The Good Atheist

Professor Antony Flew, one of West's leading atheist philosophers during 60's, 70's and 80's, has recently died.

His philosophical legwork for atheism during that time period ought to be the model by which shrieking harpies like Richard Dawkins should have pushed for their beliefs. Professor Flew, unlike amateur atheists like Dawkins, actually attempted to present the opposite side he wished to debunk fairly, often presenting it in its strongest form before engaging. He rarely stooped to petty polemical point-scoring, choosing instead to engage the best the tradition he was going against had to offer.

Like Jurgen Habermas, he respected his opponents and preferred dialogue to confrontation. And while he could not accept Christian theology, he was nevertheless respectful of Christian morality.

I'd like to think of the good atheist as a constant seeker. He is not someone who rests on the simpleton's notion that he has flicked away 2000 years of intellectual tradition with a witty put-down or a novel idea. He is involved with hard questions, and does not rest on easy assumptions about the consequences of godlessness on society. (Constantly wailing "atheists can be good people too!" is not an aswer.)

And in the end, like the good pagan, the good atheist will find himself at the zenith of his journey, confronting the gaping maw of the abyss and seeing the spectre of God there. How he confronts the object of his opprobrium; that which he had sought to deny all his life in an honest fashion, will differ among individuals. Habermas responds with an appeal to cooperation with that which he does not yet fully understand. Flew responded by becoming a deist.

I am sure that, if they are given enough time on this world, the good atheist will eventually take the same path as the good pagan. He will be baptized.