Aristotle1990

Regarding Antony Flew

While it's true that Flew no longer considers himself an atheist, he does not "advocate" theism (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. Justin Eiler 03:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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. Aristotle1990 03:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I typed theism instead of deism--I can only plead insufficient caffeination. It's corrected now.

However, the article already clearly notes that he now considers himself a deist. Adding it again seems redundant, at best. Justin Eiler 03:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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 aspect which must not go overlooked; someone looking for casual information must know the most important facts right from the introduction.

No--because the intoductory paragraph does not note him as an atheist: it says he is "known principally as a supporter of libertarianism and atheism." (emphasis added) He is still 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 person takes until they have sufficient evidence.

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 deist. But he still advocates atheism, in that he still feels that the existence of God should not be accepted without critical examination.

Additionally, this phrase has already been discussed in significant detail: 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).

Justin

PS: How did you get to my old talk page? I placed a redirect so people would be sent to my current talk page, but several people keep using the old one. I have to wonder if I did something wrong with the redirect.

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.

Justin Eiler 22:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 irrelevant; the introduction is misleading, does not give enough information, and should be corrected.

P.S.S. I'm sort of a n00b to Wikipedia, although I've made minor, anonymous edits in the past; I don't get the whole "talk pages" and "messages" thing just yet.

Aristotle1990 22:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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 advocacy 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.

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 certainly notable on a personal level (and I certainly find them encouraging), but as a part of his life's work, 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.

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 Wikipedia that I don't know than I do know. :D

Justin Eiler 22:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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 [i]is[/i] still alive). Atheistic scholars will be infuriated to note that the "crowning achievement" of his atheism will be, if 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; Wikipedia is as much about the present as it is about the past.

Aristotle1990 23:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh ... I see the logic, but (as a corrolary), Isaac Newton 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.

And I have to admit that the idea of infuriating any 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 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 ) Justin Eiler 23:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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 definition of Flew as possible in one paragraph. To quote from the interview;

"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. "

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 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.")

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!).

Aw, heck--then I apologize for taking the joke so seriously. That's the "fun" of a text-only medium.

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 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 personal level, but it doesn't change the scope and character of his writing.

The best phrasing I can think of for the intro would be as follows:

Professor Antony Garrard Newton Flew (born February 11 1923) is a British philosopher. Though he recently became a deist, he is known principally as a supporter of libertarianism and atheism.

However, if you like the above well enough, we do need to discuss it on the talk page with the rest of the community to reach consensus before we make a change. Even though Wikipedia policy advises readers to Be bold, the recent edit war on this particular article makes discussion for consensus necessary. Justin Eiler 00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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 addition.

Aristotle1990 01:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool--I'll put it up on the talk page. It still may not fly, but at least we can give it a shot. Justin Eiler 01:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

reply to your comment

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. Pdbailey 23:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Moral Panic.

You placed a {{bias}} tag on Moral panic, 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. --Aquillion 05:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)