms splayed out behind him and his palms flush to the earth to support him.  His legs were extended and the feet clicked together rhythmically.

They waited.

They waited some more.

“How long shall we wait?” asked the man.

“Well, I don’t know.  Perhaps the gardener is out of town or away on business,” Tony submitted.

“That is a charitable possibility.  I thought perhaps you were going to propose that maybe he was invisible, intangible, and eternally elusive,” the man rejoined with a soft laugh.

“If it weren’t for the wall, the walking path, and the fountain, perhaps I would be forced into such a scenario…”

“So it would seem,” said the man, “that Strato does not have the strength to supplant common intuition.”

Tony reluctantly agreed, “So it would seem.”

“Haven’t you a wonder where that intuition comes from and how it can be trusted?” the man ventured.

“I do, and have.  I doubt that ‘common intuition,’ as you call it, can be put at the same level as rigorous investigation,” Tony mused.

“Yet if I am not mistaken, you are here submitting quickly and easily to that intuition and it is standing in the way of investigation.  Perhaps the inference you are drawing should not be faulted simply because it comes easily and effortlessly?”

“That is a funny way of putting it, but I can’t find a way to object.  It has always been my goal, as a matter of personal integrity, to follow the evidence, wherever it goes.  You’re right.  This inference came easily enough.  I suppose one might say that mine is an argument from incredulity- an inability to see how, practically speaking, something as exquisite as that-” and here Tony broke off momentarily to throw a glance at the glorious yet menacing cherubim as if to make sure it had not moved, “- fountain could come about no matter how much time was allotted.  But to be honest, it would seem that the alternative would be an argument from credulity.  That is, the very opposite of skepticism.  You’d practically have to be a sucker to buy the line that these things came about by accident.”

“But surely you concede it is very much a logical possibility that blind natural forces operating without purpose could have created such a thing?” the man pressed.

“Yes, of course.  That is what I’m saying, I think.  It is a logical possibility, but logical possibilities do not trump evidence in hand.”

“That seems to be at variance with your previous position… the notion that one ought to bring a presumption of a certain sort to the table.  Perhaps the correct presumption is to make no presumption one way or the other and wait for the evidence?”

Tony nodded.  “That strikes me as eminently reasonable at this juncture in my life.”

The two fell into silence.  At one point, they had been still for so long that the birds which had been flittering about in the treetops alighted on the grass in front of them en masse.  Then regrettably Tony twitched and they flew off.  The cool of the day seemed to go on and on, with no end.   As sentries they silently sat, waiting for the gardener that Tony knew existed somewhere.  The existence of the gardener was suddenly important to him.  His existence was justification of more than an argument but seemed also to prove his sanity- to himself.  There seemed something positively insane, or insanity-breeding, about this idea that there was some real category labeled, ‘The Apparently Designed.’

“If only the Gardener would just come and tell us everything directly!” Tony finally blurted out.

The man chuckled, bemused.

“I don’t see what is so funny about the proposition.  If the Gardener stood before us now he could explain it all.  Isn’t that quite an obvious solution to this conundrum?” Tony lashed out in frustration.

The man, reading the discontent in Tony’s voice, explained why he chuckled, “I was laughing ever so gently, my friend, because I was quite certain that you were quite convinced that revelatory systems were suspect.  But here you are telling me that when all the presumptions and evidence are put on the table, the thing that would ultimately settle it all is for the Maker of the Garden to announce himself.”

Tony was stung by the analysis.  It was true and he knew it was true.  Perhaps it was the freshness of the air or the vigor derived from his fruity feast of before, but he felt inside himself the strength to come to terms with being so exposed.

Without waiting for Tony to say anything further, the man continued, “If we are willing to be so charitable to allow that the Gardener could be out on business or may have some perfectly good reason for why he cannot directly appear at this moment, maybe we could begin by at least being open to hearing out those who have in times past declared that they come bearing a message from the Gardener?”

Tony nodded, but offered a small protest, “Yes, but it would still be ideal for the Gardener to present himself.”

“And as you consider all of those revelatory systems of the past, how many of them do you recall declared that the Gardener had done just that?”

“Just one, of course.  But I was not being philosophical.  I was being pragmatic and practical:  if only the Gardener would present himself right now, everything would be cleared up,” Tony clarified.

“Yes, if only.”

“At any rate, he’s done a first rate job with this bit of earth.  He might find it a bit silly (once we find him) that we demand he give an account of just how he has so constructed this little paradise.  I’d be content right now just to have the opportunity to commend him personally,” Tony sighed.

“What if I told you that I could take you to meet him?” the man asked, suddenly putting his hands in his lap as though poised for action.  Indeed, upon asking the question the man suddenly leapt to his feet.

“I should think you ought to have said a long while back that you knew him,” Tony scowled, taking a stubborn tone.

“Come,” said the man.

But Tony, his head turned away from the man, was resolute:  “I don’t wander about with strangers.  Come to think of it, I don’t think you’ve even given me your name.  I know I said I’d have trouble remembering it anyway, but it still seems a little rude not to have offered it.”

“I don’t think you’ll forget this name,” the man declared in a jovial yet solemn tenor.

Tony, still sitting, turned to look at the man more intently.  The man was standing just a few feet away, his hand outstretched, offering to help Tony to his feet.  Nothing seemed familiar about the man but he noticed right away that trees, flowers, and light could be seen through the man’s hands on account of the large holes that were in them about where the palm met the wrist.  A jolt went through Tony at that moment.  It was a realization, to be sure, and yet that wasn’t all of it.  His army was being called to surrender, right there in the plush and gentle woods.  Would he be treated well as a prisoner of war?  Couldn’t he fight on?  Could he suffer defeat?  Was there any point in retreat?

Still he sat, stewing in his warring sentiments.  Still the man stood with his wounded hands outstretched.

“Dearest Tony,” the Gardener tenderly inquired, “Will you?  Will you really?  Will you really follow the Evidence wherever He leads?”

This book has come under fierce attack, though not on its merits.  Rather, it has been attacked through an assault on the author.   On account of my correspondence, however, I had some tangible evidence in support of the contention that the book represented Flew’s real positions.  I produced this material in this blog post here which has gotten a lot of attention.  While I wait for a reply from Mr. Carrier, I thought it high time to produce the actual letters which I quote and display (from a distance) in that blog entry.

I didn’t produce this earlier out of deference to Mr. Flew, thinking that private correspondence ought generally be kept, well, private.  I don’t think he would mind now.  If anyone should like to transcribe the letters below I should very much appreciate it.  I will post their transcription if they do.

I received 3 letters, only 2 of which are produced here.  The third from him was merely a courtesy and contained no new information.  The first image is the letter I sent to him.

I deleted just a few places as it seemed proper- ie, contact info.  Otherwise, I left the letters ‘as is’ for posterity’s sake.

My first letter to Flew:

Dr. Flew’s First Response:

I don’t have my second letter to Flew handy and do not recall precisely what I wrote.  However, one can guess a bit from his reply, which is below.

