Talk:Antony Flew

Dr. Gerald Schroeder
I would like to add some material about Dr. Gerald Schroeder's scholarship, who, according to the late Professor Antony Flew, heavily influenced Dr. Flew's conversion to deism. My edit was, however, reversed. Jehannette 15:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Jehannette


 * As I already said to you on my talk page, you can't add promotional and off topic content to a quote; your edit is unrelated to what is written in that paragraph.

Instead, I suggest you to write a biography of Gerald Schroeder on Wikipedia, if you can find reliable sources about him.--GenoV84 (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding your recent reverts and the content of your edits, please read Promotional and Consensus.--GenoV84 (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * A Wikipedia page exists for Dr. Schroeder: Gerald Schroeder Any objections to including this link in the article about Dr. Flew?  Jehannette 04:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Jehannette


 * For my edit, I included a link to Dr. Schroeder's Wikipedia page, which has a link to the article which I had originally linked to from the late Professor Mark Perakh. Other than that, Dr. Flew's article is unchanged. Jehannette 04:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Jehannette


 * Of course you can link to Schroeder's WP biography, but, as I said before, you can't add an off topic article with promotional tone in between a quote that is unrelated to it.--GenoV84 (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Dr. Schroeder's Wikipedia page has the information and link that I wanted to add, and so, users can find criticism of his work on his bio page. Best, Dawn Jehannette 11:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Jehannette

Untitled
Political Philosophy.

The article badly needs a section on Antony Flew's political philosophy (the opinions that reach their fullest expression in "Equality in Liberty and Justice", but which cover many works over many years). Antony Flew spent a great deal of his time opposing the views of both the socialists and the supporters (socialist and non socialist) of "social justice" (John Rawls and so on).

Indeed Antony Flew was perhaps the most important critic of social justice egalitarian (and semi egalitarian) ideas in political philosophy, in the generation after that of M.J. Oakeshott and F.A. Hayek.

Perhaps I should write such a section for the article - but Antony Flew was a friend of mine, and so what I would write would be biased.91.107.81.8 (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Politics
Anthony Flew was not "on the right" he was a libertarian and wrote articles for The Journal of Libertarian Studies. I have amended this. Libertarianism is of course neither left nor right, but "leftish" on social issues and for the free market without state-cronyism of public-private partnership so not exactly "right" either since the right are all for government greasing big business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.171.179 (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Libertarianism is a disingenuous invention of David Koch as a long-term sleeper ploy to have his businesses deregulated so that he could make even more money and pollute with impunity. Koch appropriated the term “libertarianism” from a long pre-existing political philosophy which stood for precisely the opposite of what Koch’s “libertarian” ideology stands for. He appropriated the ideas, such as they are, from Ayn Rand, just watering down Rand slightly. The “social issues” bit is a red herring. The rich people pulling the Republican Party’s “right-wing” “conservative” strings have never really cared about “social issues” one way or the other. They care about money and power. “Conservative” or “libertarian” “social issues” are just bait to trick non-rich people into voting against their own interests. In short, to the extent that “on the right” means anything at all, “libertarianism” is as much “on the right” as anything could be. 2600:6C44:117F:F459:406D:7608:604B:FC3D (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Poll on introduction
OK, let's restate our cases

The primary issue is as to which of two introductions (which I shall call A and B) are preferred:

INTRODUCTION A:


 * Professor Antony Garrard Newton Flew (born 11 February 1923) is a British philosopher. Belonging to the analytic and evidentialist schools of thought, he is notable for his works on the philosophy of religion.


 * Flew has been a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. He has also criticised the idea of life after death, the free will defence to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God. However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, and later wrote the book There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, with contributions from Roy Abraham Varghese. This book has been the subject of controversy, following an article in the New York Times magazine alleging that Flew has mentally declined, and that Varghese was the primary author. The matter remains contentious, with some commentators including PZ Myers and Richard Carrier supporting the allegations, and others (including Flew himself) opposing them.


 * Flew has taught at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, and at York University in Toronto. He is also known for the development of the no true Scotsman fallacy, and his debate on retrocausality with Michael Dummett.

