History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
I suppose that famous atheist and classical liberal Antony Flew's conversion to deism will be getting lots of comment. So I thought I would reproduce this material from George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God, 1974, pp. 233-34:
“Flew is quite right in insisting that the natural universe must constitute the starting point of our inquiry, and he is correct in pointing out that the burden of proof falls solely on the theist. But Flew is wrong, or at least misleading, when he grants to theism the theoretical possibility of gaining a foothold by dislodging naturalism through argumentation. There is no such possibility in principle.
“Naturalism has the priority over supernaturalism, not because it is the more economical of two explanations [as Flew has argued], but because it is the only framework in which explanation is possible. . . . Naturalism is the only context in which the concept of explanation has meaning.
“Once the theist removes himself from the framework of natural causality and the general principles or ‘laws’ by which man comprehends the universe, he forfeits his epistemological right to the concept of explanation and precludes the possibility of explaining anything.”
Richman quotes Smith: “Once the theist removes himself from the framework of natural causality and the general principles or ‘laws’ by which man comprehends the universe, he forfeits his epistemological right to the concept of explanation and precludes the possibility of explaining anything.”
Damn, I never heard of these epistemological rights, and it must be terrible to have forfeited them!
Stephan Kinsella -
7/14/2005
Richman quotes Smith: “Once the theist removes himself from the framework of natural causality and the general principles or ‘laws’ by which man comprehends the universe, he forfeits his epistemological right to the concept of explanation and precludes the possibility of explaining anything.”
Damn, I never heard of these epistemological rights, and it must be terrible to have forfeited them!
Sheldon Richman -
12/13/2004
Well, they are metaphorical, not literal, rights. Smith simply means that one cannot legitimately use a concept while denying the concepts on which it logically depends. It would be like using the concept "orphan" while denying the possibility of parents. It's another way of saying that our concepts are hierarchical or contextual.
M.D. Fulwiler -
12/13/2004
Really, what good is a God who can't provide you with eternal life and other such goodies? Is Flew going to feel any better facing the black abyss as deist?
Sheldon Richman -
12/12/2004
Can he create something from nothing?
Roderick T. Long -
12/11/2004
Well, it depends what one means by "stand outside of nature." Aquinas would have said that God does stand outside of nature, but that God doesn't stand outside of logic. Since he also thought that (at least some of) a thing's causal powers are part of its essence, and so that nothing would count as that thing if it acted in a manner inconsistent with its causal powers, it was logic that prevented God from certain sorts of interference with nature. Nevertheless, on his view although God couldn't separate a thing from its nature, he could always destroy the thing and create a different thing instead. Is that supernaturalism? Well, you can call it that if you want. But Aquinas would say it's just God acting in accordance with his nature and its associated causal powers.
Sheldon Richman -
12/11/2004
I wonder if nonsupernatural theology is even coherent. What is god if he doesn't stand outside of nature? Was Aquinas a covert atheist? I don't think I'm the first to ask that.
Roderick T. Long -
12/11/2004
Does belief in God necessarily involve belief in the "supernatural"? I confess I'm not entirely sure what the term "supernatural" strictly means. I suppose if someone held that things have no inherent natures of their own and so no inherent causal principles of action, so that some higher being could simply rewrite the laws of physics, etc., at will, that would count as "supernaturalism" -- i.e., God's power overriding the natures of things.
But by that standard a great many mainstream/orthodox theologians, like Thomas Aquinas, aren't going to count as believing in a "supernatural" being, since such thinkers hold that things do have definite natures that place limitations on what God can do with them.
"Naturalism" is a slippery term too. Nowadays it's often used as a near synonym for scientific materialism, the view that everything of importance can be explained via the natural sciences. I'm pretty sure George Smith doesn't advocate naturalism in that sense. But if it just means that things have definite natures that explain and determine how they act and what can be done with them, then plenty of theists, as well as deists, have been naturalists.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche -
12/10/2004
Just to speculate... I wonder if an attempt to find a "greater" meaning to life had anything to do with the conversion? Although deism and a lack of belief in an afterlife combined don't seem to provide much "more meaning" to life than atheism or agnosticism. And the comments others have made on the infinite regress problem are well put.
Kenneth R Gregg -
12/10/2004
Yes, very curious. I do wonder about his reasons for change. Flew went through a similar change regarding his views on rights and liberty not too long ago as well. When I communicated with him in the late '70's-early '80's, he was, I felt, a strident philosophical libertarian, but moved more recently to an egalitarianism that I consider weak.
I do wonder if there is some underlying reason (or lack of certainty) that provides an explanation. Will have to wait until I see a more comprehensive response from him.
Yours in liberty,
Just Ken
M.D. Fulwiler -
12/10/2004
Professor Flew, who designed God? Nobody? Well, then why the heck does the Universe as a whole need a designer? Deism adds needless complexity and simply adds a mystery that cannot be answered.
Sheldon Richman -
12/10/2004
Exactly. And as my friend Brian Doherty wants to know, why is the argument more convincing to him now than it was when he was a teenager? What happened?
M.D. Fulwiler -
12/10/2004
Gary captured my thoughts exactly. Deism solves nothing.
Gary McGath -
12/10/2004
Flew's argument is likely subtler than an ABC News article makes it out to be. But I have to wonder: If life is too complex to be explained without reference to a "super-intelligence," then how does he explain the existence of a super-intelligence? It's the same problem, just pushed back a step.
Sheldon Richman -
12/10/2004
God, Logic be thy name.
Aeon J. Skoble -
12/10/2004
LOL
I think I'll be converting to Roderick's religion. That's got some rituals, but they're fun.
Sheldon Richman -
12/10/2004
I once considered converting to Deism. I would have chosen Reform. Orthodox Deism has too much ritual for me.
Aeon J. Skoble -
12/10/2004
I did make a note of this, but had the bad luck to post it immediately before Chris, so now it's buried! My main point was not so much about the merits of Flew's position, but the amazing dishonesty of the several headline writers who say the he "now believes in God," which given the usual denotation of that word, is quite inaccurate. I can't tell if they're lying or gloating or both.