Dr. Flew’s second response

I would like to give free-thinking objective and even handed and mentally superior atheistic friends an opportunity to exhibit integrity by highlighting the three examples (plus a bonus one) that come to mind and calling upon the atheists and their defenders to own up to these refutations.  If I had to make a prediction, it would be that they will exhibit all that they renounce in ‘religious fundamentalism’ and do essentially as Dan Rather did in Rathergate, standing by the story after the facts supporting it have been withdrawn.

1.  Richard Dawkins. Not long after Dawkins released his Delusion, I tracked down a quote that he employed to further his argument that Christianity was against knowledge and stifled curiosity.   The quote was from Augustine’s Confessions but the 45ish word quote was actually spliced selectively out of a longer section 750ish words in length.   See my evidence.

Dawkins’s crime here was not the fabrication but the wholesale adoption of the quote without checking it himself.  One can see why he wouldn’t, since it played so well into his conceptions.   To this day, people are running around the Internet citing this passage and thumping their chest about how anti-knowledge Christians are.  To their credit on account of my research, some atheists have backed off.  Others have pushed forward, convinced that the ‘underlying story’ is nonetheless true.

I hereby call upon Richard Dawkins to own up to this fabrication and in turn call upon his free thinking lackeys (aka, the ‘Brights’) to abandon this piece of fiction.

2.  Richard Carrier. About two years ago Antony Flew released his book explaining why he was no longer an atheist.  Richard aka “The Bloodhound” Carrier sent Flew a questionnaire to fill out and the net result was his accusation that Flew’s book was actually written by Christian apologists taking advantage of an old man to put words in his mouth.  The only problem with this is that yours truly had been in correspondence with Dr. Flew even before I knew there was a book coming out and in those letters Dr. Flew recounted for me various things that he believed.  Many of these showed up in his book.  In short, I have in my possession Dr. Flew’s handwritten letters that show numerous correspondences to the book.

This is prima facie evidence that the book substantially reflects the actual views of Dr. Flew.  I displayed this in a fairly long treatment here but I suggest you look at Richard Carrier’s article before you look at mine so that you can enjoy mine properly.

As far as I know, to this day, Carrier- who has been informed of my evidence (I informed him) – has not withdrawn his argument or even attempted to rebut it.  I am aware of a curt dismissal and no more.  In the meantime he’s continued on his merry way bashing the credibility of Flew’s book.

Richard Carrier:  man up.  Admit that you were wrong on this particular point.

3.  Dan Barker. Good ol’ Dan and his ‘Easter Challenge.’  You know this one:  The Bible isn’t true because you can’t harmonize the Resurrection accounts… in his rebuttal to a book attempting to do what Barker says is impossible, he makes the statement that Matthew 28:1-8 must be taken as a “discrete, unbreakable element” (because Barker says so).   Barker’s argument is that in these passages the disciples are instructed to immediately go to Galilee where Jesus will appear to them for the first time, but in contrast to the other Gospels, Jesus appears to the disciples immediately that day and the days right after that.

In my post, however, I point out the very elementary observation that Galilee was some 80 miles from Jerusalem and the disciples probably (I could be wrong) did not own a car.  As such, they’d have to do it on foot or at best on horse.  In sum, there is no way anybody knowledgeable about Palestinean geography (as we would imagine the disciples to be) to expect to arrive in Galilee that day or even the very next.

However, I am open to refutation on this point.  Thus, I reiterate my challenge to Dan Barker right now:  Dan, you live about the same distance from me as Jerusalem was from Galilee.  You have the benefits of good roads and well policed high ways.  Therefore, if you can set out on foot and arrive in my home area within two days, I shall withdraw my argument.  Also, I will treat you to dinner.

If however you fail to achieve this small thing, I call on you to revise your argument concerning Matthew’s use of time.  If you refuse to even make the attempt, I call upon you to cease employing this argument until you do.

Austin Cline. I must give Mr. Cline at least some credit.  In his post on Pontius Pilate at About Atheism, he asserts:  “Pontius Pilate was prefect (not procurator, as some sources say)” but that is not what he originally wrote.  What he originally wrote, which is still available in the Google intro to the page, was:  “Pontius Pilate was prefect (not procurator, as the gospels say)”.  This change was prompted by yours truly contacting Mr. Cline to inform him that the gospels say no such thing.  Not long after, Mr. Cline changed his site to reflect reality.

This might seem like a refreshing breath of integrity until I tell you that when I informed Mr. Cline, very cordially, of this fact, he responded by being a big fat jerk.  He persisted in this and I don’t know what prompted him to examine my contention.  Now, the change has been made, but I note that I never received any kind of acknowledgment (or apology) and that (more importantly) Mr. Cline refused to give the Gospels their due in having their facts right all along.  That would have been a nice addition to his Pontius Pilate entry, don’t you think?  But no, he simply cuts out his accusation and replaces it with unspecified ‘sources.’

I expect nothing of Mr. Cline here.  I add this to cap off the general lesson that I would like to draw here, as the four names I have listed here are prominent atheistic spokespersons:  atheists are not the vanguards of reason that they would like us to believe they are;  they make mistakes just like everyone else, and no one should think that they are above being too proud to admit it when they are.  These examples I have given are minor in the grand scheme of things but I submit that they illustrate why no one should ever defer thinking to anyone else, regardless of how smart they insist they are, how many degrees they have, how high their IQ is, or even if they currently represent the consensus position on a topic, be it evolution, global warming, climate change, etc, etc, etc, etc.

The intellectual elite which I have called out in this post answer to a higher standard and I hope that this post will elicit some acknowledgment that their arguments are not always as rock solid as they suggest.  I predict quite the opposite, so again:  remember in your skepticism to be skeptical too of the skeptics.

In the course of this conversation I believe the real objection was expressed.  I have heard this objection recently as well and it is not uncommon.  Simply put:  if the religious claims be true, then this entails a necessary change in attitude, beliefs, and behavior, and as such they demand higher scrutiny.  If religious claims succeed on ‘ordinary’ scrutiny that is not enough.  Ie, even if one could demonstrate on standard historical methods that it is more likely that Jesus really did rise from the dead than that Socrates existed and was poisoned to death, it wouldn’t matter.

It is a twist on the old ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ gambit except here we aren’t talking about something intrinsic to the claim (which is subjective) but rather intrinsic to the response if the claim be accepted.

Using techniques like this, atheists can escape any argument.  Here you see that the way is open to concede as likely that Jesus really rose from the dead- at least when evaluated on standard historical methodology- and still reject it.   It is at times like this that I remind myself that Jesus did say that no one can come to him unless he draws him…

But what of their argument?  In the first place, I’d like to point out that in contrast to the standard atheistic talking points, the ones imposing a ‘special’ kind of study are the atheists.  It is the theist (me) demanding that we use only the epistemological tools common to all men as employed in our every day life.  You thought that it was the Christian saying, “You’ve got to view this through religious eyes!”  But it isn’t.  It is the atheist saying that, here.

In my view, a truly objective approach to the supernatural and ‘religion’ in general must rest on our common toolbox or else we can always wonder that we were deceived.  If we invoke ‘special’ methods to get places we can always wonder if the invocation is ad hoc, whereas we entrust our lives to the common methods.