INTRODUCTION B:


 * Professor Antony Garrard Newton Flew (born 11 February 1923) is a British philosopher. Known for several decades as a prominent atheist, Flew first publicly expressed deist views in 2004.  In 2007, he wrote the book There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, with comments by Roy Abraham Varghese. This book, however, is according to a journalist, Mark Oppenheimer and some atheists a matter of controversy, some of them going as far as maintaining that Flew has mentally declined, and is being manipulated by his co-author Varghese. Flew has defended himself against this criticism by releasing a statement (see the main article) through his publisher and more recently in a letter to UCCF in June 2008, reconfirming the truth of the statement released in 2005 by his publisher.

Please will everyone state which version (if either) they prefer. &mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 22:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Prefer A
 * As I said above, I prefer A, with some minor caveats. No matter what we may think of Flew's stance on Deism (or Theism?), the intro should contain a summary of his career, and mention of the Scotsman fallacy is obviously appropriate. But I also like how we cover the conversion and book controversy: We mention that Flew's mental abilities have been called into question (which is important enough a controversy to mention it in the lead - if the controversy about the book (and thus inherently about whether his conversion is well-founded) isn't important, I fail to see why book and conversion are important in the first place), we mention who supports those claims, and we mention that others dispute those claims. Once we mention who does so (besides Flew himself), preferably backed by a reference, that should be pretty balanced, highlighting both sides without giving undue weight to either. Introduction B effectivley reduces all Flew's life and importance to the single conversion issue, uses unbalanced language such as "going as far as", uses the "Oppenheimer and some atheists" formulation that, while not technically wrong, is less detailed and gives the impression that their criticism is some sort of "atheist smear campaign", and is very one-sided in its conclusion, giving Flew the last word and referring to his own statements over and over. Huon (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Prefer A &mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 23:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It shows that Flew had a career before 2004, rather than fixating on events of the past few years. (Version B is much like the Winston Churchill article concentrating on events from 1960 onwards.)
 * It gives a description of what Flew's position was before his Damascene conversion. Saying that he changed his mind is slightly pointless if no description is given of what he changed his mind from.
 * It gives equal weight to both points of view. At no point does it say that any of the people involved are right or wrong.  (Conversely, version B firmly gives the last word to one side, whilst implying that the other side are troublemakers.)
 * It doesn't speculate on motive. Version B has the very odd wording "...according to a journalist, Mark Oppenheimer and some atheists a matter of controversy...", (which prior to it being pointed out that Mark Oppenheimer is a practising Jew merely read "...according to some atheists a matter of controversy...".)  This forced usage of the word "atheist" gives the impression that one side is acting out of antireligious sentiment.
 * Version B has the implicitly weasel-worded statement "...some of them going as far as maintaining that Flew has mentally declined...". If only some of them go this far, which of them don't?  It seems more like an attempt to use the phrase "going as far".

Prefer A
 * I don't know much about the topic and just came in while an edit war was going on. I prefer A because it gives more overall info.Merry Headcheese!- hexa Chord 2  00:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Prefer A


