Talk:Antony Flew/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

I have met Antony Flew many times over the years and read most of his published writings. So I was rather surprised to learn, from the wikipedia article, that he was a supporter of apartheid and protectionism. These charges are false, and I have thought hard about what they could be based on.

It is true that Antony Flew was never a supporter of the A.N.C. (which has been in power for 13 years in South Africa) and was (in the 1980's and before) very critical indeed of its communist wing. However, this is hardly the same thing as being a supporter of apartheid. As for protectionism, how an old free trader like Antony Flew could be accused of protectionism is beyond me.

Paul Marks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.149.30 (talk) 19:22, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Hey is someone going to add the fact that Flew has just published this new book? http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335290/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-9879593-7946333?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192020772&sr=8-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.103.184 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are against WP policy

Personal attacks are against WP policy. They will be removed from this page, and may have further consequences for those posting them. This page has been edited to archive the old discussion from January. Charles Matthews 06:00, April 26, 2005 (UTC)

This article is libelous

"Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."

An article of an encyclopedia must contain information and the writer is meant to be objective and not to make a judgement about the subject of the article. This awful article is a libel. The writer try to discredit the thinking of Antony Flew instead of giving information. It is OK to give an opinion but an encyclopedia is not the place to do this.

See some sentences:

"the new introduction failed to conclusively answer the question of Flew's beliefs" (well, this is an opinion not a fact. The writter makes a judgement about the new introduction)

"left the world hanging when it closed with..." (well, I suppose this is an opinion. The writer thinks the world has been left hanging" but not an objective fact. I haven't seen the world hanging so far.).

"Flew admitted to Carrier that he had not read any of the scientific critiques of Schroeder that Carrier referred him to" (please, what is this? A soap opera? Would you imagine this sentence in a serious encyclopedia?)

Would you accept this in a encyclopedia like Encyclopaedia Britannica? I would like for the reviewers of this encyclopedia to mark this article as controversial and to rewrite this impartially (nor supporting neither discrediting antony flew, but giving information) finsalscollons 83.53.126.58 09:42, April 8, 2007 (UTC)

See also:

BLP noticeboard, Antony Flew section. — Athænara ✉ 02:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Balance

It seems clear to me that some have allowed the deist/atheist issue overwhelm the rest of this article. Flew was a respected British philosopher and yet that is rushed through to get down to the (G)Habermas-Flew thing.86.141.231.90 (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

FACT: Flew is now a deist. Atheists need to get over this, otherwise it clouds their neutrality in approaching this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.97 (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The article which is provided as a source for Flew's convertion from atheism has a title "My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism". Deism and Theism are different concepts. Deism says "there's a creator who does not interfere with the world", Theism "there's a creator". Flew's religious stance should be changed to theism (according to the article's title).86.50.9.167 (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent New York Times article

The Turning of an Atheist throws considerable doubt over whether the opinions contained in There Is a God can be legitimately considered to be Flew's own, as its co-author, Varghese, admits to having "done all the original writing for it", and as Flew apparently can no longer remember much of its contents. Also it seems that Flew's opinions have become increasingly malliable and incoherent in his old age:

“ But it seems somewhat more likely that Flew, having been intellectually chaperoned by Roy Varghese for 20 years, simply trusted him to write something responsible. Varghese had done him so many kindnesses. He introduced Flew to Gerald Schroeder and John Haldane, and, I learned, he flew to England to chauffeur Flew to meetings with Leftow and the Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne (although when Leftow and Swinburne appear in the book, the conversations are described as if Varghese were not present). Varghese also gave Flew adventures, jetting him to Dallas and New York, putting him in a DVD documentary, getting his name in the papers. If at times Flew could be persuaded, by a letter or a phone call from an American atheist, that Varghese and his crew were not the eminent authorities on science they made themselves out to be, he was always happy to change his mind back. These Christians were kind and attentive, and they always seemed to have the latest research. ”

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! This article is in worse condition than I could have imagined. That NYT article is a good source to look first at when trying to record Mr. Flew's narrative--that is, without it sounding too much like a commercial for religion. In any case, someone has to save this article. I just heard about Mr. Flew's "conversion", simultaneously with his new-found dementia-like symptoms; and, as the NYT story manifestly shows, of the controversy afoot about Flew as an "author" now supporting Deism, namely that he can't seem to recall the arguments or evidences from the book he allegedly co-authored, and that Varghess, therefore, is using Flew as a mouthpiece for his view that there is an underlying logic to Christian fundamentalism that makes it a serious choice for even the most critical mind. This information should be in the article; let's never forget NPOV and reliability. Unfortunately I have no time to revise this myself, but I hope somebody takes on the mantle. 24.161.156.125 (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed paragraph

The following paragraph originally introduced the list of 10 items which appears in the Reaction and response section:

In 2005, when God and Philosophy was republished by Prometheus Books, the new introduction failed to conclusively answer the question of Flew's beliefs. The preface says the publisher and Flew went through a total of four versions (each extensively peer-reviewed) before coming up with one that satisfied them both. The result is an introduction, written in a distinctly detached third-person context, which raises ten matters that came about since the original 1966 edition. Flew refrains from personally commenting on these issues, and basically says that any book to follow God and Philosophy will have to take into account these ideas when considering the philosophical case for the existence of God.

