180:, they're only a very small percentage. When future generations look at Flew's work, they are certainly going to see that he changed his views late in life, but compared to the entire body of work, his change to deism is nothing more than a footnote. As discouraging as that assesment may be, it is the assesment that the scholarly world will use.
244:"Prof. Antony Flew, 81 years old, is a legendary British philosopher and atheist and has been an icon and champion for unbelievers for decades. His change of mind is significant news, not only about his personal journey, but also about the persuasive power of the arguments modern theists have been using to challenge atheistic naturalism. "
110:
Part of the problem, I feel, is the definition of "atheism" is being somewhat conflated. In the sense that Flew does not worship any God, he is still an atheist. In the sense that Flew acknowledges that to his best understanding that there is a God (albeit, in his views, a disinterested God), he is a
247:
Now, I don't know about you, but I certainly feel that the author is most correct in saying that the news that this
Philosopher Legendaíre (is that a word?) has become a theist is no minor news. This is the last sentence of every paragraph on Flew in every theology textbook in the world for the next
229:
group of scholars is, for me, a strong argument to reject the suggestion entirely. You see, Aristotle, I do not know your religious preferences, but I am a
Christian. For me, it seems that setting out to infuriate anyone is contrary to the commands of Jesus Christ, as recorded in Matthew 5. Now, you
81:
Well, then isn't noting him as an atheist on the intro paragraph misleading as well? It's not redundant. The introduction paragraph is where things should be introduced, obviously; this important facet of his life is completely omitted. It's what he is often seen as today. This is quite an important
106:
known principally for these things, even though his views have changed on the latter, and his status as an author and public speaker is still his primary claim to fame. Additionally, he still advocates atheism, and he still stands by his argument that atheism should be the "default" position that a
332:
No puns intended, but Amen. There's a strong case (at least in my opinion) to be made for the inclusion of something about deism in the intro. The case has already been made; we should just put a link on the talk page to this one. It's nothing too egregious; I really don't see the problem with its
175:
Part of the problem here may be one of "notability." Flew has written and spoken advocating atheism many, many times in his life. When he's dead and gone, those writings are still going to be the largest part of his work that future students will refer to, just on volume alone. His later views are
150:
P.S. Those people on the talk page are being ridiculous. Regardless of whether one believes in God or not, it's quite clear that he is no longer an atheist (he has made his belief in a highly deistic, irrelevant God known time and again). Whether he supports atheism or is, in fact, an atheist, is
240:
Well, I was sort of joking about the "infuriation" thing. I don't want to infuriate anybody, I merely want them to recognize that Flew was not a lifelong atheist. He is no longer a strict supporter of atheism, and it's absolutely necessary to note that in the intro. People want the most concise
260:
Part of the problem is that there was recently an editor who attempted to push his own point of view over anyone and everyone else's, and he used some blatantly dishonest means of trying to do so. So I have to admit to being really reticent to changing the article, for fear of reawakening that
203:
Of course, but seeing as Newton is often noted as a biblical mystic, I see no harm in mentioning a wee bit of information concerning his contemporary deistic viewpoints (he is still alive). Atheistic scholars will be infuriated to note that the "crowning achievement" of his atheism will be, if
41:
I never said Flew advocated theism, I said he advocated deism. There's a subtle difference, and the intro paragraph to the article is quite misleading. He is no longer an atheist, and as such, I think it is important that he be noted as, if not an advocate of deism, a deist.
389:, but didn't detail the issues you have with the article on the talk page. When you place a bias tag on an article, you have to accompany it with a discussion of the specific issues you have with that article on the relevent talk page so that they can be addressed. --
204:
nothing else, deism. It's a small something which will go down in the footnotes of history (much as Newton's eclecticism), and it should be put in the intro. Besides, it's what he currently holds; Knowledge (XXG) is as much about the present as it is about the past.