What I am saying is that atheists would have us use methods regarding ‘religious’ matters that they wouldn’t trust to safely get them across the street.

In the second place, I fear that the argument is a smokescreen.  A well meaning one, but a smokescreen.  If the idea is that your beliefs may change your entire outlook on life, and consequently how you live that life, and thus these beliefs require ‘extraordinary scrutiny’ shouldn’t it follow then that the beliefs that drive your current outlook on life- and consequently how you live that life- are also subject to ‘extraordinary scrutiny’?

In other words, doesn’t this argument- if valid- actually return us to the ‘common toolbox’?  If so, can these atheists/agnostics sincerely tell me that they’ve thoroughly considered their current belief system to the extent that they feel they are justified in changing their behavior and their ‘life’?  I ran out of time to press the point.  I suspect the answer is “no” because in the case I have been dwelling on they insisted that their atheism/agnosticism must be the default view.  That sounds to me like they’re acting as though their ‘presumption of atheism’ comes pre-installed.

I challenged that and would challenge it more if I had the time.  At the very least, some 6 billion people have ‘religious’ beliefs of some kind.  Their own view would seem to be an anomaly.  Moreover, we agreed that science is great for deciding what temperature water boils and thus deriving an understanding of what the natural laws are but that it is useless in telling us why the natural laws are what they are.  If one is trying to decide if there is a law-giver, it is hardly sufficient to content oneself only with codifying the laws encountered.

In conclusion, all of us are living our lives and if there is any ‘default’ it is that we will go on living, generally independent on what beliefs we adopt.  Whether one adopts a Christian outlook or an atheistic outlook, a great deal of our daily living really is not much different, resting as it does on certain pragmatic necessities.  But it is worth saying that if you are going to demand ‘extraordinary scrutiny’ to ‘religious claims’ because they lay claim on the way you live your life, you had better be darn ready to do the same with whatever beliefs you’ve already got- since you are living your life on something as it is.

Beginning on Nov. 3 is the course on “The Reliability of the New Testament Documents.”  This course is useful for those who want to understand why we believe the books we have in the New Testament are what was really written.

Beginning on Nov. 17 is the follow up course, “The Formation of the New Testament Canon.”  This course goes the additional step of describing how the books in the New Testament came to be included and how others were excluded.  No conspiracy theorist or skeptical nonsense here.  Get the facts in this course.

Also beginning on Nov. 17 is the course “Studies in Atheism.”  This survey of atheistic thought starts in Greek philosophy and charts its way through Hume, Bertrand Russell, Antony Flew, Ayn Rand, etc, before culminating in an examination of the so-called ‘New Atheists’ such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Dan Dennett.  This course is excellent for those wishing to understand the atheistic/secular/humanistic threat to Christianity and the Christian worldview.

Direct inquiries to admissions@academyofapologetics.com.

Enroll in the Athanatos Online Apologetics Academy Today!

It is not my purpose today to offer one of those toughest arguments but to draw this distinction and explain its relevance.

Simply put, ‘natural’ revelation, or ‘natural theology,’ is what one can learn about God running exclusively on your own steam without any assistance from God.  Aristotle’s Prime Mover arguments and Aquinas’s ‘Five Ways’ are such efforts.   Intelligent Design, when the inference is made that God is the Designer, is ‘natural’ theology at work.  ‘Special revelation’ concerns that which is known and can only be known because God himself reveals it.  Indeed, by the very definition of God according to Christian theists, there is a great deal that could only be known if God told us.  We may be able to infer using our senses alone that there exists an unmoved mover which we call God but we cannot on the same basis infer that God has this or that preference regarding human behavior.

One of the confusions here is the treatment of the Bible as revelation.  It certainly is revelation.  However, when it concerns God, it is strictly speaking revelation about revelation.   So, the ‘special revelation’ would be what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus.  He then reveals what was revealed to him.  In other words, the accounts of this incident are Paul’s revelation.  Also, all that we know about Jesus is revealed to us through his disciples.

Atheists at this point are probably scratching their heads because from their perspective I will not have made the situation any better.  What many of them are specifically looking for is their own ‘Road to Damascus’ experience.  Short of that, no evidence will persuade. Many Christians probably have their hair standing on end, too, because this sounds like I am diminishing the authority of the Scriptures.

To deal with the latter charge first, we must always remember that most of the books of the Bible have value on their historical merits alone.   Just because we believe that the Scriptures are more than history they do not cease to be history.  Insofar as they have historical material in them that doesn’t depend on a prior belief in God to interpret this allows for useful common ground to discuss them with nonChristians.  This leads into the former charge.

It may sound like ‘reducing’ much of the Bible to human revelation about special revelation I have greatly diminished its veracity but in truth what this move does is place our testing of the Bible’s claims into the same category of testing that we use for any other historical claim.  In other words, it is the atheists that raise special challenges against the Biblical texts (ie, ‘Extraordinary claims…’) while Christians worth their salt are merely asking atheists to employ the same standards of evidence and proof, the same principles of reasoning, the same sense of fairness, that we apply to any other claim.

It is the Christians who are content to evaluate the text based on the same tests we apply to, say, Tacitus.  For example, we might say, “Do we have any particular reason to think Paul is lying?”  Or we might wonder, “How confident are we that the texts we have resembled the original autograph?”

With all this in mind, while I personally find most of the ‘natural’ arguments for the existence of God persuasive, I do not believe that they hold the most potential for addressing anything really interesting.  We use those arguments on the (mistaken) assumption that since the Bible is out of the picture nonChristians will be more objective in their analysis of the arguments (they aren’t).  Instead, I prefer an argument for the existence of God that imports right along with it things of real interest about God.

In a word, if the resurrection of Jesus really occurred, we have good reason to believe that he was God as he said he was.  As such, the question of God’s existence is settled at the same moment we hear a bit about God’s views about the world:  namely, he is not indifferent to our troubles and our plight but has taken specific, direct action to deal with it.  So, in the same event (if true) not only is the question of God’s existence settled but also an answer is proposed to the problem of pain and suffering.  The answer is a hard answer in that God doesn’t spell out everything we want to know, but at the same time it can’t be said that God is particularly happy that the human race suffers so much and has no intention of dealing with it.

In conclusion, it is a simple fact that anything really interesting to know about God must be revealed to us by God himself.  If we operate on the assumption that everything must be interpreted under the presupposition of philosophical naturalism then of course any claims of revelation must be false and must be interpreted another way.  If, however, we have an open mind, and understand that special revelation would be superior if only we had it, we would examine with objectivity the various ‘revelation’ claims that are out there to see if any are superior to the others.  By superior, of course, I mean according to the normal standards of investigation, and not the mystical ‘special case’ standards that atheists tend to argue we must use.