It was deleted by a one-edit IP in March 2008, with no edit summary, leaving the list having no apparent connection with the surrounding text. When I noticed this yesterday it seemed like a simple case of vandalism so I re-added the paragraph, which was then promptly deleted by Hrafn with the edit summary "Unsourced" (rather ironic, given the first two sentences). Hrafn has subsequently insisted the paragraph is WP:SYNTH. Pro tem, I have re-added the paragraph removing the obvious editorializing, since something is needed to introduce the list of ten matters (or the list should be deleted as well). But I havn't read the book, and I see above on this talk page that another IP editor claims the first sentence of the paragraph is libelous. I've now replaced the loaded word "failed to" with "does not", but is this correct? If any editors have read the text in question, please amend the paragraph, viz: if Flew states that he is not defending his new position, make it clear that there is no attempt to do so. OTOH, if it is a defense then clearly we should not editorialize to say that the defense fails, so better just to report that the introduction does defend his new views. In the same vein, does Flew explicitly say that he is "refraining from personally commenting" on the 10 issues? If not, don't say so. PaddyLeahy (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussing what the primary source (allegedly) doesn't say/doesn't "conclusively" say is still WP:SYNTH, so I've tagged those parts as well. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Flew, Dawkins, Einstein & God

Far from demonstrating "Flew's critical faculties", the cited piece appears to demonstrate his wishful thinking. Flew states:

But (I find it hard to write with restraint about this obscurantist refusal on the part of Dawkins) he makes no mention of Einstein’s most relevant report: namely, that the integrated complexity of the world of physics has led him to believe that there must be a Divine Intelligence behind it.

However, in a recently auctioned letter of Einstein (that received considerable publicity), Einstein on January 3 1954 stated to the philosopher Eric Gutkind:[1]

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

Einstein did, at times, use the word "God" in statements, but in ways that could easily be interpreted as a mere pantheistic metaphor for 'the order of the Universe'. I think that Flew's criticism of Dawkins is unfounded, and the claim that it demonstrates "critical faculties" both ill-founded and blatant WP:SYNTH of the primary source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better to use Flew's description of Einstein's god rather than to attribute to Flew a definition by Einstein that Flew might not have been familiar with. Anyway, in my reading I have encountered various theistic statements about god or a god by Einstein (in books). They seem to contradict each other. --Rrand (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Diagnoses of senility by nonprofessionals

"Journalist Mark Oppenheimer suggested that Flew, then 84 years of age at the time of Oppenheimer's statement, has been suffering from a mild form of senile dementia for at least three or four years."

Is it really necessary to allow a journalist to infer that Antony might have senile dimentia? Is there some sort of medical evaluation by a trained physician you can cite as a reference? Lots of people are forgetful. I'm forgetful and I'm 34. I notice on John McCain's page there is no reference to dimentia or senility even though it's been inferred by the media many times. --Rrand (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to be "forgetful", it's another to forget major points of your own latest book. If he cannot remember its contents, and it was to a considerable extent 'co-written' (to the point that it appears to have been basically 'ghost-written'), what value does his claim of authorship and avowal of its (unremembered) contents have? This is not some journalist inferring from gaffs in press conferences, speeches, etc -- this is a journalist who spent considerable times interviewing Flew. Short of a doctor's report -- which we are unlikely to ever see, this is the most reliable source we are likely to get on Flew's mental health. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You just killed your own strawman. If it was ghost-written, couldn't that explain his bad memory on the issues? Why must one believe a journalist then that he has senile dimentia? Flew himself has denied it. At best this should be a footnote. --Rrand (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Flew also claims that he stands by everything he 'wrote' -- making his ability to remember what he 'wrote' a clear issue. The article doesn't say that we 'must believe' Oppenheimer -- but his report is the best we have available (and the best we are likely to get) as to his mental facilities. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If he didn't write it, as you suggested, then there is nothing for him to 'stand by'. As to your second point, Flew himself has stated in the same interview that he has "nominal aphasia", the inability to remember words and names. Perhaps you should make reference to this. I would like to reiterate that Oppenheimer is not a physician and his opinion is not credible, even if it's the only opinion you have. What exactly is your reason for inquiring into Flew's mental state anyway? When you yourself has suggested he did not write the book, don't tell me it's because he can't remember what he wrote. Also I would like you to address why there is no reference to McCain's senility when it has been suggested by more than one journalists. --Rrand (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

1. "If he didn't write it, as you suggested, then there is nothing for him to 'stand by'." -- this is a ludicrous argument. It was written under his name -- so of course there is something "for him to 'stand by'".
2. "Flew himself has stated in the same interview that he has "nominal aphasia", the inability to remember words and names." -- as Oppenheimer points out, Flew's memory lapses go well beyond this -- into not being able to remember the arguments that are being made in this book under his name (which even if he didn't write it, he should have read up on the arguments before being interviewed on the book).
3. "I would like to reiterate that Oppenheimer is not a physician..." I would like to reiterate that a report from a physician will not be forthcoming. Physicians are covered by patient confidentiality. This is the most reliable source that we can expect to get, while Flew is still alive.
4. "What exactly is your reason for inquiring into Flew's mental state anyway?" Gorss violation of WP:AGF -- I didn't inquire, a WP:RS did -- the article is just reporting the result of these inquiries.
5. "Also I would like you to address why there is no reference to McCain's senility when it has been suggested by more than one journalists." Asked and answered: "This is not some journalist inferring from gaffs in press conferences, speeches, etc -- this is a journalist who spent considerable times interviewing Flew."

