Expectations May Exceed Ex-Athiest's Explanations (by Becky Garrison)
Back in 2004, Anthony Flew, the world’s most prominent atheist, stated he believed in God. Since this pronouncement, some of his fellow atheists treat him as though he's gone over to the dark side and literally lost his mind. In a nutshell, they feel this champion of their cause has flown the coop, as it were, and is being used as a pawn by those Christians who need someone of Flew’s stature to give weight to the entire Intelligent Design movement. (See The New York Times article, "The Turning of an Atheist").
Nadda, nope, no way. Not so fast.
Let's reflect on what Flew actually said when he came out as a theist. He told The Associated Press that "his current ideas have some similarity with American ‘intelligent design’ theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life."
As Christine Rosen wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "Mr. Flew is not quite the crusading convert his book title suggests: He did not embrace Christianity, but Deism. As he told Christianity Today, he feels more spiritual kinship with the skeptical Thomas Jefferson than with Jesus. 'I understand why Christians are excited, but if they think I am going to become a convert to Christ in the near future, they are very much mistaken,' he said."
Pick up a copy of Flew’s latest book, There is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, and you’ll see that a thinker of his stature can’t be painted in simple monochromatic colors. Rather, this biography, co-written by Christian apologist Roy Abraham Varghese, reveals that Flew’s lifelong mantra was to follow the policy of Plato's Socrates: "We must follow the argument wherever it leads." After this preacher’s son penned his infamous short paper,"Theology and Falsification" in 1950, he assumed the position as the leading atheist apologist. Later in life, the evidence led him to conclude that the complexity of nature and the origin of life can only be explained by the presence of a super-intelligence.
While we’re at it, let’s not pull out the ageism card willy-nilly. If the critics are correct that Flew has truly gone "off his rocker," I doubt a publisher of HarperOne’s stature would have tackled this project. I’m not about to defend any publisher’s entire catalogue but if you skim their offerings, you’ll see that except for a few bits of New Thought nonsense, they tend to produce serious scholarship, not shoddy schlock. Furthermore, as I interviewed N.T. Wright for The Wittenburg Door and spent some time with him at Soularize 2007, I can attest that he would not have contributed to this dialogue if he wasn't convinced this was a worthy endeavor.
The flurry over Flew raises this question for me. Why do we feel the need to put the other in a prescribed belief box instead of allowing space to differ and dialogue?
Becky Garrison is the author of The New Atheist Crusaders and their Unholy Grail: Their Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith (Thomas Nelson, January 2008).
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
"The flurry over Flew raises this question for me. Why do we feel the need to put the other in a prescribed belief box instead of allowing space to differ and dialogue?"
Well, as an unashamed and unapologetic follower of the Christ, I guess I would answer this question, "Since Flew has come this far (to acknowledge the probably existence of God), why wouldn't I want him to go the rest of the way, and be totally right? I'm not satisfied with partial truth for myself; why should I want him to stop with partial truth?
Posted by: joekc | November 23, 2007 7:42 PM
I don't think most of the problem is with 'wanting him to'. It is the claims (in order to get some sort of convert notch on the gun belt, I suppose) that he already has.
As for HarperOne, they had nothing to lose. He didn't write the book anyway. Heck, by his own admission, he doesn't know all that is in it. Their concern would mostly be with the one who ghostwrote the thing.
Posted by: Karen | November 24, 2007 2:19 AM
"If the critics are correct that Flew has truly gone "off his rocker," I doubt a publisher of HarperOne’s stature would have tackled this project"
I agree with Karen's answer to this. And I'd add: Regardless of Flew's current reasoning capabilities the ultimate question should probably be, "So what?" Has any observation of Flew's (or his ghostwriter) contributed anything new to apologetics? In actuality, no.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | November 24, 2007 11:39 AM
We so much want to pull the dividing curtain across the room between the "before Christ" and "after Christ" people. And in many cases you can.
But then there are the others who are sort of "in transit". No longer "there", but not really "here" yet. Just meandering and foraging as they explore.
Isn't seeing the truth often a gradual process? Even a lifelong one? And don't we often learn best and most vividly the things that we discover a piece at a time - interrupted by long periods where we struggle with each new piece, trying to find the spot where it best fits in?
It takes only a few weeks to grow a stalk of celery. But it takes decades to grow a magnificent maple tree.
And there are many "in-between" stages. Perhaps we need to stop looking at snapshots and instead look at the video.
Posted by: Amazon Creek | November 25, 2007 12:36 AM
I share Ms. Garrison's skepticism about bright line distinctions between people. In the first two chapters of Genisis we have radically different views of God. (Omnicient distant God in the first story; intiment God who walks in the Garden in the second.) Some of us believe God has a physical body, i.e. the LDS church, some of us believe that God is all of us and everything in the physical world and more, i.e. panentheism.