Essentially, I observed that the primary difference in outlooks hinged on exactly who was the final, or ultimate, or only authority on what a ‘person’ was, and why at all we would value a ‘person.’  Since atheists do not believe there is a ‘higher’ authority, like God, then obviously ‘personhood’ is decided by the individual or, at best, the collective declaration of a group of individuals.  I contend that on that logic, it should follow that an individual could just as easily declassify any other individual, removing their ‘personhood’ status, and be operating legitimately.  As can be expected, atheists have no desire to extend their logic that far.  The gulags and the concentration camps stand as a check yet the logic should follow.  On the other hand, conservatives and Christians in particular believe that the question of ‘personhood’ and the value we ascribe to ‘persons’ is determined by the maker of everything, namely, God.  Since God is the ultimate frame of reference, if an embryo is a person, it is a person whether we humans think it the case or not.  That’s the summary.

Based on these observations, one conclusion would be that the best way to get people to oppose abortion would be to get them to believe that there is a higher authority.  In a word, convert them to Christianity.

One might think then that this is simply a question of shifting one’s presuppositions and evidence has nothing to do with it.  Certainly assumptions have a lot to do with the matter.  I think my point is that the question of abortion belongs in a different class than the question of atheism or theism.  After one has decided where they stand regarding God, conclusions about abortion more or less follow.  That doesn’t mean that one’s stand regarding God needs to rest only on assumptions!

Here is the dirty little secret.  Though we often think of atheists and skeptics as being the ones relying on evidence, the truth is that they begin with a set of presuppositions.  The primary one is that philosophical naturalism must be the default interpretation of reality.  This is Antony Flew’s ‘presumption of atheism.’  But what if you were trying to determine if philosophical naturalism were true?  Why should we believe that the ‘presumption of atheism’ must be the default?  How are these things justified?

What would happen if this ‘default’ presupposition were taken off the table?  Would skeptics be more balanced in their evaluation of different kinds of evidence?  Would they realize with a start that putting their faith in science is ridiculous as a contrast to faith in God, since God, by definition, is not the sort of thing that science could directly detect?

I think the answer is probably “yes.”  If I’m right, then millions of lives- millions of human lives- millions of persons- hang on just one question:  do you believe in God, or not?  If I am right in that assessment, then this has implications for how we approach the abortion debate in the Church.  If I’m right about all this, it is time to get cracking.

It is, I am afraid, stupid.   I might be willing to concede that there are some pretty uneducated Christians out there who haven’t thought much about the question.  It doesn’t surprise me that atheists like Dawkins and Barker try to attack the weakest links.   That is their only hope.  This little blog entry hopes to kick some Christians in the pants to think a little better and also throw cold water onto some skeptical idiocy.

In the first place, it should be pointed out that the informed Christian response to such putative entities is agnostic:  pending evidence.  The only people assuming that there isn’t a God or supernatural entities before they lift a finger are the atheists.   The reason why I have labeled the atheistic tactic on this point as ‘stupid’ and ‘idiocy’ is for a reason that I would have hoped would be obvious to the atheist if he knew a pinch of anything.  Christians, of course, are already on record believing that ‘supernatural’ entities exist.  The clearest example would be angels, and their fallen counterparts, demons.

It is entirely plausible, according to the Christian worldview, for there to be other agents besides human agents.  Since, however, the Christian proceeds based on evidence rather than presupposition, he might dismiss a recorded instance of a miracle, say, in the Odyssey, not because he knows it can’t be real because the event is so old, but simply because the attestation of that event is very weak.  In other words, the reasons why a Christian might reject such things are not the same as the atheist’s.

Allow me to give just one example of how this might work:  Islam.  According to Islam, the angel Gabriel dictated a bunch of stuff to Mohammed.  I have no particular reason to believe that Mohammed didn’t receive a revelation.  But I do know that according to the Scriptures, ‘Satan masquerades as an angel of light.’  So, I am already alert to the possibility that a fallen angel might be up to no good (see also Gal. 1:8, which is more pointed concerning Mormonism, since Islam has no ‘Gospel’ at all).  I note, too, the inconsistencies in Islamic theology with the revelation that has come before, which Islam supposedly believes was delivered.  Finally, there is quite the epistemological bottleneck:  the only testimony here is Mohammed’s.  Compare that with something like the crossing of the Red Sea, which would have been witnessed by thousands.  Compare that with Jesus feeding 5,000 people at a go, teaching publicly in the temples, dying before hundreds, and then appearing- with a new body- before hundreds.

So, no, Christians do not reject these things ‘for the same reasons’ as atheists.  Atheist reject them because by some miracle they already know there isn’t a God and ‘supernatural’ realities.  A Christian who knows what he is talking about will reject them because of the evidence.  I know that goes against the grain of the skeptical propaganda, but I’m afraid it is quite true.

Why should anyone care? Why should Christians care? Trends in atheism are as discernible as trends in anything else and many agree (even ‘moderate’ atheists will sometimes agree) that the current trends are ominous. Moreover, if Christians want to reach out to their atheistic or agnostic friends, they will need to know what their friends are reading.

The “Studies in Atheism” course allows atheists to speak for themselves. Some response is given but it is primarily about understanding the forces and influences driving the ‘New Atheists’ along with systematically describing the views which atheists tend to have in common.

Beginning two days before the Atheism course, AOA will be offering courses on “Basic Christianity,” the “Reliability of the New Testament Documents,” and the “Formation of the New Testament.” These courses begin on April 28th.

If “Studies in Atheism” let’s atheists speak for themselves, Basic Christianity is offers an objective presentation on ‘mere Christianity,’ allowing Christians through the centuries to speak for themselves. What do the billions of Christians have in common in their beliefs? Why do they believe what they believe? How are those beliefs derived? This three week course is a broad overview and introduction to the foundations of the Christian faith and will help anyone who aims to understand what Christianity really is, rather than a caricature.

The “Reliability of the New Testament Documents” and “Formation of the New Testament” course make use of the books by the high powered Biblical scholar FF Bruce. For those who do not have the books, as much information from the Internet that can be used will be made available, as well. (this is true for all the courses). Anyone who wants to go beyond Sunday School explanations for why Christians worth their salt trust the Bible and the New Testament in particular will find these courses useful.

Many of the courses make use of Youtube presentations of important voices in Christian scholarship and in some cases video lessons by yours truly are used, as well.

To participate in the courses,

• Go to the Academy: www.academyofapologetics.com
• Enroll. (Don’t forget to confirm your email address before going on to the next step.)
• Sign up for a course.

Then get ready to learn!

My part of the story begins when I was in France attending the International Academy for Apologetics, Evangelism, and Human Rights. This event is hosted by John Warwick Montgomery and that year Gary Habermas was attending. Unlike Carrier, who alleges in his blog entry never to have heard of the single most formative atheist voice of the last century, I was well aware of Flew’s arguments as an atheist and also the apparent trend towards being something else. I had later heard that God and Philosophy was going to contain some definitive statement about Flew’s change of mind but it really didn’t. Knowing that Habermas and Flew were tight and being face to face with Habermas himself I just had to ask.

Habermas had quite a bit to say. At the conclusion of our conversations I decided that I had to write to Flew to encourage him to finally set the record straight. Habermas assured me that Flew is a gentleman who will respond to literally anyone. As you can see from the picture, Habermas was quite right. I too received a reply from Dr. Flew. I should note that between the two pictures one of us has more facial hair and we know what that means.

