Antony Flew: The Existence and Belief Of God

1744 Words4 Pages

Antony Flew: The Existence and Belief of God

Antony Flew starts 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...

... middle of paper ...

...arden in which I

find myself, that I am unable to share the explorers' detachment," said Hare.

He tried to point out that if he was in the same situation, he would not share

the same views as the explorers. Which is a belief in the g ardener, a belief

in God.

Both of these man had some strong viewpoints. Flew states, if one

asserts something, then one must deny something. What Hare is trying to say is

that, there is two sides to every idea or "assertions", a blik. That that is a

sane blik and a insane blik. Most people have the sane one and those who don't

share this view is point as lunatics. But no one is not trying to deny

something here. The person with the insane blik is not wrong or that he's not

trying to deny something, it's just that his views are different. Flew states,

"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?" Hare's reply to this question is

that he calls this "completely victorious." Nothing have to occur because those

who does not share this belief in God have an insane blik. They are not trying

to deny that God doesn't but rather that they views are just different.

Open Document