I am sick of your incivil accusations. You WP:IDONTLIKEIT Oppenheimer's reporting -- I get that. Unfortunately for you, the New York Times is a WP:RS, so you're going to have to live with your dislike. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is obviously a touchy subject for you. Try and remain civil. This is about making Wikipedia better, not you or me. Your statement was that Flew should stand by everything he wrote. You also said that it was ghost written. Therefore if Flew didn't write anything, then there is nothing for him to stand by. It is not a ludicrous argument. The ludicrous argument is that you think Flew did not write the book, and that we must bring into account his mental capacity for not remembering what he didn't write. WP:RS may be a reliable source but you chose to use it. We don't have to use every WP:RS source we can find. I only wanted to know why. In fact, I didn't even mention that your paraphrasing of Oppenheimer goes beyond what Oppenheimer actually stated, and clearly violates WP:LIBEL. The article never mentions the words senile or dementia. I have been trying to give you WP:AGF in the matter.--Rrand (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, blatant illogic is "a touchy subject for [me]" -- it annoys the heck out of me. When you allow a book to be put out with your name on it as the author (whether you wrote it yourself or had it ghost written) you are accepting responsibility for the contents -- especially when he puts out a statement saying "My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions." Your repeated proof by assertion that "there is nothing for him to stand by" thus has zero probative value. You are correct that the article does not make mention of "senile or dementia". Instead of lobbing flimsy accusations at Oppenheimer, you should have pointed this out in the first place. That you "didn't even mention" this important point earlier meant a great deal of wasted time and effort arguing. And it is not 'my' paraphrasing, but that of an anon editor. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue of whether Flew has dementia and whether his so called friend is taking advantage of it to further his own beliefs under the guise of his mentor is quite important, if not for wikipedia but perhaps to honour the philosopher himself. If there is truth to the claims then why should we be blind to it? Ninahexan (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement:

These changes, however, are according to 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.

is blatantly false. Firstly it claims that the critics are atheists, whilst referring to an article from Mark Oppenheimer who is a practising Jew.[2] Secondly, it ignores the fact that the conversion is controversial precisely because critics believe Flew has mentally declined. If Dawkins, Myers, Carrier and Oppenheimer all "[go] as far" as saying this, which of the critics don't? — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 18:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now reverted the page. Furthermore, I am not "manipulat[ing] history" as one person has suggested. Flew's conversion is a matter of controversy, with many prominent people amongst the critics. It may be true that the whole matter is ridiculous, that the controversy has been manufactured by whining atheists, and that Flew is being dreadfully slandered, but that is besides the point. Wikipedia exists to document facts gained from reputable sources, rather than to Right great wrongs. If the controversy is over, then provide sources that conclusively prove this. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 18:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hyperdeath. The term "...some of them going as far.." doesn't sound NPOV for me.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Khamosh, please discuss the matter here, rather than accusing me of "manipulat[ing] truth" in the article history section. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 20:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, Khamosh, would you please discuss the matter on the talk page. Reverting good-faith edits as "vandalism" is not a productive way of proceeding. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 19:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hyper Death, OK: 1. Introduction should not include anything which is a matter of controversy. That's why any article has a main body to explain these kinds of controversies in. So, it should not even include the debate on his recent book. 2. However if you insist on adding those controversies in the introduction, OK, add it. But, please be fair and do not speculate about Flew's deism. Do you agree Flew's turning to deism is NOT a matter of controversy? please clear this for me. If it is not, then you are not allowed to say "THESE CHANGES are a matter of GREAT controversy...". This implies that Flew's deism is not certain, while he has mentioned his deism everywhere, in all his interviews since 2004 and in the new edition of his famous book "GOD and Philosophy (2005)" (hopefully he is the only author of the book and nobody can say he has been manipulated by a co-author). You might say:"His recent book, is a matter of ...". 3. If you're gonna write about the controversy on his recent book in the introduction, then be honest and mention Flew's response to these criticisms at the end. Khamosh

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.80.241 (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC) 

• Introductions must include controversy if it is reflected in the rest of the article. This is established Wikipedia policy, as explained in the Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines.
• No one, and I repeat no one, is denying that Flew has stated an allegiance to deism. None of his critics say this. Oppenheimer doesn't say this; Carrier doesn't say this; Myers doesn't say this. Their contention is that he is senile, is being manipulated by Varghese, and doesn't truly understand what he is saying.
• As it happens, I believe that Oppenheimer is probably right, but I am not certain.
• Why do you keep putting the phrase "some atheists" back into the article? Mark Oppenheimer (who started the whole controversy through his New York Times article) is a practising Jew.
• I am increasingly disturbed at your willingness to malign other editors with charges of "dishonesty", "vandalism" and "manipulation". Would you please be civil.

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 23:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing the mental decline issue from the lead is the obvious thing to do. If Wikipedia really should discuss if now living people are senile, the discussion needs space to be nuanced, which is not possible in the lead. Mange01 (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't; the introduction must reflect all (reliably sourced) points of view. The Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines are clear about this. Furthermore, please would you explain in detail why you don't like my version. All I have received so far is accusations of "vandalism" and "dishonesty" and "manipulation".

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 10:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:LIVE, "editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be neutral. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper... The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

It is quite common rhetoric trick to call the opponent crazy or stupid, instead of criticizing the question of fact. We should therefore be skeptical when Oppenheimer says that "With his (Flews) powers in decline..." and "so educated, a mind could be in decline". It is not hard fact, and there is an obvious risk that this statement is wrong. If the article calls Flew senile in the lead, without giving any other side of the coin (that are mentioned later in the article), it is a clear case of NPOV.

The lead should instead summarize the main reason for Flew's change of mind (missing explanations to the origin of DNA and biological life), and sumarize the critisism against Flews arguments rather than his personality.

So, we need to agree on a compromise that allows us to remove the NPOV templates. Any suggestions?