Now, I don’t have any desire to try to dispute the view that Flew has become forgetful in his old age. I don’t feel like I’m in a position to speak to that. What I believe I am in a position to speak to is whether or not the book, which Carrier classifies as ‘bogus’ accurately represents Flew’s position at this time. That is the key point, is it not? Even if there is a ghost writer, what we are concerned about is whether or not the writer accurately reflected Flew’s views.

Now, I didn’t know that I could send multi-question surveys demanding point by point answer and substantiation. If I had, I probably would have sent him a checklist: “Dear Tony, do you want to go with me? If yes, check here.” Or something of that sort. So, I only have a measly three letters to work with from Flew (yes, we had a brief exchange). Therefore I cannot speak to all of the charges made by Carrier and can only address the ones where there is some overlap. For whatever truth there is to Carrier’s version of events, I hope that my contribution can entice skeptics to actually be skeptical for once. Other interpretations of events may be possible even in cases where I can’t offer a direct one to one counter-point.

In the first place I want to address the accusation that the book is bogus because it was written by other people. Ghostwriting is a pretty common thing as I understand it. I didn’t realize it was despicable on its face as Mr. Carrier seems to imply. He doesn’t seem to give much slack on it… the man is more than 80 years old for cripe’s sake. Richard Carrier complains about this ‘Flewless’ characteristic:

Lengthy direct quotation of what are purported to be conversations without explaining how exact quotation was possible (Were the conversations recorded? Did Flew personally check his exact quotes with everyone he quoted? Is he a skilled stenographer? Even Oppenheimer got no clear answer about this);

You’ve got to be kidding me. Do we really expect that the book has got to account for ‘how exact quotation was possible’? This is one example among many where Carrier seems to take on the high inquisitor role as though Flew’s book was a paper written by Carrier’s assignment, presumably with Carrier as the primary and exclusive audience. I think a return to my main question is in order: Does the book reflect Flew’s true position? The related question here would be: “Is it stated anywhere that Flew would not use a ghostwriter?”

Now, I don’t know if that is stated anywhere. I can say, however, that I knew as early as 2006 (my first letter) that it was going to be written by others. Christians in fact. Direct quote from my Flew letter:

“What this book will also contain is a great deal, indeed by far the larger part from Christian writers.”

So, Carrier complains that the book “has everywhere the hallmarks of Christian apologetic interests and idioms, but none of Flew’s.” However, Flew did not hide the fact from me that the book was going to be penned by Christians. He came out and said it straight out. If Carrier has some line on some source where it is insisted that Flew wrote it all by himself, that it was always only going to be by himself, and that Christians were not going to be involved I might be willing to relax on this point. As the book says it was written by Antony Flew with Roy Abraham Varghese I doubt such material exists and I think it was always reasonable to expect a different ‘idiom.’

We are still left with whether or not the book has interests genuine to Flew or only to Christian apologists.

In the first letter, a substantial part of it is detailing that the book would tell the story of his unbelief beginning at Kingswood School and proceed to his involvement in various religious controversies and ending up with him as a Deist. That is almost word for word what he said in the letter. It also tracks well with the first 100 pages of the book. He explicitly says in two of his letters to me that he still rejects theism as understood by any revelatory system but accepts theism as Einstein did:

“…ending up with me a Deist, believing- like Einstein and many other great physicists- in the existence of a God.”

Beginning on page 98, Flew- or the ghostwriter, which ever you please- begins discussing Einstein’s view of God over a number of pages and references other great physicists as well. Example, on page 103, he lists Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, and Paul Dirac and then a few more pages later cites Paul Davies. This brings us to about page 110, well over half way through the book, and it is following the formula that Flew explicitly states to me that his book will follow.

What does Carrier say? Among other things, this one is priceless, and continues off from his previous citation:

“Curiously absent from the entire book is any discussion of Deism or the God of Thomas Jefferson, which Flew repeatedly emphasized in his letters to me. “

Well, holy cow, that settles it! Where is the Deism or the God of Thomas Jefferson? He put it in his letters to Carrier so of course he’d put it in his book! Well, in his letters to me, two times he invokes Einstein and God as understood by physicists! At the very least, my letters show that the book’s emphasis on Einstein and nobel prize winning physicists is perfectly in line with Flew’s actual position. Unless Carrier would like to propose that Varghese penned my letters, too.

Carrier goes into a bunch of commentary about Flew and Dawkins and whether or not the ghostwriter was mislead about who tutored Flew- Carrier or a ‘scientist friend.’ Consider this quote:

The real author not only has no knowledge of my crucially relevant interactions with Flew (even beyond this one example), he also thinks Flew’s “biological-scientist friend” who corrected him on the science of biogenesis was Richard Dawkins, when in fact it was me.

If there was anything I picked up from my conversations with Habermas is that Carrier’s “crucially relevant interactions with Flew” were not by any means unknown to any of the players involved. Consider this more extended quote:

You would think that even a forger who wants the world to think this is Flew’s response to his own critics and that Flew remains a theist for sound reasons, would at least have his fictional Flew explain his retraction and re-retract it somehow. Instead, the author appears not even to know that Flew retracted the claim that there hasn’t been enough time for abiogenesis. The author also seems unaware of the fact that Flew had radically changed earlier drafts of his preface to God & Philosophy to reflect exactly this change of position, even though this was also a matter of public record. Thus no explanation is given for his sudden (though apparently fictional) re-reversal.

This re-writing of the preface to “God and Philosophy” is something that came up in my conversation with Habermas. I highly doubt that the ‘forger’ would have been unaware of this history if Habermas was aware of it. Rather then read conspiracy theories into the matter, however, let us consider if perhaps ‘no explanation is given’ because he has other reasons. Maybe in the first place, no one felt the need to appease the spoken and unspoken demands of Richard Carrier. However, I propose that another reason is strongly alluded to in one of my letters from Flew.

Namely, Flew specifically states that he doesn’t agree with Dawkins. DAWKINS. Not Carrier. DAWKINS. In other words, whatever re-reversals Carrier believes he generated and wanted to have accounted for, I have in hand a letter from Flew written after “God and Philosophy” and Carrier’s interaction with him and before “There is A God.”

Flew explicitly says in one of the letters that he expects to ‘attack’ Dawkins’s arguments in response to Dawkins’s own “unfounded attack” on him. No disrespect meant to Mr. Carrier here, but we might presumably believe that that Flew felt he had bigger fish to fry. I note that on page 123, Flew says in the passage that appears to have offended Carrier so:

These statements provoked an outcry from critics who claimed that I was not familiar with the latest work in abiogenesis. Richard Dawkins claimed that I was appealing to a “god of the gaps.” In my new introduction to the 2005 edition of “God and Philosophy,” I said, “I am myself delighted to be assured by biological-scientist friends that protobiologists are now well able to produce theories of the evolution of the first living matter and that several of these theories are consistent with all the so-far-confirmed scientific evidence.” But to this I must add the caveat…

I think it should be clear that far from the identity of the ‘biologist-friend’ being described as Richard Dawkins, the passage doesn’t say anything at all about the identity of the person(s) in the first place. I propose that the critic that Flew really cared about was Richard Dawkins. My letter clearly has Flew stating he is going to mount his own attack. By page 123, that attack is coming to its conclusion but I think it is reasonable to believe that even here Richard Carrier is furthest from Flew’s mind.

