Jim Guinee wrote: > I would like to point out that Flew's change reminds > me of the defense mechanism "reaction formation."
>Perhaps he has been fighting so hard for so long at something >that deep down he believed but didn't want to. Nancy Melucci responded: >You're right - it's not much. Way speculative and unconvincing. >And he sounds pretty calm and rational about it, not anxious and >"hysterical" as this armchair cyber-psychoanalyzing would suggest. >He seems pretty content with his views. Also Paul Smith: >I can't make sense of this either. Are you suggesting that he believed >all along in a theistic explanation, didn't want to, and so his naturalism >was a reaction to that? It's hard to imagine why a person who believes >in a theistic explanation would try to repress it, in light of (again) the >overwhelming social pressure towards such explanations. You'd have to >postulate another layer of odd motivations (a need to nonconform? a >need to be disliked?), and with this explanation, I think you're already >doing quite the balancing act. Your argument is stronger without this >Freudian addition (or "pop-Freudian addition"? I defer to Allen >Esterson <grin>). A follow up to Nancy's and Paul's comments: I don't know about reaction formation, but I can just imagine Flew's reaction to Jim's suggestion! Deep, deep, down he's been a believer for some time, but didn't realize it? Leaving aside that Flew has made clear he is not a "believer" even now, in what precisely is he supposed to have been (unconsciously) believing? That's a more interesting question than it might seem on the surface. Since his latent beliefs were/are unconscious, who's to say whether he has come to believe in a transcendental deity that plays no role in human affairs, or maybe the personal God who occasionally engages, when the whim takes Him/Her/It, in divine intervention? We can't go by what Flew now says he believes, because he may still be hiding from himself the full extent of his retreat from his previously held beliefs. Maybe his current position (which still evidently does not justify his being called someone who believes in God in any conventional sense of the concept) is still self-deception, and more revelations are to come, so he'll be going to Mass in a year or so, God willing. And if that doesn't happen, it just shows how strongly Flew is repression what he unconsciously believes. The wonderful thing about surmising about what may or may not be (or have been) in a person's unconscious is that it gives one a free hand to indulge one's imagination without fear of refutation. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=57 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=58 http://www.psychiatrie-und-ethik.de/infc/1_gesamt_en.html --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
