Antony Flew's New Book

[j'aipaix]

Hi. I'm trying to filter through all the controversy regarding Flew's new book. I haven't read it yet myself, although I plan to eventually, and I just want to know, clear and simple, did he write it or not? Does anyone know where I can get some direct information about this? I don't mean sites where theists/atheists are arguing that he did/did not write it, I've read enough second hand information already to be thoroughly confused. Does anyone know anywhere, a site or something, where I can get a statement by Flew himself? Any help greatly appreciated. Very curious about this.

[Philosophickle]

He has been quiet, but you may want to read this:

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/20...-habermas.html

[jonah bear]

I have seen Flew in an older interview with Lee Strobel on his conversion.

He admits that he has no connection to the internet community nor the 'skeptical community' nor the 'Christian community'. The man says freely that he doesn't know or care what people think about his conversion.

Personally, I don't know what to make of the NY Times Article as for its veracity. Dr. Flew is an older man and his faculties would be the ad-hominem jugular for anyone who would object to his conversion (the question is why the heck would they even care?).

One thing that is embarassingly apparent is the malicious lengths that Carrier and his ilk will go to further their agenda. They have laid that bare in Oppy's article. It is times like this that I am thankful for humanitarian laws that prevent the skeptical objectors from caning an 84 year old, sweet man. They seem like they are one step (or less) away from donning a white pointy hat!

[jonah bear]

BTW, I do hope that the apologist did not strong arm Dr. Flew into being the author of a book that he did not write. If that was the case, I'm certainly not condoning that abuse of ethics.

[Meta Knight]

I read an article where Flew said he wouldn't have let his name be put on a book he didn't approve of, but I don't remember exactly where.

I'll try to find it.

[lao tzu]

This is the New York Times article. The Turning of an Atheist.

[Glenn P]

The is no good prima facie reason to claim that Flew is not, in a fairly simple and honest sense of the word, the author of this book. He was not the only one involved in the book, but we already know that he did convert to some kind of theism/deism, what grounds have we for doubting the veracity of what's in the book?

[the_light]

The is no good prima facie reason to claim that Flew is not, in a fairly simple and honest sense of the word, the author of this book.

?? Flew says he didn't write the book

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/a...ntony_flew.php

Combining his senility with admitting he didn't explicitly write the book... Its obvious Varghese had free reign over the book's content.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I'll check and see, but there is a statement, and it could be in this month's screwballs thread, where Flew says he went over the manuscript and would not have let it go out if he hadn't approved. He didn't write it "per se" as he says he is older now, but he made sure he approved before it went off.

[the_light]

I'll check and see, but there is a statement, and it could be in this month's screwballs thread, where Flew says he went over the manuscript and would not have let it go out if he hadn't approved. He didn't write it "per se" as he says he is older now, but he made sure he approved before it went off.

Approval from senile man who doesn't remember names, terminology, major events, etc etc doesn't mean much... unless you're a grasping theist of course.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Approval from senile man who doesn't remember names, terminology, major events, etc etc doesn't mean much... unless you're a grasping theist of course.

Wow. So Flew's approval of his own book means nothing about his approving of the content in it? That's great!

[Meta Knight]

So why should I believe Oppenheimer's article as true? It's about the only thing I've seen "proving" Flew didn't write the book.

[lao tzu]

So why should I believe Oppenheimer's article as true? It's about the only thing I've seen "proving" Flew didn't write the book.

The statements from Varghese can be said to settle that issue. The writing was not done by Flew. Instead, the book was compiled by Varghese from interviews and correspondence, and then rewritten by another ghostwriter, apparently a man named Bob Hostetler, according to Carrier. Again, according to Carrier, the statement from Flew ...

My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 percent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I'm 84 and that was Roy Varghese's role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I'm old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. This is my book and it represents my thinking.

... was released by Steve Laube, Hostetler's agent. Carrier's updated article claims that Flew's name was not on Laube's client list as of November 16, though both Flew and Varghese do appear there now. It's an interesting puzzle. I do agree the statement does not read like Flew, rather it appears designed to answer criticisms that should only be important to the publisher.

The remaining questions are whether Flew approved the manuscript, whether it represents his thoughts, and whether those thoughts are representative of the erstwhile clear thinking that made his original reputation. The first seems likely, the second less so but still likely, and the third seems likely untrue.

In any case, while I can certainly understand that the value of the work to the publisher is dependent on the authority of the author, the rest of us should be clear that the arguments presented should be let stand on their own merits without any such fallacious appeals.

As ever, Jesse

[the_light]

Wow. So Flew's approval of his own book means nothing about his approving of the content in it? That's great!

I'm not sure why you're introducing a distinction between the book and its contents.

Flew read it, and approved of it... but what does that mean? If I were surrounded by young vigorous prominent apologists when I was in my mid-80's, and I was loosing my marbles, I'm sure I'd be approving of apologist's books as well! Also don't forget, Flew turned deist. That is very far from Christianity - really I'd place it about a 1/2 inch from atheism. In practical terms they are the same.

So why should I believe Oppenheimer's article as true? It's about the only thing I've seen "proving" Flew didn't write the book.

I guess he could have totally fabricated an interview that never happened. That seems a little far fetched though...

[Philosophickle]

The statements from Varghese can be said to settle that issue. The writing was not done by Flew. Instead, the book was compiled by Varghese from interviews and correspondence, and then rewritten by another ghostwriter, apparently a man named Bob Hostetler, according to Carrier. Again, according to Carrier, the statement from Flew ...

My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 percent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I'm 84 and that was Roy Varghese's role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I'm old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. This is my book and it represents my thinking.

... was released by Steve Laube, Hostetler's agent. Carrier's updated article claims that Flew's name was not on Laube's client list as of November 16, though both Flew and Varghese do appear there now. It's an interesting puzzle. I do agree the statement does not read like Flew, rather it appears designed to answer criticisms that should only be important to the publisher.

The remaining questions are whether Flew approved the manuscript, whether it represents his thoughts, and whether those thoughts are representative of the erstwhile clear thinking that made his original reputation. The first seems likely, the second less so but still likely, and the third seems likely untrue.

In any case, while I can certainly understand that the value of the work to the publisher is dependent on the authority of the author, the rest of us should be clear that the arguments presented should be let stand on their own merits without any such fallacious appeals.

As ever, Jesse

I think this is the best post in this thread. Antony Flew in his prime would certainly be able to shrug off this kind of analysis. Philosophy is not about who wrote what, but about what. We leave the rest to the historians.

I want to add, though, that if Flew is being used in any way that is contrary to what he would approve, then this is a very sad situation.