Thursday, November 15, 2007

Armchair psychiatry

Steve Hays told me about this. Apparently the armchair diagnosis in this isn't confined to Flew. Apparently Reagan managed to win the 1984 election by a landslide as an Alzheimer's patient. Mr. I forget your name, tear down this wall!

Senator Bill Frist was, in my view, rightly criticized for his "diagnosis" of Terri Schiavo.

Please note that Flew is managing to frustrate the hopes of both the atheists and the Christians. Not bad for an Alzhiemer's patient!

For the 1000th time, I'm not looking to Flew for a book of great apologetic value. I'm just asking for a little less rush to judgment. I suspect that the Flew book is being attacked because of its support for ID, rather than for the deism it espouses. IDists, after all, are evil.


Unknown said...

IDists, after all, are evil

Not necessarily. They could be "stupid, ignorant or insane", remember.

Edwardtbabinski said...

How content are Christians in general with Flew's nonconversion to biblical religion?

And what about the fact that disagreements in interpretation and beliefs can be just as unresolvable (even in an eternally damnable fashion) between atheists and theists, as between deists and theists, and even between Christian theists and Christian theists?

And what about the fact that philosophers such as yourself and Lewis don't seem to care very much for even citing the Bible, let along dealing with the ways in which ancient biblical authors viewed the world, God's actions, the afterlife, etc.

For instance prophets of the O.T. believed God was active in natural disasters (droughts, famines, floods, plagues) and natural blessings (bringing bountifuyl harvests, peace), including either cursing or blessing entire nations, and that He was the God of all nations placing people in power, and that's why the rulers "bear not the sword in vein" according to Paul.

While today's apologists seem content to ignore trying to explain what happens to nations as God's direct providential actions, and simply seek new ways to justify why God remains hidden and why pain and suffering makes "sense."

My how apologetics has changed over time.

Anonymous said...

Support for ID?

Flew talks about 'The Integrated Complexity Argument'.

Presumably he can't even remember what the name of Irreducible Compexity is.

Anonymous said...

My how your own perspective has shrunk, Ed. Only a small subsection of apologists are concerned to argue for 'mere theism' or 'mere Christianity'. It's a very important task since it has the potential to build bridges between believers and nonbelievers but it by no means exhausts the apologetic landscape. How would you have philosophers like Reppert cite the Bible? That usually leads to charges of question-begging: "You say we should accept such-and-such just because it's in the Bible". I would have thought you would have a better appreciation for the distribution of the apologetic task. It's not the place of philosophers like Reppert to directly engage with scriptural concerns (although C.S. Lewis did write a whole reflecting on the Psalms, for example). If you want that I should direct you to the great bible scholars of the Church.

Anonymous said...

Of course, the atheists are now claiming that Flew was never a True Atheist

'Probably I should always
have called myself an agnostic.'

Flew writes

Anonymous said...

In the link that anonymous provided, which I had seen before, are the clues to understanding Flew's position, and I wrote about them on my Blog.

Victor Reppert said...

So Flew manages to disappoint everyone with his position, the Christians as well as the atheists. I think he's senile like a fox.

IlĂ­on said...

IDists, after all, are evil
Not necessarily. They could be "stupid, ignorant or insane", remember.

Yes, this should be kept in mind. For, after all, one did not wish to consider the possibility of "wickedness."