Mange01 (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• According to WP:LIVE, "editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be neutral. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately..." There are, however, multiple references, including one from the New York Times. Furthermore, the article does not directly assert that Flew is senile; it states (the undeniable fact) that others have claimed Flew to be senile. The WP:LIVE policy exists largely to prevent Wikipedia from being sued, and given that the article merely documents the opinions of others, that is not going to happen. Articles must be able to say (well sourced) negative things about people, and using other policies to deny this fact amounts to WP:Wikilawyering.
• The debate as to whether Flew is or isn't senile is irrelevant to this talk page. Wikipedia exists to document opinion, rather than to judge it.
• The sentence "Flew has defended himself against this criticism." is itself controversial, as evidenced by his reported inability to recall the arguments in his own book. When documenting a controversy, it is always very difficult to avoid giving the "last word" to one side. If my version is guilty of this, then your version is also. There is probably a compromise (e.g. "critics remain divided...") we can come to.
• You have not addressed the description of Dawkins's opinion as "comical", and the implication that Oppenheimer is an atheist. Do you support these statements or not?

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 17:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I remember, nobody ever wrote in the lead that Flew is senile. Furthermore, Mange01 is right when he says that "it isrhetoric trick to call the opponent crazy or stupid." He himself calls Oppenheimer unreliable, instead of reading the interview Oppenheimer had with Flew.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not called Oppenheimer names or discussed his personality. I have discussed the wp article lead.

I did not write "comical", I don't know its origin and I agree, it should be removed. It is an example of the same kind of rhetoric trick.

Yes, my sentence "Flew has defended himself against this criticism" could be improved and extended with further details, or the whole senility issue removed from the lead. The lead can now be interpreted as Oppenheimer is an atheist, which seems to be wrong. Any suggestions for new formulations that can make us remove the NPOV templates? Mange01 (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You did call him names: you are the one that says we need to be "skeptical" on Oppenheimer's article. In other words: you think he is not reliable. Furthermore, according to the lead you are defending, he is one of the "atheists" who are "going as far maintaining that Flew has mentally declined". After all, he is the only representative given in the lead for those"atheists". That is what I call name-calling.Jeff5102 (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't defend the current version of the lead, nor the old version, neither of them fulfill the NPOV requirement. We need a compromise that all sides can agree on. Feel free to suggest one. I am not sceptical to Oppenheimer as person, but to some of his claims. One should always be sceptical when someone implies that an opponent is mentally weak. Only referring to him in the lead without giving the other side of the coin is not neutral. As I wrote, implying that Oppenheimer is an atheist might have been a mistake. Is it correct to call him a critic of Flew? Mange01 (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea how Oppenheimer should be described. The Oppenheimer article, as I read it, describes Flew as a poor old man who is harrassed by fanatical christians (like Roy Varghese) on one side, and fanatical atheists (like Richard Carrier) on the other. Previously, Oppenheimer just was called a 'critic'. I believe that may be the best way to describe him.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mange01, thank you for your efforts so far. However, am starting to think that Khamosh/141.219.80.241 is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. (I am nearly certain that 141.219.80.241 is Khamosh when not logged in.) By unilaterally removing a POV tag (when 3 different editors have issue with the content) he has gone too far. I have tried talking to him, but with little avail. Given that you are (nominally) on his side, perhaps you could try talking some sense into him. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 21:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha, you thought I was the one. Glad that was cleared out.

Khamosh/141.219.80.241, you reverted my attempt to a compromise. Please further improve it instead.

I have now found a source that supports that Oppenheimer is not an atheist since he is a member of a synagogue. See [3].

Regarding the word comical. If it really should be included it must be within quotation marks - otherwise it is not clear that it is Flew's own words. If the word should not be included, it could be worth pointing out that Flew is attacking Dawkin's and other "younger" atheists. Mange01 (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How about the introduction

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 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.

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 11:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - good suggestion! (Moved the rest of my answer and its response down)."Mange01 (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Support Jeff5102 (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Khamosh, please would you give your comments, rather than making more unilateral edits. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 23:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hyperdeath, 1.You don't need to call for other people's help to hear my comments. 2. You are not allowed to cast doubt on whatever is said by people who don't share you belief in Wikipedia. Let me clear this for you: You "apparently" support atheism, then I should ask you why you insist on claiming that flew's response to criticisms is dubious (while Flew has reconfirmed that statement several times since the release of that note) and on the other hand, you assume or (better to say) believe that whatever atheists (for example Richard Carriers) attribute to Flew through either personal telephone calls or correspondence is the absolute truth? If you trust a person or a group of people who share the same belief then you should trust all the people, even the opponents, if you want to be neutral (and I assume you do wanna be neutral). As far as I've understood you are a Physics graduate student. Let me make more clear for you with an example from science: I don't know if you've ever published a scientific paper or not. Scientific progress is made by trusting what different people report and publish in journals about the results of their researches. Nobody ever checks the truth of their analyses. Even the journal referees just check the validity of the assumptions made in a report and if it seems logical or not. Of course there might be some falsifications (as there have been two recent fake scientific reports of this kind in Physics community and you might have heard of them), BUT the basic assumption is to TRUST ALL PEOPLE with different scientific ideas. the same happen here, in Wikipedia.khamosh —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

1. It seems very difficult to get you to engage in debate. I proposed a compromise (see above), but you responded by completely ignoring my draft and making more unilateral edits. Please state if you agree or diasgree with my proposed introduction. If the latter, please explain why.

2 (a). The debate as to whether Flew is senile or not is completely irrelevant. The New York Times is a respectable source and Dawkins et al. are respected public figures. Wikipedia is based on verifiability not truth and that is all that matters.

2 (b). The analogy with science completely misses the mark. Scientific papers are primary sources, whilst Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Sources should neither be trusted nor doubted; they should be documented. Meeting the WP:RELIABLE guidelines is all that matters. (Incidently, your view of science is somewhat idealistic. Scientists don't trust other scientists, nor should they. Doing so is a very easy way to get burned. I have witnessed presentations devoted to rubbishing other papers. I have been to international conferences where I have seen scientists openly accuse others of not knowing what they are talking about. This, and not blind trust is how science works.)