 * Option B strikes me as tending very much towards recentism. Indeed I would be more happy to see Flew's conversion to deism mentioned in a sentence, then covered in greater detail, together with the book and the controversy, in the body of the article. Flew is surely a lot more than just a recanting atheist. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Strongly prefer A. Option B jumps straight into the "was an atheist, now a deist" stuff, as if that's all he is known for, and then goes on in an accusatory tone ("This book, however, is according to a journalist, Mark Oppenheimer and some atheists a matter of controversy, some of them going as far as maintaining that ..."). Option A is more balanced and neutral, both in tone and in content, a well as far more informative. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Prefer A I already stated before I had problems option B. Jeff5102 (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A, Hyperdeath, I'm curious to know why you try intentionally to cast doubt on Flew' deism. Why do you try to relate Flew's deism to his recent book? Hopefully, Wikipeida keeps all the previous editions and your attempts to distort the facts are still there. WHY do you still keep doing that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khamosh (talk • contribs) 04:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And a very merry Christmas to you too.
 * Why do you always assume bad faith? Are you really so sure of your own opinions that you believe someone could only contradict you out of malice? To address your various accusations:
 * I don't "try intentionally to cast doubt on Flew's deism". What I am doing is documenting respectable sources that doubt Flew's deism.
 * As for "relat[ing] Flew's deism to his recent book", I agree that my introduction was ill-phrased. However, don't you think that directly addressing this flaw would have been a better option than wiping out the entire edit and accusing me of being a vandal and a paid disinformation agent?
 * I also agree that I mistakenly put the date of Flew's "conversion" in 2007, rather than 2004. However, don't you thing that correcting the date would have been a better option than again wiping out the entire edit and accusing me of intentionally distorting facts?
 * My removal of the word "comical" was not an evil-minded attempt to distort Flew's words as you suggest. As I have clearly stated, I objected to the fact that the word was positioned so that it appeared as an editorial comment, rather than a quote from Flew.  Again, don't you think that negotiating a compromise would have been a better option than accusing me of dishonesty?
 * There is one point, however, on which we do agree. The page history does indeed record a great deal of information concerning the appalling behavoir of a particular user.  It documents him reverting the good-faith edits of others as "vandalism".  It documents him throwing insults at other users.  It documents him making sweeping anti-consensus edits, whilst virtually ignoring the talk pages.  The history is a very incriminating place indeed.
 * &mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 10:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. Does the bold A at the beginning of your post indicate that you support version A? It seems contrary to your position. &mdash;  H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 10:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Prefer A I think it shows his career, though I'd like the third paragraph above the second, feature the controversy after that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.4.185.221 (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Poll on inclusion versus removal of Flew's criticism of Richard Dawkins
Regarding Flew's criticism of Richard Dawkins and the God Delusion, the inclusion of two pieces of text is disputed:

Section A:
 * In 2007, in an interview with Benjamin Wiker, Flew said again that his deism was the result of his "growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe" and "my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source." In addition, he rejected "Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a 'lucky chance'. If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over." He also restated that he was not a Christian theist.
 * (It is proposed that the bolded section of text be removed.)

Section B:
 * In response to the question by Habermas " So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology? ", Flew says: "Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."
 * (It is proposed that the bolded section of text be removed, and replaced with "Flew agreed".)

Please would you give your opinions below. &mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 16:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove both A and B
 * Both of these sections stray beyond the article's purpose of documenting Flew's (apparent) conversion. Section A is a blatant WP:COAT criticism of Dawkins, and belongs (if anywhere) in The God Delusion article. Furthermore, the quote is positioned so that the word "comical" flows with the main text, which gives it the appearance of an editorial comment, and so violates WP:NPOV. Meanwhile, section B contains no information that isn't already there, as the article already contains another quote from the Habermas interview in which Flew praises the argument from design.  What remains is simply another WP:COAT criticism of Dawkins.
 * Furthermore, it is notable that Khamosh has stated:
 * BUT, ok, I agree to remove [the content on Dawkins] IF AND ONLY IF you could add it to the Wiki article "The god delusion". and I know you won't do that, and if you do, I'm pretty sure, Dawkins' bulldogs will remove it from the article in an hour. The reason is clear and simple: They cannot tolerate criticism like Dawkins himself (as Flew indicates in his review of the book)

&mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 16:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I recommend that if Khamosh wants to include this content, then he/she should take on "Dawkins' bulldogs", rather than sneaking around them.