261:
argument. And ... well, part of it is that while I'm happy that Flew's changed his views, I just can't see the deism as anything but a "late in life" footnote, not really significant to his body of work. Hey, it's something that I think is absolutely fabulous on a
146:
But something about his later deistic viewpoints, or at least his acknowledgment of the possibility of a God, should be added to the introduction. He's not a strict atheist in any sense of the term; again, to say that he's fundamentally an atheist is misleading.
360:
Aristotle1990, FYI, I replied to your comment on my talk page. It is typical to add a comment at the bottom of the page, you can do this with the "+" symbol to the right of "edit this page" at the top of (almost) every page.
419:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
248:
200 years. It's very important to note it (e.g., something along the lines of "Flew is well known as of late as a deist, although he still holds many of his earlier atheistic arguments as correct.")
251:
Anyway, as for my religious outlook, I'm a theistic, *relatively* religious Jew, although I have become a bit of a deist lately (prior to my knowledge of Flew's "conversion," thank you very much!).
230:
may not see it that way, and I respect your choice, but I must follow the commands of my Lord as best I can. (Yeah, I know--that probably sounds too heavenly minded for any worldly good. :D )
220:
is not listed in the introduction as a
Christian mystic (or, indeed, as a somewhat heretical but unarguably brilliant Biblical scholar, which he also was) in his introduction either.
170:
of atheism. And that much is true--he's still well known for that advocacy, and I cannot tell you how shocked some of my atheist friends have been when I've discussed this with them.
154:
P.S.S. I'm sort of a n00b to
Knowledge (XXG), although I've made minor, anonymous edits in the past; I don't get the whole "talk pages" and "messages" thing just yet.
118:: consensus of the community was that it was misleading. I encourage you to read through the discussion (though I do have to warn that it got ... pretty intense).
166:
But
Aristotle ... the intro does not say he's an atheist. It gives his primary claim to fame, that he's well known not specifically for his atheism, but for his
185:
Oh, and don't worry about the mixup on the talk page--I've been here for quite some time, and there's still more about
Knowledge (XXG) that I
111:
deist. But he still advocates atheism, in that he still feels that the existence of God should not be accepted without critical examination.
444:
82:
aspect which must not go overlooked; someone looking for casual information must know the most important facts right from the introduction.
31:(Justin's original typo) deism to the best of my knowledge. If you have information to the contrary, however, I'd love to see it.
318:
with the rest of the community to reach consensus before we make a change. Even though
Knowledge (XXG) policy advises readers to
135:
But to make it easier, go ahead and make responses here: I'll add your user page to my watch list, so I can see when you reply.
440:
64:
However, the article already clearly notes that he now considers himself a deist. Adding it again seems redundant, at best.
431:
describes the
Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
436:
90:
No--because the intoductory paragraph does not note him as an atheist: it says he is "known principally as a
125:
132:, but several people keep using the old one. I have to wonder if I did something wrong with the redirect.
129:
432:
151:
irrelevant; the introduction is misleading, does not give enough information, and should be corrected.
55:
Yeah, I typed theism instead of deism--I can only plead insufficient caffeination. It's corrected now.
408:
399:
255:
Aw, heck--then I apologize for taking the joke so seriously. That's the "fun" of a text-only medium.
362:
428:
412:
345:
Cool--I'll put it up on the talk page. It still may not fly, but at least we can give it a shot.
336:
207:
157:
43:
346:
323:
231:
194:
138:
65:
32:
424:
416:
315:
115:
427:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
420:
322:, the recent edit war on this particular article makes discussion for consensus necessary.
319:
27:
While it's true that Flew no longer considers himself an atheist, he does not "advocate"
390:
289:
95:
379:
217:
176:
certainly notable on a personal level (and I certainly find them encouraging), but
386:
300:
292:
282:
21:
241:
definition of Flew as possible in one paragraph. To quote from the interview;
448:
393:
365:
349:
339:
326:
314:
However, if you like the above well enough, we do need to discuss it on the
234:
210:
197:
160:
141:
68:
46:
35:
415:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Knowledge (XXG)
304:
99:
265:
level, but it doesn't change the scope and character of his writing.
