Antony Flew has spent nearly two-thirds of his life arguing against the existence of an omnipotent and all-knowing God, but towards the end of his life, he has accepted the existence of one. He argues that his change is due to the principle of “follow the argument wherever it leads”. He states that at first the argument required to oppose the existence of God, but the argument now leads him to accept the idea that there is a God. This (...) study will consider whether Flew applies the principle “follow the argument wherever it leads” when it comes to Islam. While doing this, first, Flew's conception of God, which he endorsed after accepting the existence of God, will be briefly described. Then, his thoughts on Christianity after the acceptance of God’s existence will be addressed. Next, the arguments he developed against Islam will be evaluated. Finally, it will be discussed whether he adapts the principle of “follow the argument wherever it leads” when Islam is at stake. As a result, it has been seen that Flew should at least have shown the tolerance he showed to Christianity, which he rejected, to Islam in accordance with the principle of “follow the argument wherever it leads” nevertheless, he did not reconsider his former harsh and biased claims about Islam. (shrink)

Here's an overview of one of the more ingenious attempts to criticize religious belief. Antony Flew argues that if the religious won't allow anything to count as evidence against what they believe, then they don't actually believe anything. The religious aren't making false claims; rather, they're not making any claims at all.

C A Wringe; Reply to Antony Flew, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 13, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 149–158, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.1979.t.

C A Wringe; Reply to Antony Flew, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 13, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 149–158, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.1979.t.

From Analytic Philosophy to Theism: Antony Flew After the great idealistic systems, the advent of nihilism and the formulation of pragmatism, philosophy restarts again creatively. To understand this rise, I will argue about the essential relationship that philosophy should have with science. Then I will delineate, in line with Antony Flew’s history, the main philosophical arguments atheists present in analytic philosophy, and the characteristics that take the old arguments. Finally, I try to formulate as accurately as possible the (...) main arguments for the existence of God being discussed right now within the analytic tradition. (shrink)

This article examines the concept of “The Presumption of Atheism” by Antony Flew. Flew claims that at the beginning of a debate on the existence of God we should adopt a standpoint of atheism and the opus of proof lies on the theists. I question different requirements that Flew puts on the representatives of theism and atheism. In responding, I raise an epistemological issue concerning how strong evidence for a particular belief should be in order for one to hold (...) that belief. I claim that this depends on a subject’s circumstances and on his or her individual conditions. By means of these deliberations I try to reveal how various persons could reasonably demand from a theistic belief a different degree of probability than they do from an atheistic one. This shows, I think, that Flew’s procedure does not have to be rational for others, although it could be in his own case. (shrink)

In this paper it is argued that, while the case that Antony Flew makes against philosophically invalid arguments for the existence of God is generally sound, he fails to comprehend the power and cogency of the ontological argument. Thus, his conception of the grounds of morality, separate from the biblical tradition of theology, is by no means compelling. This paper aims to show that the rational concept of morality that Flew rightly claims to uphold is not only consistent with (...) but also presupposes, paradoxically, the ontological argument for the existence of God. Central ideas of Kant and, above all, of Spinoza are called upon to show that the nexus between morality and theology, between philosophy and God, is that central to the ontological argument. The conclusion of the paper is that, just as philosophy without God is empty, so God without philosophy is blind. (shrink)

ANTONY FLEW HAS ARGUED THAT THE HISTORIAN MUST MAINTAIN WITH RESPECT TO ANY ALLEGED MIRACLE WHICH IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH CURRENT NOMOLOGICALS THAT THE EVENT DID NOT IN FACT OCCUR AS REPORTED. I ARGUE THAT THE LINE OF REASONING HE USES TO SUPPORT THIS STANCE IS MUCH MORE SUBTLE AND CONVINCING THAN MOST OF HIS CRITICS HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED. BUT I CONCLUDE IN THE LAST ANALYSIS THAT HIS ARGUMENT IS UNSOUND.

In recent years a number of general studies of Hume’s philosophy have appeared. It is in this rather crowded traffic that Professor Antony Flew’s David Hume must make its way.... Flew claims that “no previous study of Hume’s philosophy has made nearly enough of the fact that almost all his conclusions are, for better or for worse, conditioned and sometimes determined by an interlocking set of Cartesian assumptions”(p. 2). In this way, Flew suggests that earlier interpreters have rarely recognised (...) the “grotesquely paradoxical” nature of Hume’s Cartesian assumptions and have, therefore, “failed to point the strangeness, the often self-frustrating perversity, of some of the positions which Hume was misled to adopt later” (p. 3).... ..... In a short introductory work it is, of course, very difficult to defend particular interpretations and criticisms in much detail. Nevertheless, I find that Flew’s discussion frequently moves at an excessive speed and that too often his claims are not given the care and attention that they require. Flew certainly does have some interesting points to make and, at his best, Flew is an insightful and stimulating commentator. On the whole, however, his claims come across as thinly defended, poorly articulated and, as a result, rather unconvincing.... (shrink)

Nearly three decades have passed since Antony Flew first issued his now famous falsification challenge: ‘What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or of the existence of, God?’ The purpose of the question is to challenge the sophisticated believer to describe a state of affairs in which a basic putative theistic assertion like ‘God exists’ would be false. If the believer admits that he cannot provide such a (...) description then, Flew would argue, he is admitting that at least his putative theistic assertion is compatible with every state of affairs; consequently it is factually meaningless. The reason for this is that every factually significant assertion must deny that some describable state of affairs obtains. To illustrate, just as when we draw a circle we simultaneously draw in and draw out two particular areas, so when we state a fact we simultaneously deny a fact. Here is the difficulty, Flew would say, in which the sophisticated believer puts himself when he uses putative theistic assertions: factually he denies nothing, hence factually he asserts nothing. (shrink)

IN his book, God and Philosophy Professor Antony Flew uses as one of his main weapons against arguments for God’s existence a principle which he calls the Stratonician Presumption. This principle, he explains, was first formulated by Strato, second successor to Aristotle as head of the Lyceum. Flew’s own formulation is as follows.