Page 123 out of a 200+ page book is pretty well through and contrary to Carrier’s assertion, to this point in the book the content matches up pretty well with what Flew says he is going to do in his letters to me. The fact is, there isn’t much of the book left- beginning on page 161 are contributions by other writers. In other words, the outline of the book as presented in the letter matches up to the outline of the final book pretty well… so far about almost 100% for 123 out of 161 pages. These 40 pages are not referenced in the letters… I assumed at the time that Flew didn’t want to give away by letter what he wanted to have available only in his book. I see no reason to believe otherwise.

However, I cannot contradict Carrier’s analysis of whether or not Flew’s positions on these chapters matches up with his own or rather are just of interest to apologists. Still, so much of the rest of the book matches up exactly with what Flew told him his views were that I have trouble believing that here now at the end these ‘forgers’ are smuggling in their own thoughts and ideas whereas the previous 125 pages or so they stuck with what Flew believed.

I can add one more bit of corroboration, though it doesn’t concern the last 40 pages. It concerns the contributions by Christians at the end, most notably NT Wright.

Carrier says:

Hence I doubt there is much truth to the fact when Flew is made to appear as though he is seriously considering converting to Christianity, and is made to say he is very impressed by the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead, especially following (so the fictional Flew tells us) the arguments of Anglican bishop N.T. Wright. Wright even participates in the charade by adding a chapter on this, supposedly responding to Flew’s last remaining “doubts.”

Ouch. Appears to be seriously considering…. made to say he is very impressed by the claim… especially… especially- so the fictional Flew tells us!- of the argument for the resurrection as put by NT Wright. Wright joins in with the Christian forgers to really add to the deceit! Flew, of course, is none the wiser.

Sadly, in contrast to Carrier’s conspiracy mongering, NT Wright is explicitly mentioned in one of my letters. It follows after the bit about Christians contributing to the book. The direct quote is a nice corrective to the hyperventilating in the quote above by Carrier. Here it is:

I would most strongly recommend to you the contribution of the present Bishop of Derby, who offers the most powerful case for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus which I have ever seen.

Well, damn. If I didn’t know better, that would be the real Flew expressly stating that he is very much impressed by the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead, as argued by NT Wright.

(Flew says ‘Derby‘ but I trust no reasonable person will dispute that he in fact meant Durham. Alastair Redfern is not known for his arguments for the resurrection that I am aware of. If anyone really wishes to dispute this, I note that the language in my letter is very close to the language Flew uses in the Introduction on page 3: “…the New Testament scholar N.T. Wright, who is the present bishop of Durham, kindly presented his assessment… In fact, [Wright] presents by far the best case for accepting Christian believe that I have ever seen.”)

The material provided by NT Wright covers pages 187-212 and my letter expressly indicates that Flew finds it compelling material. Again, unless Carrier should like to suppose that a ghostwriter is sending me letters from Flew, it seems that we can chalk another 30 pages of the book as specifically recording Flew’s actual position. That gives us about 155 out of 213 pages total that I can substantiate from hand written letters from Flew personally really represent his real position. You don’t have to agree with Flew that Wright’s arguments are good: clearly, though, Flew believes they are good.

I think it is a fair position to take that the remaining pages likewise contain his real position. Furthermore, I think it is reasonable to ask if Carrier approached this book with the right mindset. He consistently wants to know why Flew didn’t provide such and such and x and y. Quite probably, Flew was writing the book to a much broader audience and meant it to be a summary of where he is now and how he got there and not a philosophical treatise meant to go toe to toe with the spokespersons of the Internet Infidels.

There. That is what I have to offer by way of my own correspondence with Flew. The reader can take it as he likes it. I do want to comment on one last quote, however:

…yet the arguments in these chapters show no awareness, even indirectly, of the arguments in my unpublished paper that I know Flew has. So either Flew refused to read what I sent him, or read it and forgot everything it said, or Flew didn’t even read “his” new book, for surely if he had, he would have told his ghostwriter to anticipate my rebuttals.

Ah, yes. Of course. Flew didn’t read it, read it and forgot, or when he read his book he would have had in mind Richard Carrier’s objections and would have strove to anticipate them. Or… just another idea… perhaps he just thought the arguments were *ahem* not worthy, in his mind, of a response. There are more options and interpretations available other than the ones that Mr. Carrier lays out on the table.

(Hey, Richard! Long time no talk! How’s it going?)

I first learned that while in France attending an Apologetics Academy led by Dr. John Warwick Montgomery.  Presenting at this academy was Dr. Gary Habermas.  I had the pleasure of having a couple of good conversations with Dr. Habermas and one of the things I asked him about was Antony Flew’s position.  Habermas had held a famous debate about the historicity of the resurrection with Flew and I knew that they kept in touch.  In fact, it was Dr. Habermas’s interview with Flew about his new position that had stirred so many atheists into frustration.

Dr. Habermas informed me that Flew was unhappy about how ‘God and Philosophy’ turned out.  Soon after returning to the United States, I fired off a letter to Flew imploring him to set the record straight.  To my great pleasure, Flew replied and assured me he was already on the case.   Clearly, I wasn’t the only one who wanted the skinny.  His response, “There is a God:  How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind” gives us the answers we were looking for.

As can be expected, atheists haven’t been too thrilled.  Accusations that Flew is hedging his bets with a Pascalian wager have been made.  At the same time, his arguments have been dismissed as written by someone who is quite old and therefore (I guess) senile.  Some have even said that the book doesn’t represent Flew’s actual views.  Flew takes on some of these challenges in his book.   I’m sure that history will tell the full story.

I agree with some that it would have been nice to have more development of his current arguments and positions.  Flew is one of the few writing atheists out there that actually does grasp Christian theology and whose atheistic arguments are not wholesale attacks on strawman conceptions like Dawkins’s and those of the ‘new atheists.’ 

For example, the design argument, the fine-tuning argument, and the ‘free-will defense’ really do make sense when one is contemplating the evidence for the Aristotelian concept of God which so closely resembles the Christian concept.  These arguments don’t make much sense if your concept of God is of an entity hiding out in space somewhere who might be detected by a lucky look of a telescope.

God as understood by Christians could never, in principle, be empirically detectable.  Yet there are a host of atheists out there who seem to think he could.  Further elaboration on this point would have been a great help in the theism/atheism debate.

The most direct assessment of that issue comes not from Flew, but from Roy Abraham Varghese writing in the preface:

In fact, the ‘new atheists,’ it might be said, do not even rise to logical positivism.  The positivists were never so naïve as to suggest that God could be a scientific hypothesis- they declared the concept of God to be meaningless precisely because it was not a scientific hypothesis.  Dawkins, on the other hand, holds that ‘the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question.”  This is the kind of comment of which we say it is not even wrong!

