Antony Flew: The Existence and Belief of God

How can I start this paper? Hmmmm…..??? Let\'s begin with the parable. Antony
Flew starts off his speech by telling the audience this story of two explorers
that accidentally came upon a garden in a jungle. In this garden, there were
many beautiful flowers and weeds. One explorer says, "some gardener must tend
this plot". While the other disagrees, "there is no gardener". So, these two
explorers tried to figure out who was right and who was wrong. They waited the
whole night, but no gardener was ever seen. Then the "Believer" said that there
must be a gardener, that he "is an invisible gardener". He tried everything he
could to convince to the "Sceptic" that he was right, barbed-wire, electrifying
fence, patrolling bloodhounds. But no gardener was ever found. Still the
"Believer" was not convinced. He gave the "Sceptic" many excuses as to why they
couldn\'t see the gardener. The "Sceptic" told him that he was crazy because
what started out as a simple assertion that there was a gardener, turned into
"an imaginary gardener".

This parable that Flew is using is clearly an analogy to the existence
and belief of God. The garden represents God, "…invisible, intangible,
insensible…". The "Sceptic" says there is no gardener, just as an atheist
denies the existence God. The "Believer" says there is a gardener, like a
theist telling everyone that God exists. The "Believer" tries to prove that
there was a planter, who planted the seeds for the flowers to grow. This
planter takes care of them, a parallelism to God supposedly taking care of "us".

Flew talks about assertions. He states that "what starts as an
assertion, that something exists…may be reduced step by step to an altogether
different status". He uses the example of how if one man were to talk about
sexual behavior, "another man prefers to talk of Aphrodite". They don\'t seem to
make sense. How can one confuse the idea of a sexual behavior with Aphrodite?
He also points out the fact that "a fine brash hypothesis may be killed by
inches, the death of a thousand qualifications". A good example of this is
when he said that "God loves us as a father loves his children". He states that
when we see a child dying of cancer, his "earthy father" is there, to help him,
nurture him, trying his best for his son. But his "Heavenly Father", God, is no
where to be found, that he "reveals no obvious sign of concern". The
qualification that is made is that "God\'s love is not a merely human love or it
is an inscrutable love." What started as a simple statement "God loves us as a
father loves his children", has now turned into this complex idea that "God\'s
love is not a merely human love…" Also this new, complex thought, have started
even more questions about that nature of God\'s love, "what is this assurance of
God\'s love worth…" This is what Flew was talking about, "death of a thousand
qualification", something that is simple, is turned into a complex idea that
needs more answering.
Flew also talks about other assertions such as "God has a plan", "God
created the world". He calls them, a "peculiar danger, a endemic evil, of
theological utterance." He states that they first look "very much like
assertions, vast cosmological assertions", but there is no sure sign, no
evidence that "they either are or are intended to be, assertions". Flew said
that, "for is the utterance is indeed an assertion, it will necessarily be
equivalent to a denial of the negation of that assertion." What he meant is
that if one asserts something then one must deny something. He then goes on by
saying that, "anything which would count against the assertion, or which would
induce the speaker to withdraw it and to admit that it had been mistaken, must
be part of the meaning of the negation of that assertion….and if there is
nothing which a putative assertion denies then there is nothing which it asserts
either; and so it is not really and assertion." What does he mean by this? He
proposes that if an assertion must be continuously qualified in the face of
evidence that counts against it, then the assertion is meaningless. For example,
the "Sceptic" asking the "Believer", "Just how does what you call an invisible,
intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even
from no gardener at all?" He was telling the "Believer" that there was no
gardener, because they had watched the area