2 (c). I completely agree that Flew has made statements to this effect. The controversy (again documented by the sources) is based on the allegations that he is senile and doesn't truly understand what he is saying. Note however that my compromise introduction partially concedes this point to you by saying: "The matter remains contentious, with some commentators including PZ Myers and Richard Carrier supporting the allegations, and others (including Flew himself) opposing them.".

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 12:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you have reverted the new draft (which was added by Jeff5102) as "vandalism". Once again, could you please engage in debate, rather than slinging around accusations of bad faith.

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 16:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm kind of on the same side as you Khamosh. I think my change to the lead started this dispute. But in this sitation we have to be diplomatic and suggest things that everyone can agree on. Please discuss on the talk page before publishing. Mange01 (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I do not appreciate people who accuse me of vandalism. I just reverted the article to the version of november 6th, including the new intro and Flew's picture. Kamosh obviously has an agenda, so I am very suspicious to his edits.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The following sentence (or something similar) should also be added to the lead: "Flews argument for an Aristotelian God is missing naturalistic explanationd to the origin of DNA and the biological organisms."Mange01 (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow that sentence. Can you clarify? — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 23:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for my poor English. New attempt: Flews´ main argument for an Aristotelian God is "the impossibility of providing naturalistic explanation of the first reproducing organisms". Mange01 (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

jeff102 and Hyperdeath, Sorry that I have no way but to call your "biased" editions of the article as "vandalism". I cannot find any better word to describe it. ALL THOSE FACTS THAT I HAVE ADDED ARE FROM "CREDIBLE SOURCES" (IN FACT, I FOUND MOST OF THEM IN "SECULAR WEB"). YOUR EDITIONS ARE CERTAINLY BIASED, SINCE YOU DELETE ALL THINGS THAT ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF "YOUR OWN BELIEF" OR A PARTICULAR PERSON, THOUGH ALL OF THEM ARE FROM FLEW'S ARTICLES IN JOURNALS AND HIS INTERVIEWS.

YOU SHOULD PROVIDE "GOOD REASONS" TO DELETE THOSE FACTS, OTHERWISE YOUR EFFORT CANNOT BE DESCRIBED BY A WORD BETTER THAN "VANDALISM". khamosh —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

I did give good reasons when I deleted Flew's review of Dawkins' God Delusion. I said this was a violation of the WP:COAT-rule. Please tell me: why should a review of a Richard Dawkins-book be useful to an Antony Flew-article? Or do you want to include the complete works of Antony FLew to this article?Jeff5102 (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't explicitly oppose any of the sources you have used. What I oppose is the biased synthesis that portrays one side as being unreasonable extremists. To engage a few points:

• The phrasing "Mark Oppenheimer and some atheists" is frankly weird. Before being informed that Oppenheimer was a practising Jew, you insisted on replacing the word "critics" with "atheists". Why are you so keen on the word "atheist" being there? If Dawkins, Myers and Carrier were all French, would you insist on the phrase "Mark Oppenheimer and some Frenchmen"?
• The huge quote about Dawkins is overlong and biographically irrelevant. Why not just state that it criticises Dawkins and the God Delusion? As Jeff5102 suggests, this part of article seems like an attempt to criticise Dawkins, rather than to document Flew.
• Your revised lead section not only gives the last word to one side, but then goes on to reinforce this last word. Everyone else agrees to the neutral tail sentence (which you have yet to comment upon).

(P.S. Please state if you agree or disagree with the formal mediation request below.)

(P.P.S. You can fix the problem with your keyboard by pressing the "Caps Lock" key. This is on left-hand edge between the Tab and Shift keys.)

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 18:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hyperdeath, Jeff102:

1.I agree with your introduction, provided that Flew's responses to these criticisms is included in the main article (including his latest response in June 2008). You cannot doubt on the truth of the statement released by the publisher as Flew has reconfirmed that several times since its release. Moreover if you doubt on the honesty of one side then you should cast doubt on the honesty of the other side too. Please tell me why you trust in whatever Richard Carriers attributes to Flew while everything said by the other side is suspicious for you?! Isn't it that you are biased?

2. Flew's review of Dawkins' book should be there. Since it reveals Flew's ideas and why he describes Dawkins argument as a "comical effort" and not enough strong to convince him. Moreover Dawkins has criticized Flew for his deism and is constantly belittling him everywhere without providing good reasons. Flew's review is in fact a response to those criticisms. BUT, ok, I agree to remove it 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)

3. However, lets assume that I'm wrong and that review should not be there. Then CAN YOU EXPLAIN why you kept manipulating Flew's interview by erasing the word "comical". Please EXPLIAN why you delete the other parts of the his old interview (2005) which is about the reasons that led him to change his mind. and the other parts recently added. Isn't it because of your extreme love and passion for Dawkins and that you cannot even tolerate any criticism of him/his book. Isn't it because you are biased in your judgment? and you Hyperdeath CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN your reasons why you were going to cast doubt on Flew's deism before I entered the debate. I have been monitoring this page for around two years. But, the change you had made was something intolerable as you were going to cast doubt on Flew's deism and that's why I entered the debate. These actions (to me) indicate some sort of deliberate/unintentional dishonesty and insincerity. (and I'm sure it's unintentional in case of you and Jeff). So, please free yourself from passions and/or your own belief for a while and rethink the article. Khamosh —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

1. Again, this isn't about honesty versus dishonesty; this is about source versus source. I am perfectly happy for you write at length about how Mark Oppenheimer is a dishonest scheming manipulator. This, however, must be backed up by reputable sources. Furthermore, Flew's counterclaims don't close the case, as these sources are themselves balanced by other sources stating Flew's inability to recall his own arguments.