If I'm a panentheist are my views closer to those of the Deist or the Mormon? I mean there is some much diversity in our belief about the nature of God, it makes little sense to use a binary classification system like believer/non-believer.
Love,
JimII
Prophetic Progress
Posted by: JimII | November 25, 2007 3:59 PM
"Why do we feel the need to put the other in a prescribed belief box instead of allowing space to differ and dialogue?"
From everything I have heard, Christians are simply observing what has taken place. To which belief box are we referring here?
To the extent that Christians celebrate this non-conversion, presumaby on the basis that something is better than nothing when it comes to believing the tenets of Christianity, we celebrate in vain. Belief in God may represent Flew's ability to overcome an intellectual hurdle (of his own design) but it does not bring him any closer to repentance, or to the gift of eternal life.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 25, 2007 5:19 PM
Bill Hybels (and others) talk about becoming a Christian as a process, of a moving from say -10 through to -1 and then to a point in time of conversion.
If Flew was at a -10 on such a scale then the acceptance of deism would probably constitute a move to a -8. It's still a long way from conversion, but it does bring him closer. Which is good for him.
But if he dies while still at a -8, then that little move won't earn him any credit.
So in response to Kevin's comments, he is closer and we should celebrate any nonbeliever drawing closer, but we should also recognise (as joekc stated) that there is still much further to go.
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | November 25, 2007 10:48 PM
In other words, deists go to the same hell as atheists.
Posted by: Karen | November 26, 2007 12:36 AM
"Bill Hybels (and others) talk about becoming a Christian as a process, of a moving from say -10 through to -1 and then to a point in time of conversion. "
Do Bill Hybels (and others) have any scripture to back this up? If not, and this trend is observable on its face, is the rejection of atheism necessarily a notch on this continuum? If Flew were to, for example, embrace Islam, would he be further along said continuum?
All we know is that Flew has correctly rejected the logic of atheism. His intellectual honesty is refreshing, but I don't see a nod toward Christianity here.
Which isn't to say, however, that Flew's potential advocacy on behalf of deism cannot be a compelling counter to the recent trend of populist atheism in this country. To that end, Flew's change in perspective is imminently useful to Christians, and may well be an implement used toward Flew's own conversion.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 26, 2007 12:46 AM
That's a good point, Karen. And it doesn't at all conflict with what I was getting at.
Very true. The only folks that get inside the pearly gates are those who have put their faith in Jesus Christ and his forgiveness. I sure don't want to leave the impression that deism will get you into heaven any more than atheism will. Deism is just one more manmade philosophy.
What I was trying to say is the Holy Spirit knows each of us as individuals - and He leads each of us to Christ the way WE PERSONALLY need to be lead. And each in a different amount of time. And each travelling past different checkpoints along the route.
Each of us has different learning styles.
Some people learn well through lectures - and once they hear, they believe. And so...God leads them to Christ that way. They go to a Billy Graham Crusade - and they just believe. And that's them. That's the way they are.
But scientists learn by exploring and discovering. If they question, well - isn't that what makes them good scientists? Scientists NEED to question. They CAN'T jump to conclusions. They HAVE TO test things. But all the while, they are learning and slowly putting it all together.
I have also always been very much that way. I learn little from lectures. Have to explore and discover - and slowly digest and integrate it all.
And yes, there was a definite point where I remember putting my faith in Jesus Christ in 1973. But...I can still look back on my whole entire life and see how the Holy Spirit was slowly teaching me each and every year of my life LONG BEFORE THAT POINT.
And yes, it brought me through many deceiving checkpoints - even dangerous ones. I spent a couple years dabbling in occult things and Eastern philosophy.
Would I have went to heaven if I'd died during that time. No. I hadn't put my trust in Jesus Christ yet.
But...God is not confined to time like us humans are. All we can see is what-we-see-right-now. But GOD sees what the end result will look like - past the here-and-now. He sees the future.
And so...God knew He was not going to let me die until the Holy Spirit showed me ALL of the truth about what Jesus Christ had done for me on the cross. God knew my story wasn't finished yet.
Me-thinks us humans often argue about these things because we can only view things from a human's eyes (confined inside the dimensions of time and space). And we are trying to understand things that can only truly be understood from God's perspective - who is VERY NOT confined to the dimensions of time and space.
Makes it kind of tough. Makes us often talk in circles - when we might all be saying the same thing, just viewing it from different perspectives. You think yes?
Posted by: Amazon Creek | November 26, 2007 3:05 AM
Garrison asks, “Why do we feel the need to put the other in a prescribed belief box instead of allowing space to differ and dialogue?”