Remove A, shorten B
 * A adds nothing to our knowledge about Flew. Remove the bolded passage, and nothing will be lost.
 * I would shorten B, but not along the proposed lines. If the Flew quote given in B and the one immediately preceding it in the article are from the same interview, I'd remove the Habermas question and merge the quotes along the lines of:
 * However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it. [...] It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.
 * That clarifies what part of science Flew means. Huon (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove both A and B – Why do some editors seem to think that the main function of Wikipedia is to make as many anti-Dawkins comments as possible? This is an article about Flew, not about Dawkins. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove both A and B: this content seems off-topic and coatracky. The section isn't on Flew's disputes with (his formerly fellow) atheists per se, and there is no strong connection between him and Dawkins. These quotes therefore feels parachuted in. HrafnTalkStalk 10:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove This was only a comment in an interview. If Flew had written an article or a chapter in his book criticising Dawkins, then it may have been worth mentioning. As it stands, this seems to be just a side comment on a current topic. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism
Note: Khamosh decided to remove the votes from Huon, Snalwibma, Hrafn and myself (see revision), and added the comment:
 * Hyperdeath, These are parts of Flew's interview and are needed to make it clear why he changed his mind. In particular, his opinion on Rechard Dawkins and his book MUST be there, since the reader should know why he did not find these arguments convincing which led him become a deist. Don't be biased. open your eyes. think of Dawkins as a human rather than you personal God or idol. Khamosh
 * &mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 11:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * [In response to Khamosh]
 * Do you have any evidence that Dawkins (peace be upon him) was instrumental to Flew's conversion? It seems far more likely that Flew's criticism of Dawkins (peace be upon him) is a straightforward commentary, rather than a conversion testimonial.  Furthermore, the fact that something was said by Flew doesn't necessarily make it worthy of inclusion in the article.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and if a reader wants more, they can go to the original source.  The quotes give no further information on Flew (which for an article on Flew is all that matters) and so are unworthy of inclusion.
 * &mdash; H y p e r D a w k ins ( Talk ) 12:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag
I believe that the article, although imperfect, is now reasonably neutral. Therefore, I propose that the NPOV tag be removed. What do people think? &mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 19:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Jeff5102 (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. SNALWIBMA ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 08:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm pretty bad at wikipedia but i just happen to dislike antony flew enough that i have to make a factually correct but undeniably bias-influenced edit. Western Goals Initiative supported apartheid and not as the article asserts opposed it and was an organization with strong ties to many truly despicable terrorist organizations worldwide. regardless of the latter point i'm just going to change the one word opposed to supported and suggest that you consider rewording at least the section that refrences the WGI 24.191.219.186 (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Some Guy who doesn't have an account


 * The previous POV dispute was about a different issue. Therefore, I've added a "The neutrality of this section is disputed" tag to the "Political commitments" section. &mdash;  H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 10:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been a week since I sent a message to Khamosh informing him about the proposal. He has not responded, and so I assume that he's given up. As there have been no objections, I have removed the POV tag (although I have created a new tag in the "political Commitments" section, as mentioned above.). &mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 10:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sections
I understand that there's a huge controversy over his conversion from atheism (due to him previously being a Dawkins-esque atheist, you could say), but does this really need to be the basis of this entire article? This article should be about Flew - His early life, education, views on philosophy, etc. I think, like most causual viewers to this page, we aren't told enough about Flew himself to really care much about the conversion section. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. The article was the victim of tendentious editing, and at its very nadir was a semi-coherent editorial that concentrated more on bashing Richard Dawkins than documenting Flew's life. It has been cleaned up since, but there is still a long way to go. &mdash;  H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 19:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Coming in 5 years later, in 2014, I must say it has gotten even worst. Flew's career spanned around 50 years, but 90% of the article seems to be a back and forth about one controversy in the last 9 years of his life. Ashmoo (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * May I respectfully disagree. Atheism has gotten a great deal of press b/c of the dramatic rise of those identifying themselves as atheist in high-income countries. So, it is noteworthy when a noted, professional-lifetime atheist moves in the other direction. So, it's like "Man Bites Dog" as a newspaper headline.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that the dispute over Flew's conversion should not be exhaustively debated in this article. Can we agree to shorten the articles coverage of this topic to something like this:


 * "In 2004, Flew announced his conversion to deism, a position he affirmed a number of times and did not recant before his death in 2010. The significance of Flew's change in positions is disputed by parties alleging that Flew's ability to reason was impaired by his advanced age."