2. I see no reason why Flew's comments should not be in the God Delusion page (so long as it comes from a source in which Flew's authorship is beyond doubt). On the other hand, I don't see the need for quotations that are more extensive that those in the I have a dream article.

3. I removed the word "comical" as the phrasing seemed like an editorial comment rather than a quotation. I have no objection to word, but I do object to it being used as an adjective in the main body of the text.

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 00:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Former atheists and agnostics

In category stay that he is former agnostic and atheist but there isn't his new religious stance?--Vojvodaeist 12:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation request

The edit war appears to be going nowhere, and so I think the time has come to request formal mediation. Khamosh, Jeff5102, Mange01 do you agree to this? If so, please state below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperdeath (talk • contribs) 12:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, certainly.Jeff5102 (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Unfortunately I have to agree. Mange01 (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is odd. I requested informal mediation a while ago, and it appeared to have come to nothing. However it seems that the mediation cabal have just opened the case. Therefore the mediation we may be seeing soon has nothing to do with the formal mediation request mentioned here.

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 00:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

← Hey, Roux left the project, so I've signed up to take on this case. Can I get a quick summary from all the folks involved about what is going on (brevity and keeping it to content is much appreciated) Xavexgoem (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC) bonus points if you don't mention other parties at all ;-)

My opinion is that the article is unduly dismissive of the claims in the New York Times that Flew has mentally declined, and that his religious "conversion" is in fact a result of manipulation by religious apologist Roy Abraham Varghese. (These allegations have since been backed by other commentators including Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and Richard Carrier.) The article seems more like an attempt to right great wrongs, rather than to provide a balanced synthesis of respectable sources. Much of the defence of the current article is an attempt to refute the allegations, rather than to justify it as an accurate reflection of the sources. Furthermore, part of the article seems to be a coathanger attack on Richard Dawkins, with an absolutely massive quote in the middle that is biographically irrelevant to Flew.

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 12:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Just to get one thing out of the way: this is a BLP matter - you would need a primary source (Flew or Varghese) with supporting secondaries to say that he was manipulated. At present, the only thing that's acceptable is to explicitly attribute exactly who is saying what about whom. Is that good? Xavexgoem (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No. First, Wikipedia has problems with primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY), and in this case it will be a great problem. Second:in the proposed intro by Hyperdeath, it is the book (and not Flew himself) that is a matter of subject, and gives the Oppenheimer-article as explicit source. And the last point: the Hyperdeath-intro already tells us that the mental problems of Flew are a "subject of controversy" and not a fact. So please take a new look at the discussion, and see if you can give us your view on it.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I see that there's a war going on about is Flew senile or not. I think it is worrying that Wikipedia is about "verifiability not truth", but that is only a side comment. The real issue is the conversion of Anthony Flew. Some people don't like it, I see.

Any reporter can give his opinions about anything, but they shouldn't be represented as a "fact" in the opening paragraph. If someone wrote an opinion piece about Barack Obama and his affiliations with Bill Ayers, a radical terrorist (now also a prefessor) and claimed that Obama had a bad taste in choosing his friends, should that be included in the opening paragraph of the soon-to-be president of the US?

I suggest that you take your libel away from the first paragraph and create a "controversies" section where you can dump the views of critics and journalists. This is an encyclopaedia, at least try to see things from a different perspective and find neutral point of view. I see that WP is dominantly atheistic/liberal/leftist in its "controversial" articles, but please, just give a voice for conservatives also. Otherwise you just get right-wing derivatives like Conservapedia.

My suggestion:

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 has caused much controversy and criticism from atheists. 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.

This way the controversy can be discussed in the body text, not in the opening paragraph. 212.16.103.22 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. As said before, Oppenheimer is no atheist, and this intro does not specify any reasons of the controversy.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree

• The "controversy and criticism from atheists" part is factually inaccurate, as Mark Oppenheimer, who wrote the initial article in the New York Times is a practising Jew. (Please note that we have already discussed this matter.)
• The atheistic/liberal/leftist comment would be irrelevant even if true. If you don't like someones opinion, then engage their arguments. A "liberal" argument stands on its merits just as a "conservative" argument does. If someone's wrong, then prove them wrong.
• As for Conservapedia, so what? There are lots of screw-you-guys-I'm-going-home Wikis, including one for all the quack doctors who didn't like their beliefs being criticised.
• Your introduction ignores the reason for the controversy, whilst giving the last word to one side.
• I have proposed another introduction above. Please would you comment on this introduction. If you don't like it, then please explain why.
• Also, please be conservative in starting new sections. There are existing active threads on this topic, and starting new ones only serves to fragment the conversation. Also, if you want to get involved in an edit debate, it would be helpful for other users if you register. Doing so is free and only takes a few seconds.

Edited to add:

• The "put it in a criticism section" gambit comes up in virtually every edit war. However, the WP:LEAD guidelines clearly state that controversies must be reflected in the introduction. They also prohibit the use of teasers such as "see the main article".
• No one is advocating that Flew's senility should be stated as fact, and no one is opposing the addition of sources that counter the allegations. What we are opposing is the biased synthesis that portrays one side as being petulant troublemaking atheists.
• The Obama analogy is wide of the mark. The Bill Ayers controversy is tangential to Obama's presidency, and there are a thousand more important issues. On the other hand, Anthony Flew's "conversion" and the attendant controversy are principal issues.

