Talk:Antony Flew
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antony Flew article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
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
- @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)
- @Jehannette: Regarding your recent reverts and the content of your edits, please read Wikipedia:Promotional and Consensus.--GenoV84 (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- @GenoV84: 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
- @GenoV84: 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
- @GenoV84: 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,[1] the free will defence to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God.[2] However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism,[3] 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.[4] The matter remains contentious, with some commentators including PZ Myers and Richard Carrier supporting the allegations, and others (including Flew himself)[5] 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.[3] 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.[4] 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.[5]
Please will everyone state which version (if either) they prefer.
— Hyperdeath(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
- 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".
— Hyperdeath(Talk) 23:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
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!-hexaChord2 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.
- — Hyperdeath(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. — Hyperdeath(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)