 * I tried to read and follow the back and forth wrangling in this article, which in my opinion is severely depreciated by the irrelevant details of parties making their case. I found virtually all of the text on this topic did not clarify the question and was nothing but confusing. Further, many of the citations in this part of the article do not support the positions claimed, making it impossible for a reader (like me) to sort the subject out by drilling down into the citations. The only think a neutral party can conclude on this subject is "maybe Flew was impaired and maybe he wasn't".


 * Let's discuss.


 *   K Sci  &#160; (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Given the lack of response over the last couple weeks to my discussion request, above, I propose that the large body of text that presents as arguing over Flew's deism in the body of this article be replaced with the following.

"In 2004, Flew announced that he had changed his position from atheism to deism, a position he affirmed a number of times with an evolving explanation of his reasons forwarded over the next six years, until his death at age 87 in 2010. The significance of Flew's change in positions is disputed by some atheist interests alleging that Flew's conversion may not have been meaningful because his ability to reason was impaired by his advanced age."

I'm very open to suggested changes in the above, my only interest is in seeing a debate over Flew's conversion not be embedded in this encyclopedia entry. Flew had many accomplishments that appear to have been neglected. I covered one of these adding a section on Flew's "Presumption of Atheism.

  K Sci  &#160; (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Facebook group
There is now a facebook group dedicated to Antony Flew, so those interested in posting non-wikipedia discussion on Mr.Flew may like to look it up. I don't believe this is needing a mention in the article.Let's keep it NPOV, thanks folks.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Structuring
Placing the vast bulk of the article into a single section does not strike me as useful. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I edited the article and made it alot more tidy and neat, easier on the eyes to read and with a better layout. Your thoughts compared to the older version please. Portillo (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My "thoughts" are already given above. You do not have a consensus for this change, so kindly cease and desist edit-warring to impose it. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that it couldn't do with some 'tidying up' -- but I am saying that this should not be done as an overreaching unilateral single edit. And I'd suggest that the article needs division into more substantive top-level sections, not less (having only one 'Biography' is awful, two: 'Biography' & 'Atheism and deism' is only slightly better). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Specific recommendations: <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Eliminate 'Death' section -- it is vestigial & already covered by 'Biography'
 * 2) Eliminate 'Awards' section -- none of the awards are notable.
 * 3) Top level 'Atheism' & 'Conversion to deism' sections -- and take a look at whether the imbalance between the two reflects WP:RECENTISM and a need to rebalance.
 * 4) Lead's structuring to reflect clear demarcation between the top-level topics.

Im not going to cease and desist doing anything. Ill wait for a consensus. Here and here. Portillo (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments upon my "specific recommendations"? Or are you just going to sit and wait until somebody else turns up (always a chancy proposition on less-frequented articles)? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I eliminated the Death section after moving and formating the NYT obit into standard web cite. I don't support the removal of the awards; they may not be notable in and of themselves, but the organizations granting them presumably are since they have Wikipedia articles. SBaker43 (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Being named an "honorary associate" isn't really an "award" at all.
 * 2) The Ludwig von Mises Institute (which is itself not an organisation of any particular prominence) gives out seven awards each year -- which rather dilutes the noteworthiness of the individual awards.
 * 3) The Biola University article makes no mention of the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth, which appears to be little more than an irregular ad hoc publicity stunt, when they want to make a spectacle out of somebody's advocacy of creationist positions.

Awards should be included, he was given these awards for his work so it makes sense to reference them, but as part of a career section. i.e. a section that says things like worked at university X date to date awarded X by Y on date published book X etc etc. ordered chronologically. If you want to then put at the end 'the most notable points are' or some summary then fair enough TM-86 (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind about a career section but still think that the awards should appear as a list, rather than a single paragraph. TM-86 (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * None of the purported "awards" listed are in the least bit prominent -- so no, they should not be listed. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hrafn; we don't have a secondary source for any of those awards, meaning they are probably insignificant. Huon (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The last part in Antony Flew's converting to deism where it talks about his views about Christianity and Islam
Although it is supported with a reference, when I checked this reference I found nothing that supports this claim. So, I decided to create an account to edit this part and participate in Wikipedia's community. Considering I'm new here, I can't figure how things work on here, but I found that there is a user named [Dwpaul] who retrieved this part again and asked gently why I had to remove this part, and if I have a question I can contact him on his page. But I couldn't find a message button or a comment button there to contact him and to tell him why I found this last part in 'converting to deism section' inaccurate.