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 11:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree for similar reasons. But complements for the attempt! Actually, I never understood why Hyperdeath:s suggestion above was not accepted. It resulted in revert due to vandalism. Mange01 (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I did put it in, but it was reverted as "vandalism" by Kamosh. And since I do not want to violate the WP:3RR, I do not wish to revert it over and over again.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with this article, reflected in both the current lede and the one proposed above, is that both sides have turned it into a total WP:COATRACK focussing on Flew's last book and the controversy surrounding it. Contrast this with the coverage of Flew's work in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy where he is referenced in more than a dozen articles, less than half of which are even remotely related to his advocacy of atheism. Moreover all the works cited there were published during his professional career, as opposed to long into his retirement. No true philosopher would disregard the arguments in his earlier articles and books just because he subsequently changed his mind. Ergo, an NPOV article would properly cover his long career and devote no more than a paragraph or two to the latest controversy. PaddyLeahy (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that the article focuses far too much on this one issue. I think it should be given a few sentences in a much broader introduction, and then a few paragraphs in the main text. (However, I still maintain that the current synthesis is heavily biased.) — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I see now that my suggestion that only atheists think that Flew has lost some of his mental capacity was offensive and just wrong, my apologies for that. The phrase should include also Jews and people from other faiths if they don't like Flews conversion to Deism. My current suggestion is that the "is Flew senile" -question is not so important for the article that it should be included in the first paragraph. Just mention that there's some controversy/discussion (whatever term you'd like to use) and point it into a dedicated section in the article. Otherwise it just gets too much weight, Flew has done much more on his career.

Sorry Hyperdeath if I upset you. My intention was not to promote Conservapedia, just to give an example of other encyclopedias. I think they have gone a little too much right-wing in their articles, but that is only a reaction to the current state of Wikipedia (as I see it). As for quack-medicine, I don't support those: what I cannot understand, I cannot recommend. And this "complementary and alternative medicine" is one of those. When it comes to Obama, I disagree with you, but I shall not continue that discussion. This talk page is not about politics. 212.16.103.22 (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of room inside the article for the discussion on Flew's new book as well as his previous work. Instead of suggesting removal of stuff you don't like, those of you who think the article has a deistic/theistic bias should add more material, for example common arguments against the reasoning in the book. Flew is heavily criticising today's atheistic spokesmen. The article must reflect this fact, but may also reflect the response from these atheists.

The difficult task is how to balance the lead. So let's concentrate on that to start with. If someone has understood Kamosh's arguments against Hyperdeath:s suggestion above, please summarize them. Or if you read this Kamosh, please clarify.Mange01 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Mange01, my argument are quite clear: 1. The introduction should not include any minor subject like the debates on his recent book. It should only have "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" This is what it was a year ago before HyperDeath, Jeff and others came in and and distorted the introduction. I don't know why he insists on adding those issues there, while it can be merged into the main body of the article. 2. HyperDeath and Jeff did not respond to any of the questions I had above. I would disagree with making any changes to any part of the article unless you provide a good reason for that. (this includes providing a good reason to remove/manipulate any part of Flew's interviews and writings.) khamosh —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC).

I am very surprised.

1.The introduction that khamosh keeps on inserting is about atheists, who can't stand that Flew isn't one of them anymore. And now, suddenly, khamosh only wants the old introduction back.

2.If I look at this discussion, every time khamosh asks a question, he gets an answer of Hyperdeath. Nevertheless, khamosh claims that "HyperDeath and Jeff did not respond to any of the questions I had above." That is just a plain lie. If that is the way khamosh wants to work, I do not think we can ever get somewhere with this article. But still,I will keep on trying.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeff5102: 1. calm down. Please read my comments above rather than accusing other people of telling lies. 1. You did not respond to any of my comments above, though almost all of them were for you.Is it your usual way to ignore other people's comments when you don't have anything to say? At least,Hyperdeath takes the trouble to respond to my comments (though not justifying answers). what about you? You can read it again below: "Hyperdeath, Jeff102:

1.I agree with your introduction, provided that Flew's responses to these criticisms is included in the main article (including his latest response in June 2008). You cannot doubt on the truth of the statement released by the publisher as Flew has reconfirmed that several times since its release. Moreover if you doubt on the honesty of one side then you should cast doubt on the honesty of the other side too. Please tell me why you trust in whatever Richard Carriers attributes to Flew while everything said by the other side is suspicious for you?! Isn't it that you are biased?

2. Flew's review of Dawkins' book should be there. Since it reveals Flew's ideas and why he describes Dawkins argument as a "comical effort" and not enough strong to convince him. Moreover Dawkins has criticized Flew for his deism and is constantly belittling him everywhere without providing good reasons. Flew's review is in fact a response to those criticisms. BUT, ok, I agree to remove it 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)

3. However, lets assume that I'm wrong and that review should not be there. Then CAN YOU EXPLAIN why you kept manipulating Flew's interview by erasing the word "comical". Please EXPLIAN why you delete the other parts of the his old interview (2005) which is about the reasons that led him to change his mind. and the other parts recently added. Isn't it because of your extreme love and passion for Dawkins and that you cannot even tolerate any criticism of him/his book. Isn't it because you are biased in your judgment? and you Hyperdeath CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN your reasons why you were going to cast doubt on Flew's deism before I entered the debate. I have been monitoring this page for around two years. But, the change you had made was something intolerable as you were going to cast doubt on Flew's deism and that's why I entered the debate. These actions (to me) indicate some sort of deliberate/unintentional dishonesty and insincerity. (and I'm sure it's unintentional in case of you and Jeff). So, please free yourself from passions and/or your own belief for a while and rethink the article. Khamosh —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)."

