Haldane versus Hitchens

The philosopher John Haldane and Christopher Hitchens are taking part in a moderated debate at the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford, tonight. The title of the debate is 'We Don't Do God' and is about the role of religion in public life.

In an article written for The Tablet 'In the Crossfire', John Haldane speaks about his part in the Antony Flew controversy and what he calls the vulgarisation of the intellectual debate in the USA which he fears may infect discussions of theism versus atheism here. It would be interesting to find out his view on the current state of the debate in this country after his encounter with Hitchens.

Dawkins on Anselm

Dawkins approach of ridiculing rather than addressing serious philosophical arguments and concerns is becoming more than a little tiresome to serious scholars. Here is what Ian Logan, an Oxford Anselm scholar, has to say about Dawkins' treatment of Anselm's famous philosophical argument to prove the existence of God.

'In the process of writing my book on the Proslogion, I came across hundreds of accounts of Anselm's argument, some more flawed than others, to the most serious and influential of which I tried to respond. Nothing, however, comes close to Dawkins' account in terms of sheer stupidity.'

It seems that Dawkins has failed to heed Anthony Flew's advice that in order to be taken seriously as an academic one should present one's opponents' arguments in their strongest form. Perhaps Dawkins is afraid that if he presents his opponents' arguments thus he will be unable to refute them?

Pursuing The Truth

Contrary to persistent atheist rumours, Antony Flew has not backtracked on his commitment to theism, though, as he himself freely admits in this BBC interview, he has not reached a finally settled position. It seems that any degree of uncertainty in the pursuit of truth is anathema to atheists who mistake openness to enquiry as a sign of weakness, rather than strength.

Dawkins' sexed-up atheism

How does Richard Dawkins respond to Antony Flew's allegation that in The God Delusion Dawkins misrepresents Einstein's view of divine intelligence:

'Antony Flew, having lost the ability to write a book, was persuaded by a Christian ghost writer, Roy Varghese, to let him write it instead. It is one thing for a footballer or a supermodel to use a ghost writer, but there is something absurd about a philosopher using a ghost writer. Flew has now apparently lost the ability to read a book, too, for his 'review' of The God Delusion turns out to be a review of its index and nothing but its index. He only needed to read Chapter 1, in order to see the absurdity of his claims about my treatment of Einstein.'
(Quoted in The Telegraph)

The unashamedly personal nature of much of Dawkins' response, from someone who makes much of being a promoter of well reasoned argument, hardly amounts to an adequate rebuttal of Flew's charge. Leaving that aside, lets take up Dawkins' point that one only need read Chapter 1 of The God Delusion to see that he has provided an accurate representation of Einstein's view of God:

'A deist, too, [like a theist] believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.

'There is every reason to think that famous Einsteinisms like 'God is subtle but he is not malicious' or 'He does not play dice' or 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' are pantheistic, not deistic, and certainly not theistic. 'God does not play dice' should be translated as 'Randomness does not lie at the heart of all things.' 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' means 'Could the universe have begun in any other way?' Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense. . . . .'
(Quoted on Dawkins' website)

Is it accurate to portray Einstein as an adherent of Dawkins pantheism as 'sexed-up atheism'? Here's what Einstein had to say on an occasion when he was asked to define God:

'I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist.'
(Quoted in M. Jammer, Einstein and Religion, Princeton 1999, p. 48.)

Looks like Flew might have a case.

A secularist bigot

Desperate atheist cries of foul play over Antony Flew's 'conversion' continue (see Thursday's post below). In 2008 a number of comments on the customer reviews on Amazon of Flew's book, There is a God, maintained that Flew's contribution to the book was not genuine and he had been a victim of manipulation because he was old. Flew has been moved to refute such serious allegations here.

This link also contains a review by Antony Flew of Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, where Flew takes Dawkins to task for, among other things, failing to properly represent Einstein's views on divine intelligence. Flew, justifiably angered by Dawkins' underhand attempts to discredit him, also charges him with being a secularist bigot.

The honest ex-atheist

Anthony Flew, the well known philosopher, having argued the case for atheism for fifty years, caused a scandal when he revealed in 2004 that he had changed his mind and now believed in the existence of God. Flew's philosophy has always been guided by the Socratic principle to follow the argument wherever it leads and it is a tribute to his openness of mind that he remained wedded to this maxim even when it led to what must have been for him uncomfortable conclusions. Unlike the so called 'new atheists' who sidestep serious philosophical arguments, Flew has spent the whole of his academic life in active engagement with philosophical theism.

Atheists have had great difficulty accepting the revision in Flew's thinking with anything approaching good grace. It is telling that on hearing of Flew's conversion Dawkins accused Flew of 'tergiversation' (apostasy) in his 'old age'. Rumours immediately began to circulate on the internet that, weakened by fear, Flew had succumbed to a deathbed conversion. Flew repudiates this charge in his book, There is a God: How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind, New York, 2007, where he points out that since he does not believe in an afterlife he has nothing to gain from his conversion in this respect.

Here is an interview with Flew where he talks honestly and with modesty about the evidence of 'irreducible complexity' that led him to revise his beliefs in favour of some sort of intelligent design. However, atheists rumours have not abated and a bizarre introduction has been pasted onto this film suggesting that Flew is suffering from the first signs of dementia, and hence the victim of a religionist plot by its makers. Certainly in the film Flew occasionally pauses to think before he speaks, and at one point has difficulty pronouncing a word, but all this is hardly remarkable in a philosopher and a man of eighty plus years. If these are the symptoms of the onset of dementia then I suspect we must all have it. It seems that ordinary explanations like thinking before one speaks or revising one's beliefs are alien concepts to the atheist.