The Dali Lama has written that Buddhism is not for everyone. That is, there are many beliefs about God but only one Godhead, be it viewed as a void (Buddhist sunyata), or as theist, deist, pantheist, animist, agnostic, atheist, or what not. It is an undeniable fact that there are many paths to the divine and these paths reflect our personal needs, our culture and other factors. One size does not fit all.
In our radically plural world, the intersection of incommensurate religious belief systems produces as kind of nihilism in that their incommensurability at the level of belief results in a cancellation of their truth claims. The deist and the theist, the pantheisit and the transcendentalist, and all the other belief systems cannot be simultaneously the case. This is why post-modernist relativism and nihilism is not so much a philosophy for late modernism, but a philosophy of it. It describes the radical difference in truth claims between believers. To say that I am right and all the rest of the world is wrong makes for war.
In such a world, we should make a distinction among my faith, our faith, and the true faith. That is my beliefs are true for me and my community but not for the world-at-large—-by definition. This is essentially the message of Cantwell-Smith who argues that, in the name of a greater conviviality, we should celebrate our beliefs within our communities of believers and shun doctrinal claims of true beliefs systems, for such claims just lead to endless strife.
Thus as Garrison suggests, let us live and let live. Such a positive tolerance (i.e., not just a “letting be” but an active encouragement of the faith of others) leads to a kind of pietism wherein a life of faith and piety trumps doctrinal authority. It may also lead to a kind of fideism, wherein our ways of religious life are based upon an aesthetic religiosity (see the Catholic Bathalsar and the Orthodox Heart) which involves a sensibility that involves the mind, the body, and above all the heart, and thus relegates reason to a lesser but not invisible place within a joyful aestheticism. A religion of faith wherein doctrine is constrained may be a kind of post-modern nouveau Ottomanesque millet system in which we live our lives of faith in peace and rejoice in the lives of faith of others.
Posted by: Brent | November 26, 2007 10:50 AM
"It is an undeniable fact that there are many paths to the divine and these paths reflect our personal needs, our culture and other factors."
It is not undeniable. I deny it, for example. The Bible does not measure our connection to God by the extent to which we acknowledge the existence of a God.
I think this reasoning answers Becky's question as to why we need to put people in boxes. I would use a different terminology, but if we cannot delineate differences, we are left without a framework from which to discard false religion.
This isn't to say that we can't discuss and dialogue with other religions. We can have our boxes and discuss them as well, but to disregard them entirely is to simply create a God that reinforces our own beliefs. Such a God is a figment of our imagination.
"Such a positive tolerance (i.e., not just a “letting be” but an active encouragement of the faith of others) leads to a kind of pietism wherein a life of faith and piety trumps doctrinal authority"
I can't think of a more compelling argument for doctrinal authority.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 26, 2007 11:24 AM
kevin,
I'm still a bit confused by you when it comes to how you interpret scripture. You advocate for doctrinal authority but you hold to some heretical positions. You call people out for failing to back up their ideas with scripture or for failing to use scriptural authority, but you ignore scripture in most cases and issues to make arguments on the basis of secular reasoning. Compared to say Wolverine or Moderatelad, you're a tad erratic.
So I'm going to appeal to your experience. I'm going to imagine that at some point you've tried to share your faith with non-Christians. Maybe you've walked alongside a friend or family member who then committed themselves to Christ. Tell me, did it happen in one sitting or was it a process. And did you prayerfully celebrate the steps in the progress. Or did you wipe the dust of the your shoes if they did not immediately receive all that you had to share.
You see, there's a biblical precedent for the latter, but I hope you've had the joy of the former.
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | November 26, 2007 10:14 PM
Trent--I agree with your assessment of the process. Flew isn't a Christian yet, and maybe he will never become one. But, the step from atheism to deism is, actually, extremely significant, and I would even say monumental. It is the foundation for him becoming a Christian, and it is something we can celebrate with the hope of him drawing even closer to Jesus. He can't become a believer unless he first believes in God. So instead of focusing on the fact that he isn't "there" yet, we can joyfully focus on the fact that he is on his way, which is evidence that God's work is happening in his life.
Posted by: squeaky | November 27, 2007 9:39 AM
Let's keep one other thing in mind, as well. We only know about Flew what he has chosen to say about himself. Words often are not sufficient for conveying our experience, even for philosophers. How often do we try to have dialogues and end up talking past each other?
In a sense, we are not arguing about Flew the man, but rather our concept of him. We are arguing over words frozen in a book, while Flew the man is a living and breathing and changing being. We don't know how God is working in Flew's life, but we do know God loves him. Let's celebrate that, and celebrate that he has professed to come to a belief in God, and leave the nitpicking about belief in certain doctrines between him and God.
Posted by: I and I | November 27, 2007 10:09 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?