tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1948420587779787298.post6110103443535538356..comments2023-06-16T05:25:55.741-07:00Comments on Elliptica: My theory on FlewLynethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06357023675142716573noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1948420587779787298.post-47619717281834871832007-11-09T14:59:00.000-08:002007-11-09T14:59:00.000-08:00Alon... well, that's a comforting thought indeed. ...Alon... well, that's a comforting thought indeed. Since I'm not famous, nor am I an authority (well, I think not anyway). That would mean that if the prose is any good, I might collect more than just my advance.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, it's interesting that publishers don't expect a book to sell based on its prose. Platform's the thing.L.L. Barkathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13333960142447144678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1948420587779787298.post-40563973477266380302007-11-09T00:08:00.000-08:002007-11-09T00:08:00.000-08:00If I'm making a double point, it's unintentional. ...If I'm making a double point, it's unintentional. Of all the attacks on radical atheism I've made, I don't think any applies or was intended to apply to Paul Kurtz or Richard Carrier, who seem to be the main people saying that Varghese's exploiting Flew. I brought it up mostly because that's probably the only thing on my blog that I completely disagree with.<BR/><BR/>L. L., from what I'm gathering about your book, it's very different from Varghese's. Your book seems to be inspirational and personal. Those books are almost like fiction in that they sell based on the prose; if you hire a ghostwriter, the ghostwriter might as well get the byline. Conventional non-fiction sells based on the author, especially if he's a famous person or an authority on the subject. Under that condition, it's very easy to let someone else do the heavy lifting, and just look at the final result and collect half the royalty checks.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1948420587779787298.post-36457688018134194042007-11-08T21:21:00.000-08:002007-11-08T21:21:00.000-08:00Ebonmuse,I'm hesitant to play up the extent to whi...Ebonmuse,<BR/><BR/>I'm hesitant to play up the extent to which Flew is of diminished mental capacity. It can explain anything in a manner flattering to our worldview, and in that sense it's much too much like the effect of the 'God hypothesis' on science. I can't help but be suspicious for that reason :-). Moreover, if we want to be outraged, it's always safer to be outraged on the most conservative grounds possible. Large amounts of outrage on small amounts of evidence is a dangerous thing, and it seems to me that we ought to avoid it to the greatest extent possible.<BR/><BR/>With that in mind, here's how I'd respond to the two pieces of evidence you note.<BR/><BR/>(1) Varghese may well have used statements from Flew given prior to 2005 in putting the book together. He may not have paid attention to Flew's change of mind, or he may have singlemindedly chosen to ignore it. There are then several possible reasons why Flew might have let these statements pass (assuming that he did see all the chapters attributed to him, as Varghese claims):<BR/><BR/>- Flew may have changed his mind <I>back</I>.<BR/><BR/>- Flew may have decided he couldn't be bothered fighting about details. <BR/><BR/>- Flew may be choosing not to pay much attention to the book.<BR/><BR/>- Flew may be mentally incapable of paying proper attention to the book.<BR/><BR/>Saying exactly which of these apply and to what extent requires more evidence than we have, in my opinion.<BR/><BR/>(2) That <I>is</I> evidence that Flew's mind is not what it was. It doesn't matter so much that it supports the idea that Flew didn't write the book, because we already know <I>from Varghese</I> that Flew did not write the book! On the other hand, it also shows that Flew probably is in a state where he could be manipulated. However, I'm wary of concluding that Varghese took advantage of that deliberately, because it's much easier to imagine him simply trying as hard as he could to get the result he wanted, and being too attached to his own position to realise that Flew was letting him get away with too much.<BR/><BR/>I'll presume Varghese to be innocent of lying. I'll presume that because it <I>does</I> fit all the evidence I've seen, on the one hand -- but also because it highlights the fact that Varghese is in many ways condemned by his own words. If we really wanted to raise hue and cry over this, the best way to reach a lot of people with it would be to use the possibility with the most even-handed evidence for it -- the one you definitely don't have to be an atheist to give credit to. We've got a great case that Varghese is writing a book that attaches the name of a famous philosopher to a viewpoint that doesn't really reflect that philosopher. Why shout that down with a speculative statement that uses a blanket excuse for belief in God -- the one that always occurs to us -- the one about insanity?<BR/><BR/>Alon,<BR/><BR/>Thanks :-)<BR/><BR/>By the way, you seem to be trying to make a double point by using the question of radical atheism as evidence of a change of mind...<BR/><BR/>LL,<BR/><BR/>Ah, but you're <I>engaged</I> with that book. Its whole structure is alive and growing in your head! Of course you care about it! :-)Lynethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06357023675142716573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1948420587779787298.post-10325202900339150862007-11-08T12:03:00.000-08:002007-11-08T12:03:00.000-08:00It is interesting to read this after coming back f...It is interesting to read this after coming back from my errands today. I'd been daydreaming about my writing process, considering how much time it has taken to push this thing (the book) into shape, and how many voices it took to do that. But I was also feeling good that I'd been the one to keep working away in light of all the feedback. And that in the end it had been my hacking, tearing, rebuilding that made the work what it is. Which is all to say that it would be remarkable to me if someone could just sit by and let others just write what they would. But I suppose if one were old and tired... (well, unless that someone were me).L.L. Barkathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13333960142447144678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1948420587779787298.post-35394088844260813832007-11-08T10:11:00.000-08:002007-11-08T10:11:00.000-08:00Ebonmuse, I don't think piece of evidence #1 is th...Ebonmuse, I don't think piece of evidence #1 is that clear. In my blog, I explicitly rejected many attacks on new atheism that I now endorse, having seen new information or looked at the situation from a more neutral perspective.<BR/><BR/>For example, I said there was radical feminism and radical antiracism (i.e. ethnic nationalism), but not radical atheism, citing as evidence the fact that PZ Myers didn't want to deny religious people their civil rights. Today if I were to write a book about it I'd dedicate a fair portion of it to explaining why that line of thinking is wrong, and how in fact radicals keep using it to legitimize extremism. Andrea Dworkin isn't anti-sex because she thinks people will have sex even after the patriarchy is overthrown; PZ Myers doesn't hate religious people because he doesn't think the government should crack down on religious expression.<BR/><BR/>Lynet, I think your reading of the situation makes a lot of sense. Activists like to think anyone who thought about the situation for a while would see the light and agree with them. They also tend to think their heroes agree with them a lot more than they actually do - witness how every political movement in the US compares itself to the civil rights movement and cites passages from Martin Luther King that purport to agree with its goals.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1948420587779787298.post-40708040211166441902007-11-08T05:46:00.000-08:002007-11-08T05:46:00.000-08:00The two pieces of evidence I found most decisive w...The two pieces of evidence I found most decisive were these:<BR/><BR/>(1) In his correspondence with Carrier, Flew explicitly rejected an argument that is made in the book (about the probability of DNA formation). Indeed, it seems the newest edition of Flew's book <I>God & Philosophy</I>, with a rewritten preface, explicitly cites an article of Carrier's as being decisive against such claims.<BR/><BR/>(2) The fact that Flew professed not to know or remember several people who are quoted at length in the book and whom he's had extensive interaction with.<BR/><BR/>I think Flew's conversion to deism is quite possibly genuine, though hardly persuasive to others, since he admits he can't formulate much of a coherent argument for it. As for this book, though, it's clear that he's been used by these Christian apologists who gained and then exploited his friendship to use this name as a prop for their cause. Elderly, suffering from memory lapses, and largely cut off from the world (he's retired and doesn't have an Internet connection), Flew probably has little idea what's in the book, and little energy or ability to protest even if he did.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com