The influence of Antony Flew.

[Jehanne]

As everyone knows Professor Antony Flew went from an academic atheist to a deist based, in part, on the work of the physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a graduate of MIT, who, in one of his books, defined the kinetic energy of a particle to be proportional to its mass times its velocity. On the shelf next to me is one of my wife's old textbooks, Introducing Philosophy (Solomon), in which Dr. Flew's arguments for atheism are prominently presented.

In the 10 years since his death, what has been Dr. Flew's impact on philosophy, his legacy? Were any of the several thousand academic philosophers in today's World convinced by Dr. Flew's change of position? How influential has been his ghost-written book about his change of heart on the philosophical community? Since he abandoned atheism, who now carries the atheist banner in undergraduate philosophy textbooks?

[Fireball]

One could say " kinetic energy of a particle to be proportional to its mass times its velocity" and it's true, but we usually say,

" Kinetic energy equals 1/2 the mass times the square of the velocity".

The momentum of a particle is proportional to its mass times its velocity.

[Jehanne]

All scholars make mistakes, but, typically, less so in print, especially, if a scientific paper, article or book has been peer-reviewed and refereed.

Dr. Schroeder's errors (the above was not the only one) indicate some sloppy scholarship; if he, as a physicist, can err on something so fundamental, what does that say about his other claims?

[Pat Mustard]

As everyone knows Professor Antony Flew went from an academic atheist to a deist based, in part, on the work of the physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a graduate of MIT, who, in one of his books, defined the kinetic energy of a particle to be proportional to its mass times its velocity.  On the shelf next to me is one of my wife's old textbooks, Introducing Philosophy (Solomon), in which Dr. Flew's arguments for atheism are prominently presented.

In the 10 years since his death, what has been Dr. Flew's impact on philosophy, his legacy?  Were any of the several thousand academic philosophers in today's World convinced by Dr. Flew's change of position?  How influential has been his ghost-written book about his change of heart on the philosophical community?  Since he abandoned atheism, who now carries the atheist banner in undergraduate philosophy textbooks?

His dementia probably had the biggest influence on Flew's "conversion" to deism.

[Mister Agenda]

I never heard of Dr. Flew until Christians started to bring him up as an example of a prominent atheist who converted to believing in God.

[GrandizerII]

As everyone knows Professor Antony Flew went from an academic atheist to a deist based, in part, on the work of the physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a graduate of MIT, who, in one of his books, defined the kinetic energy of a particle to be proportional to its mass times its velocity.  On the shelf next to me is one of my wife's old textbooks, Introducing Philosophy (Solomon), in which Dr. Flew's arguments for atheism are prominently presented.

In the 10 years since his death, what has been Dr. Flew's impact on philosophy, his legacy?  Were any of the several thousand academic philosophers in today's World convinced by Dr. Flew's change of position?  How influential has been his ghost-written book about his change of heart on the philosophical community?  Since he abandoned atheism, who now carries the atheist banner in undergraduate philosophy textbooks?

His dementia probably had the biggest influence on Flew's "conversion" to deism.

So a brain disorder is the primary reason behind Flew converting from one intellectual and rational worldview to another intellectual and rational worldview?

Do we even have documented evidence that he was suffering from dementia at the time of conversion? I hear a lot of claims regarding that, but I'd like to see some evidence.

[Jehanne]

I never heard of Dr. Flew until Christians started to bring him up as an example of a prominent atheist who converted to believing in God.

I am not knowledgeable in the area of philosophy (reading Kant gave me a headache), and so, am looking for an expert, or at least an informed individual, in this area.  Like I said in the OP, my wife's undergraduate textbook appealed directly to Flew for its atheist arguments.  Having said that, I think that Professor Flew was correct in his original ideas, namely, The Presumption of Atheism.  In the history of scholarship, examples of scholars can be found who develop an idea or theory that is intrinsically correct, and who, later on, abandon their ideas and go to their graves doing so; later on, other scholars come along and determine that the scholar in question was originally correct.  The example that I am thinking of is Joseph Fourier, who originally proposed the greenhouse effect, but later mostly abandoned that idea in favor of another one (interstellar radiation) that is not correct.

[Pat Mustard]

His dementia probably had the biggest influence on Flew's "conversion" to deism.

So a brain disorder is the primary reason behind Flew converting from one intellectual and rational worldview to another intellectual and rational worldview?

Do we even have documented evidence that he was suffering from dementia at the time of conversion? I hear a lot of claims regarding that, but I'd like to see some evidence.

I have read but can't access the original NYT article (because I'm not willing to pay money to a right wing publisher) on Flew and the authorial origin of the book where he "converted" but read the wikipedia article and especially note 11 to find a link to it. It is clear from Mark Oppenheimer's article and his conversations with Flew that he a) didn't write the book b) never read the book and c) no longer had the mental capacity to remember much of his philosophical work.

The book where in Flew "declared" his "conversion" is essentially a compendium of the PRATTs recited ad nauseum by fundagelicals and not the work of a serious scientific or philosophical thinker.

[HappySkeptic]

I think we can ignore the book. From all accounts, Flew became a Deist, not a Christian. Anything in the book about him believing in Jesus' resurrection is bunk.

Becoming a Deist is at least reasonable. The problem is that it is a belief that can't be tested.

[GrandizerII]

So a brain disorder is the primary reason behind Flew converting from one intellectual and rational worldview to another intellectual and rational worldview?

Do we even have documented evidence that he was suffering from dementia at the time of conversion? I hear a lot of claims regarding that, but I'd like to see some evidence.

I have read but can't access the original NYT article (because I'm not willing to pay money to a right wing publisher) on Flew and the authorial origin of the book where he "converted" but read the wikipedia article and especially note 11 to find a link to it.  It is clear from Mark Oppenheimer's article and his conversations with Flew that he a) didn't write the book b) never read the book and c) no longer had the mental capacity to remember much of his philosophical work.

The book where in Flew "declared" his "conversion" is essentially a compendium of the PRATTs recited ad nauseum by fundagelicals and not the work of a serious scientific or philosophical thinker.

He didn't write the book, true, but then again, no one is denying this. Whether he never read the book and "no longer had the mental capacity to remember much of his philosophical work" is based on an observation made by Oppenheimer. Who knows if he made the correct observation, but just taking Oppenheimer's word for it while disregarding Flew's insistence that the book reflects his [Flew's] views is a bit iffy.

Anyway, I'm not so naive to think there was no way that some manipulation could've occurred with regards to the writing, editing, and publishing of the book. But there is no real reason to think this had any bearing on Flew's conversion to deism, nor does this support the claim that was made in your earlier post. Flew had been clear on several occasions that he had become a deist in his last years, providing intellectual reasons for his conversion. This is hardly indicative of someone having dementia (even if he did, after all, have dementia at the time).