The reference no. 26 leads to no clear back-up for this part, rather, something that looks like an email. It could be my lack of understanding how this other website work though. So, if anyone know where can I find what supports that part in this reference [no.26], or any other reference, I will be glad to get informed. Otherwise, I suggest removing this part. Even reference no. 25 leads to a not found page.

I'm reading his book now anyway, maybe I can find in it what supports this claim. Till then, if anyone can feedback, it will be appreciated.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migrant2light (talk • contribs) 02:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ungrammatical misquotation that lasted from 2008-March 6, 2016 on Antony Flew page: why?
In the section Antony Flew, 2nd para. from bottom, there was this misquotation:
 * ''Flew strongly responded to that charge in a letter published in the same journal in summer 2006, describing the content of Bradley's letter "extraordinary offensive,"'....

The last phrase above in the original source was "extraordinarily offensive". That’s easy enough to check by going to the external link for that source (by Flew) in the footnote and doing a Ctrl+F[ind] search of "extraordinary". The phrase "extraordinarily offensive" appears but not the misquotation above.#

So, how could the misquotation have persisted so long?

Comments welcome.

# The author of the phrase was User:Khamosh. I located the phrase as occurring from Nov. 8, 2008 to today. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Conversion to deism
'he was friendly with the raelism'(sic) Really? Evidence? Notreallydavid (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Antony Flew about "Brexit"
Since the Brexit vote is done I am hoping that putting this info here would not be too controversial. I understand that primary sources should not be used on Wikipedia but I wanted the feedback of others to know if we should or should not add information regarding this topic. I have a digital copy of a letter (https://archive.org/details/antony_flew_letter) that was written in 2005. This is the contents of the letter: "12 January 2005 Dear Peter ***** Thank you for your most friendly letter of January 3. I will put this on file. For the foreseeable future all my political energies will be devoted to a struggle with which my Deist heir, Thomas Jefferson, author of the American Declaration of Independence would be 100% sympathetic it is the struggle to get my country out of the European Union - into which we have been betrayed by mediocre politicians." I was the one who censored the name of the recipient. There is a stamp on the letter so at least two copies of the letter should exist. Nekdolan (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Antony Flew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060522225854/http://www.biola.edu:80/news/articles/060327_flew.cfm to http://www.biola.edu/news/articles/060327_flew.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051012172554/http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051030082703/http://www.biola.edu:80/antonyflew/page6.cfm to http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/page6.cfm#8
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://website.lineone.net/~usenet_evidence/minding_our_language.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Antony Flew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005105825/http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers to http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biola.edu/news/articles/060327_flew.cfm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/page6.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antony Flew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050830092752/http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=138 to http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=138

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antony Flew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211132928/http://www.rfmedia.org/blog/index.php?id=4 to http://www.rfmedia.org/blog/index.php?id=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Attempts by editors to make it look like he was not a Christian
It is quite obvious editors have stressed and emphasised that he is not Christian. We don't know this. Just because there is no evidence that he was Christian, is not evidence that he was not a Christian. Remove it :) 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:64C0:B2C6:AD1D:AA24 (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Blog as source
The usage of the skeptical-science.com blog as a source in the final paragraph of the 'Book with Varghese and authorship controversy' section appears inappropriate according to Wikipedia policies. My removal of this source has been reverted several times. While blogs are sometimes acceptable, in this case the author has no apparent claim to authority on the subject, nor are their claims repeated in any other reputable source. These claims appear to be wholly the unverifiable, speculative personal opinion of the author. No documentary evidence is given for any of the claims in this section beyond the author's speculative claim that Flew's arguments were 'crass' and therefore must not be his own. This is entirely unverifiable it is inappropriate that they be included on Wikipedia.76.97.77.25 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just came here through WP:3O. Before I provide an opinion, would the other party like to state their position? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