Alright, it is not Flew’s job to lay out for anyone exactly what Christian theism is all about.  His is an autobiographical tale of where he is and how he got there and in this he succeeds.  His account has great value because it is also a fine survey of the progression of atheistic arguments over the last century, many of which were his own.  He accompanies these arguments with some of the theistic responses that have been made.  He provides names and titles of books that have influenced him.  So, while not digging in as exhaustively as perhaps any of us would like (as if he lives to please us!) he does hand us a shovel so we can go deeper if we want.

There is no sense in laying out and defending all of Flew’s arguments.  For one thing, apart from reading the book for yourself, you can find plenty of reviews and responses to his arguments from within the atheistic community.  I will provide, therefore, just a summary.

 1.  The more physicists learn about nature of the universe, the more they are compelled to believe that the simplest explanation for the rationality that seems to lie underneath it all is that it is in fact the product of a rational mind, that is, ‘the Mind of God.’ 

2.  The more physicists learn about the nature of the universe, the more it appears that the universe is ‘fine-tuned’ so that life could arrive and flourish [the anthropic principle].  Attempts to defeat the significance of these findings have driven scientists to posit explanations such as the ‘multiverse.’  Flew correctly points out that such attempts merely drive the question back a level and still leaves the ‘fine-tuning’ as a compelling reason to believe the universe was created by God.

3.  The origin of life resists an atheistic explanation.  DNA is information, a code, and a self-replicating one at that.  For a variety of reasons, Flew believes that the evidence is such that the best explanation for this code and for the origin of life is a divine mind.

4.  That the universe had a beginning prompts the obvious question of what caused the universe to begin, if anything.  The matter appears to be completely out of the hands of the empirical scientists, especially if it is maintained that nothing can be known ‘before’ the Big Bang.  Flew argues it is thus a matter for philosophy, or, I might say, religion.  Flew says, “… the universe is something that begs and explanation.  Richard Swinburnes’s cosmological argument provides a very promising explanation, probably the finally right one.” (pg 145)

5.  Many atheists take issue with the idea of how a God who by definition cannot be detected by empirical inquiry can be said yet to interact in our empirical universe.  Flew himself includes himself as one who found the idea of a ‘person without a body’ to be nonsensical (pg 148).  Here we see how Flew’s accurate grasp of Christian theism informs the discussion.  He points to two thinkers, Thomas Tracy and Brian Leftow, who have done well in Flew’s mind to respond to the issue.  Their arguments convinced Flew that the “idea of an omnipresent Spirit is not intrinsically incoherent if we see such a Spirit as an agent outside space and time that uniquely executes its intentions in the spatio-temporal continuum.” (page 153).  In other words, Flew’s own arguments in ‘God and Philosophy’ that the concept of God has no applicability has, in his mind, been answered.

Flew concludes by pointing out that questions remain.  The problem of evil and suffering is a formidable problem but he points out what many have been saying for a long time, that this is a separate issue from the question of God’s existence.  Flew accepts that the ‘free-will defense’ will work, though it “depends on the prior acceptance of a framework of divine revelation, the idea that God has revealed himself.”

Flew has resisted describing his theism as a belief in a personal God defined by any of the revelatory systems that are available.  Such comments as the one above make it clear to me that at some point the question of God’s existence is recognized to be important but not the whole question at all.  What God wants and how he plans on doing it is something that we must, by definition, rely on that God to reveal.  It looks like Flew is finally in a position where he is more willing to evaluate such revelation claims.

It would have been better if it had been seen all along that the very structure of the problem always meant evaluating revelation claims instead of positing a ‘presumption of atheism’  which was used so often to dismiss such claims a priori.

Flew seems inclined to believe that Christianity is the leading contender among revelatory systems.  If he continues to grapple with the reality that a God exists basically how Christians have understood him, it will only be a matter of time before he recognizes that the Incarnation was almost predictable.  The Jesus whom Flew admires said that it is only through Jesus that one can have God.  It looks like putting two and two together is only a matter of time now for Dr. Flew.  I only wish we had more time!

But then, I guess none of us ever really knows how much time we have, do we?

It might be argued that Flew has come to think otherwise in many ways. That is true, and it is a bit fun to watch atheists who used to swear by him now swear at him. Still, it is also true that just because Flew has abandoned them it doesn’t follow that the arguments are false or inadequate. So, despite his approaching theism, a review of this book and addressing the arguments it contains still has value.

Flew’s book aims to survey arguments for Christian theism and show how they do not overcome the ‘presumption of atheism’ (or, ‘Straticonian atheism’).  It was his view that our analysis ought to begin by assuming- or at least operating on the view- that by default, there is no God, and if the evidence can be interpreted well enough that way, or there is no positive evidence to call us to think otherwise, the idea of God can simply be set aside. He might say, “Not untrue, perhaps, but not worthy of one’s time, either.”

Such an important epistemological position surely requires significant discussion but I am afraid that this is very poorly done.  In fact, I don’t think it can be done.   Especially when the very question you are investigating is “Is there a God” making the argument that one must assume “false” until proven otherwise really teeters on the edge of circular reasoning and question begging.   Most people would say that a more neutral posture would be more reasonable.   I often encounter atheists arguing along the lines of a ‘presumption of atheism’ but ultimately it is almost always exposed that they take this view by simple, raw, brute choice.  We need not follow them.

Flew begins his analysis of the definition of ‘God’ put forth by theologians to see if any definitions has any ‘applicability.’  He points out that  it is very difficult to find a definition of God that anyone can agree on and that most treatments are not in depth enough to use in philosophical work.  He says that starting with the definition is very important; ‘one must start at the beginning of the beginning.’

And here, at the beginning, the rest of the book unravels.  I certainly agree that one must start at the beginning of the beginning but do not believe that a definition of God is the proper beginning.  Nor do I think that Straticonian atheism would have been the proper beginning.  The proper beginning is not how we know there is a God, but how we know anything!  Much to my surprise, this question of basic epistemology doesn’t arise until many chapters later and even then only in response to theists arguing from personal experience.  Of course, the personal experience of another is not likely going to have epistemological weight for someone else, I am not denying that.  I am saying that he should have started out by speaking to just what kind of information and evidence ought to be compelling on another.  On this, he is silent.

I believe that the question is entirely transformed when one starts out with basic epistemological considerations.  “I think therefore I am.”   Before we concern ourselves with the existence of God, do we not all struggle to fathom our own existence?  Why should we trust our senses to give us reliable data?  Why should we trust our minds to reliably interpret that data?  Atheists are always telling us about how our minds and senses can trick us (usually in an attempt to discredit the testimony of those who witnessed Jesus’ deeds).  If that is the case, how do we know that in revealing the trickery we have not been tricked?

To this, the answer is often, “We trust our minds and our senses because we have to!”  There is no doubt that we have to, but doesn’t it make sense that any proper worldview, any proper ‘theory of everything’ will explain and account for… everything?  Why exempt out own senses, interpretive abilities, and existence, from our account just because we must take them for granted?  When I consider the question, I find that it makes much more sense to infer a presumption of theism rather than a presumption of atheism.

I don’t plan on defending or debating that here.  I’m just explaining how starting at the real beginning has the potential to re-frame the entire issue.