2. My view on the introduction is NOT new. It seems that you constantly overlook my comments. Here is one of my very first discussions I had with Hyperdeath in which I told him the introduction should not include debates on his recent book:

"Hyper Death, OK: 1. Introduction should not include anything which is a matter of controversy. That's why any article has a main body to explain these kinds of controversies in. So, it should not even include the debate on his recent book. 2. However if you insist on adding those controversies in the introduction, OK, add it. But, please be fair and do not speculate about Flew's deism. Do you agree Flew's turning to deism is NOT a matter of controversy? please clear this for me. If it is not, then you are not allowed to say "THESE CHANGES are a matter of GREAT controversy...". This implies that Flew's deism is not certain, while he has mentioned his deism everywhere, in all his interviews since 2004 and in the new edition of his famous book "GOD and Philosophy (2005)" (hopefully he is the only author of the book and nobody can say he has been manipulated by a co-author). You might say:"His recent book, is a matter of ...". 3. If you're gonna write about the controversy on his recent book in the introduction, then be honest and mention Flew's response to these criticisms at the end. Khamosh" khamosh

I feel I am repeating myself, but:

1. The WP:LEAD guidelines state that controversy must be reflected in the introduction.

2. I am not speculating; I am documenting respectable sources. The argument as to whether Flew is senile or not is absolutely irrelevant to this talk page. Wikipedia is based on verifiability not truth, and discussion should be based around how to produce an accurate and unbiased synthesis of the relevant sources. You obviously feel that the sources questioning Flew's state of mind are nothing but vile slander, but this is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs.

3. Yes Flew has criticised the criticism, but this is not the decisive blow you make it out to be, as other sources state that Flew has seemed confused in interviews, and is unable to recall the contents of his own book.

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 21:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I see.

1. Khamosh: "HyperDeath and Jeff did not respond to any of the questions I had above."

2. Me: "every time khamosh asks a question, he gets an answer of Hyperdeath."

3. Khamosh to me: "You did not respond to any of my comments above, though almost all of them were for you.(...)At least,Hyperdeath takes the trouble to respond to my comments (though not justifying answers). what about you?"

Do I really have to say every time "I agree" if Hyperdeath says something nowadays? Jeff5102 (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Is flew only known for his aethistic/theistic views? As a philosopher did he make an impact in other ways? The reason I ask is because if he did, this should be reflected in the into, before the aethist deist discussion. I came across this article today, and it read really poorly.

I agree. The conversion/senility debate has definitely come at the cost of the article, and much more should be said about Flew's career in general. What particular aspects do you think should be mentioned in the introduction?

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 11:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, after the first sentence would be a description of his career. Then, a description of his history as an atheist. Maybe then a second paragraph that would touch on the current controversy. My problem with it, though, is that in temrs of career and impact, he has only spent 1/20 of his life as an deist, but this debate dominates the article and it is very distracting. For some guide, W.B. Yeats had fascist sympathies at the end of his life, but this is not the focus of the intro of the article on his life. In many ways, this whole debate is just very distracting for someone like me who came to this article for more information and felt that it read very poorly. 72.194.101.164 (talk)

New proposed introduction

I propose the following lead section. Please note that I have taken aboard concerns from PaddyLeahy and 72.194.101.164 that the article focuses too much upon the conversion controversy at the expense of describing the rest of Flew's life.

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 [4], the free will defence to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of god [5]. However, 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 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.

It still needs some work, but it avoids the dispute engulfing Flew's career. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 00:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it. The discussion of the controversy is still awk, but unavoidable. It seems very encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.101.164 (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to add the introduction. However Khamosh undid it. (And for good measure accused me of vandalising the article, and of being a paid agent to do so.) Khamosh, would you please comment on the introduction and what you don't like about it, rather than making weird accusations in the revision history. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 00:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Hyperdeath's introduction is a significant improvement. It gives significant amounts of information beyond "he's an atheist who became a deist". One point could be improved: We list the supporters of the allegations concerning Flew's mental decay by name, but not the opponents. Huon (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually Khamosh has a point: Maybe we could be more explicit in mentioning that in his book, Flew claimed to be a deist (though the title tells it all, to me). But that's a minor editing matter. Another completely unrelated point: While the lengthy Flew quote on Dawson's book is by far too much detail, the lengthy quote on Flew's revised views doesn't seem much more encyclopedic to me. Shouldn't the referenced sentence on Flew denying claims of his "conversion from atheism" be sufficient without the quote? Huon (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded the introduction so that Flew's (supposed) allegiance to deism is explicit. (I also agree with your other point about the names of the opponents being missing. I'll look into the matter.) — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 21:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good to me. Sorry for not helping with the editing myself, but I wouldn't even know where to look for the names of those opposing the "mental decay" hypothesis. Huon (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to address the follow comment by User:Khamosh:

"...Moreover Dawkins has criticized Flew for his deism and is constantly belittling him everywhere without providing good reasons. Flew's review is in fact a response to those criticisms. BUT, ok, I agree to remove it 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)".

This is blatently antithetic to the very raison d'etre of Wikipedia. You cannot hold other members to ransom with threats like these. If the content you are adding is not suitable and does not comply with the guidelines laid down by those running this encyclopaedia (specifically here, if it contravenes Wikipedia:NPOV), then it must go. There's no point trying to haggle with people over it. And, by all means, feel free to contribute to the pages on The God Delusion and Richard Dawkins. Any informative, unbiased additions are always welcome. :-) AC+79 3888 16:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected for three days

I've protected this article per WP:PROTECT (which means I locked it in the current revision and have no preference or concern over which may be the preferred revision). Please discuss changes on the talk page and ask me or another admin if there is some consensus among disputing parties that the page can be stabilized. Also, do not use huggle/rollback to revert good faith edits without providing a descriptive edit summary. That is totally unacceptable and borders on grounds for removing the tool. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)