270:
The best phrasing I can think of for the intro would be as follows:
296:
285:
114:
Additionally, this phrase has already been discussed
128:? I placed a redirect so people would be sent to my
107:person takes until they have sufficient evidence.
407:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
225:And I have to admit that the idea of infuriating
216:Eh ... I see the logic, but (as a corrolary),
8:
299:, he is known principally as a supporter of
7:
14:
433:review the candidates' statements
439:. For the Election committee,
409:Arbitration Committee election
400:ArbCom elections are now open!
295:. Though he recently became a
1:
449:13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
394:05:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
366:23:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
178:as a part of his life's work
435:and submit your choices on
464:
441:MediaWiki message delivery
279:Antony Garrard Newton Flew
102:." (emphasis added) He is
350:01:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
340:01:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
327:00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
235:23:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
211:23:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
198:22:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
161:22:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
142:22:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
69:03:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
47:03:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
36:03:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
189:know than I do know. :D
124:PS: How did you get to
413:Arbitration Committee
356:reply to your comment
116:in significant detail
417:arbitration process
429:arbitration policy
371:Re: Moral Panic.
130:current talk page
455:
384:
378:
126:my old talk page
463:
462:
458:
457:
456:
454:
453:
452:
437:the voting page
403:
382:
376:
373:
358:
25:
12:
11:
5:
461:
459:
406:
402:
397:
372:
369:
357:
354:
353:
352:
330:
329:
311:
310:
309:
308:
301:libertarianism
272:
271:
267:
266:
257:
256:
238:
237:
222:
221:
201:
200:
191:
190:
182:
181:
172:
171:
96:libertarianism
88:
87:
86:
85:
84:
83:
74:
73:
72:
71:
59:
58:
57:
56:
50:
49:
24:
18:
16:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
460:
451:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
401:
398:
396:
395:
392:
388:
381:
375:You placed a
370:
368:
367:
364:
355:
351:
348:
344:
343:
342:
341:
338:
337:Aristotle1990
334:
328:
325:
321:
317:
313:
312:
306:
302:
298:
294:
291:
287:
284:
280:
276:
275:
274:
273:
269:
268:
264:
259:
258:
254:
253:
252:
249:
245:
242:
236:
233:
228:
224:
223:
219:
215:
214:
213:
212:
209:
208:Aristotle1990
205:
199:
196:
193:
192:
188:
184:
183:
179:
174:
173:
169:
165:
164:
163:
162:
159:
158:Aristotle1990
155:
152:
148:
144:
143:
140:
136:
133:
131:
127:
122:
119:
117:
112:
108:
105:
101:
97:
93:
80:
79:
78:
77:
76:
75:
70:
67:
63:
62:
61:
60:
54:
53:
52:
51:
48:
45:
44:Aristotle1990
40:
39:
38:
37:
34:
30:
23:
19:
17:
404:
374:
359:
347:Justin Eiler
335:
331:
324:Justin Eiler
278:
262:
250:
246:
243:
239:
232:Justin Eiler
226:
218:Isaac Newton
206:
202:
195:Justin Eiler
186:
177:
167:
156:
153:
149:
145:
139:Justin Eiler
137:
134:
123:
120:
113:
109:
103:
91:
89:
66:Justin Eiler
33:Justin Eiler
28:
26:
15:
387:Moral panic
293:philosopher
283:February 11
22:Antony Flew
425:topic bans
333:addition.
277:Professor
20:Regarding
421:site bans
391:Aquillion
316:talk page
92:supporter
363:Pdbailey
263:personal
168:advocacy
385:tag on
320:Be bold
305:atheism
290:British
288:) is a
121:Justin
100:atheism
411:. The
281:(born
29:theism
297:deist
187:don't
104:still
445:talk
380:bias
303:and
286:1923
98:and
405:Hi,
227:any
94:of
447:)
423:,
383:}}
377:{{
443:(
307:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.