By failing to truly begin at the beginning, I believe Flew’s book becomes ineffectual.  It raises some interesting challenges at times but as a comprehensive analysis and rebuttal of Christian theism, I believe it does not come close to succeeding.

“I think therefore I am” is a much better starting point.  While this is an undeniable piece of evidence for believing we really exist, there is still much more to be said.  For example, I can also say “There was a time when I was not.”  If anything, this suggests that I am a contingent agent.  Ought contingency regress infinitely?  Or does it not make a certain amount of sense to suggest that there is, ultimately, a Thinker that is the last stop in the chain, a Final Thinker who is in fact, non-contingent… meeting one of the primary agreed upon criteria in a definition of God as Christians understand him.

• He’s losing/lost his mind.
• He’s in it for the money.
• He’s afraid of death.
• Etc.

If this is not ad hominem, I don’t know what is.  If the challenge is that Flew hasn’t well defended himself, I could almost see it… thus the book… which hasn’t come out yet…. which, therefore, they can’t evaluate…. which means that at this point, they’re just being presumptive.  We have yet to see if his book provides good argumentation, but to act as though he is off his rocker before you’ve even allowed him to speak for himself, that’s just not right.  Desperate interviews by Richard Carrier don’t count as allowing Flew to speak for himself.  So let’s just wait, shall we?

Antony Flew argues essentially that theists have the burden of proof whereas atheists have no obligation of their own, with the implication then that atheism is a negative position, a denial of a position and not a position in itself, rather than a positive one.

It goes without saying, but as this aims to be brief, you’ll need to read the links below in order to adequately follow the arguments in the essay.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/flew_falsification.html

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm

—————–

The Flew-Wisdom “Gardner Parable” emerged in Flew’s famous work, “Theology and Falsification.” The idea is that one can invent all sorts of entities that cannot in principle be detected, and God is not much different than any of them. This is why we have illustrations like ‘Invisible Pink Unicorn,” the “Dragon in the Garage” and Dawkins’s current favorite, the “Flying Spaghetti Monster,” all put forward by ‘free-thinkers’ guided in their thinking by the concepts in Flew’s parable.

The Flew-Wisdom “Gardener Parable” not only presents the ‘presumption of atheism’ argument in a potent form but also provides the argument’s Achilles Heel.

In the Wisdom-Flew Gardener Parable two men, a believer and a skeptic happen upon a clearing where there was “growing many flowers and many weeds.” The believer posits a gardener, the skeptic disagrees. Through various contrivances the believer’s gardener, if it is to exist, must exist in such a qualified form as to be indistinguishable from no gardener at all. But what this parable illustrates in crystalline form is that it is not the definition of the gardener that we begin with at all, but rather a clearing “growing many flowers and many weeds.”

One supposes from the parable that there is something about this particular clearing that gives us the impression that this clearing is, in fact, a garden. In other words, what meets both men’s senses is that they are in the presence of a garden, with the intuition that where there is a garden, there is a gardener. Our believer need not go any further then he is portrayed as going. He could simply point to the ‘garden’ as prima facie evidence of a ‘gardener.’

Our skeptic has an obligation to show how whatever peculiarities gave rise to the suspicion that it was a garden in the first place are better explained via processes that don’t intuitively call for an intelligent agent. Unless, of course, our supposition is wrong and there is nothing in the clearing to suggest a gardener from the beginning.

Consider the difference in the argument if the scene that you arrived at was this one:

or if it was this one:

Which ‘clearing’ did our two explorers stumble upon?

Our parable does not say, and therefore we do not know whether or not there are suitable reasons for describing this clearing as a garden in the first place. Surely if the clearing is the first one above, it is the atheist that has a ‘burden’ to show that the prima facie inference is wrong. If it is the second, it is the theist. And if it is the second, and the theist meets his burden by invoking ad hoc explanations, clearly the theist’s arguments are tenuous at best. But we must first know which ‘garden’ we’re looking at.

Because of this fact, I think it is reasonable to say that Flew’s argument, so far as it goes, is valid. But it is based on some assumptions about the ‘clearing in the jungle’ that his parable is silent on. Perhaps the reason why Flew has abandoned atheism is not because he has found his argument to be logically flawed, but rather logically fulfilled. That is, he may have determined that the nature of the ‘clearing’ in front of his eyes really is best explained by invoking a ‘gardener’ and no longer finds such a conclusion as groundless.

We shall have to see, but I think it is safe to say that this is exactly the case for most theists therefore their position does not fall into the ‘jurisdiction’ of Flew’s argument.

Does the argument really reduce to a simple disagreement about whether or not the universe does or does not bear prima facie marks of a ‘designer’? Not quite, but that is not a fact that speaks well of atheism. For example, some atheists might allow that there are such prima facie marks but choose to interpret them in naturalistic terms under the very spurious assumption that they must do so (here they will invoke things like ‘Occam’s Razor’). Or, they might say- again allowing that the marks of the gardener might really exist- suggest that there is no difference between and no way to distinguish between a transcendent gardener and a super-powerful and technologically advanced alien.

Arguments like these show the real difference between atheists. Some are atheists because they simply choose to prefer naturalistic interpretations. Some are atheists that ‘follow the evidence, wherever it leads.’ Flew is in the latter category. Can it really be so that it is the theists who derive their views on evidences while the atheists generate theirs by presupposition?

Yes, it really can.

Over the summer of 2006, I learned that Flew was not entirely pleased with how God & Philosophy turned out. More tantalized then ever, I decided to try to establish a correspondence with Dr. Flew to ask him if he would clarify where he stood before he died as, and I quote, “you are no spring chicken.” With the news of the release of his book out in the open, it is now safe to say that I had the pleasure of receiving a reply from Dr. Flew. In that reply, he indicated that he was well ahead of me: the book I wanted to see was forthcoming. That book is now here: There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

And I think I have settled once and for all that Richard Carrier does not have special access to Antony Flew. Flew is a kind man who will reply to anyone. The contents of my correspondence are not earth shattering by any means, though the news about the book could have been construed as such, but I will choose to keep that correspondence private.

I think it is worthwhile to note that a whole generation of ‘free-thinkers’ borrowed arguments from Flew and now those who continue to use those arguments will have to explain why we should think the arguments sound when their originator now finds them rationally unsatisfying, or… satisfyingly met. (See for example Flew’s Gardner Parable). Of course, as the skeptic will be quick to point out, the logic of the argument stands or falls apart from the author of the argument, and I’m not denying that. Still, we expect the inventor of the object to know the object better than most of us. And besides, one of my points in raising this is that without such men to invent new arguments for them, where are the free-thinkers going to come up with new ones? Right. Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. Theism is safe intellectually, but may yet be undermined by good propoganda.

The real issue to watch here concerns Flew’s own spirituality. Here, of course, we leave aside the skeptics who think such things are nonsense, but for we Christians the question of whether or not Flew goes all the way and embraces Christ is of paramount importance. Surrounded by people like Habermas and NT Wright, I have to think that the right people are in place to help lead him to the final surrender, and therefore, the Final Victory. But as it stands now, he has not yet crossed that threshold, and will not reveal it as crossed in this book. Our duty, then, is to pray.

I will update this blog as events unfold.