In regards to the above discussion (note by Vaticidalprophet: this was moved from below the 3O to avoid being mistaken for a response to it)... all of those sources that you referenced are previously cited in the article. There is no need to cite the blog, which is an anonymous opinion piece, in addition to those. The article is most professional and reliable if it cites those reliable sources for the controversy and removes the paragraphs which rely solely on the polemical blog. Just because it follows the same line of discussion does not make it a reliable, verifiable, or meritorious source. Notice that I have not objected to or attempted to remove those valid sources, only the blog post. The blog post also makes additional claims, such as Flew being psychologically manipulated or ‘love bombed.’ 76.97.77.25 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? Additional claims? Because The New York Times and The New York Times Magazine clearly state the same thing as the blog does, that he was psychologically manipulated:


 * --GenoV84 (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * --GenoV84 (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In regards to the love-bombing and exploitation by christians, here's what Oppenheimer reports about that:


 * --GenoV84 (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * (Boy, you guys are busy.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.


 * Viewpoint by (76.97.77.25 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)): My opinion is pretty much summed up in the above discussion, but to summarize: per Wikipedia policy, "personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs)... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert..." and even in that case, we are advised to "exercise caution." The blog cited for this information is not even directly signed, nor has any of the information provided by it been published by any reputable source outside of the blog itself.  No documentary evidence is given for any of the claims in this section beyond the blog author's speculative claim that Flew's arguments were 'crass' and therefore could not be his own, despite multiple published sources stating otherwise. The blog author's claim is therefore entirely unverifiable it is thus inappropriate that said blog be used as a source on Wikipedia.


 * Viewpoint by GenoV84 (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC):
 * Despite having replied to the anonymous IP multiple times that Blogs can be used as sources on Wikipedia (although they may not be the best choice), let's say that the anonymous IP is right and I am wrong. Even if that's the case, the blog is based on Mark Oppenheimer's investigation on the authorship of Varghese's book, which is not difficult to dismiss since the more reliable, published sources on the same article explain Flew's position and the conjob behind the authorship of Varghese's book quite frankly:




 * Third opinion by Vaticidalprophet:

There are a couple of things going on here, but the 3O I am ultimately inclined to give is that has, though I would not say the correct interpretation of WP:BLOG (because it's so contextually dependent), the interpretation of WP:BLOG relevant to this discussion, and therefore  should use a different source for this information if one can be found, or omit it entirely if not. By the looks of it, GenoV84 has found other sources that include the information he wants to add in this article, and accordingly can use them instead (and should have done so in the first place). The IP's statement re. "Just because it follows the same line of discussion does not make it a reliable, verifiable, or meritorious source" is correct, and the reliable sources that make similar claims take precedence over the self-published opinion piece.

More generally, this looks to be a pretty heated argument with the potential to get nasty, which is unfortunate because you both seem to be very dedicated, caring people working in good faith. Importantly, the matter of "what is an appropriate citation for Wikipedia?" seems to be getting wrapped up in the issue of "what is the truth about this man's underlying positions and the statements he made towards the end of his life?", one of which is far more relevant to building an encyclopedia than the other. I think by the point vandalism accusations and block evasions are coming in, it's time to take a step back. I think you both have the opportunity to contribute well to the Wikipedia project (and to, may I recommend making an account? As well as all the other good reasons to, I think some near-future WMF changes may be seriously disruptive to unregistered editors), and that you also seem to be taking this dispute quite personally in a way it shouldn't be taken. Be kind to yourselves and one another. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Social Justice - the opposition of Antony Flew to this concept in Political Philosophy.
In Political Philosophy the main interest of Antony Flew was his opposition to the concept of "Social Justice", i.e. the idea that income and wealth should be "distributed" by political authority according to a principle of "fairness". According to Antony Flew the concept of "Social Justice" leads to state tyranny and is contrary to the traditional concept of justice as to each-their-own. There should be a section on this - after all many of the articles and books of Antony Flew were on this subject - especially from 1980 onwards. Such works as "The Politics of Procrustes" and "Equality in Liberty and Justice".2A02:C7E:1CA8:CE00:7CD2:2D64:DF0A:6E1C (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)