There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

Location: Home » vampire: masquerade » General AAS » There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

Similar Items:

•	What's So Great About Christianity
•	The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
•	The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine
•	The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism
•	The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul

Editorial Reviews:

Product Description

In one of the biggest religion news stories of the new millennium, the Associated Press announced that Professor Antony Flew, the world's leading atheist, now believes in God.

Flew is a pioneer for modern atheism. His famous paper, Theology and Falsification, was first presented at a meeting of the Oxford Socratic Club chaired by C. S. Lewis and went on to become the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the last five decades. Flew earned his fame by arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. He now believes that such evidence exists, and There Is a God chronicles his journey from staunch atheism to believer.

For the first time, this book will present a detailed and fascinating account of Flew's riveting decision to revoke his previous beliefs and argue for the existence of God. Ever since Flew's announcement, there has been great debate among atheists and believers alike about what exactly this "conversion" means. There Is a God will finally put this debate to rest.

This is a story of a brilliant mind and reasoned thinker, and where his lifelong intellectual pursuit eventually led him: belief in God as designer.

Customer Reviews: Read 58 more reviews...

5 out of 5 stars

READ THE BOOK November 7, 2007
416 out of 469 found this review helpful

Call me old-fashioned, but I thought the POINT of reviewing books--even books on Amazon--was to review the actual book that one has actually READ. It seems now that it has become a place to "spike" books that you haven't read, and don't want others to read.

Unlike other pseudo-reviewers, I've actually read Flew's There is a God (and interviewed Flew as well). Anyone who has actually read it--and I wonder if Mark Oppenheimer did, given the inattention to the substance of the book in his infamous NYT piece--understands that it is a terse description of Flew's long, drawn out intellectual journey toward God--a journey of two decades. Twenty years; not twenty minutes or twenty days. Flew wasn't struck by God on his way to Damascus like St. Paul; he was slowly, ever so slowly brought to intellectual assent to a Deism (about the thinnest belief in God one can have).

Thus, the entire focus of a reader of Flew's There is a God SHOULD be on the list of books Flew cites as definitive in the slow changing of his mind, not on niggling debates about the slowness of Flew's mind at this precise point.

Roy Varghese (his co-author) has been with him for a good part of that journey (as have other believers), and was instrumental in helping Flew gather together his twenty year sojourn to God. IF there were some kind of a Christian conspiracy to use Flew as a mouthpiece, certainly Varghese et al would have made Flew's "conversion" far more exciting, and even more, would have him become a card-carrying Christian rather than, as he adamantly maintains, a Deist (not even a Theist!--Flew corrected me on this point in an interview with him). To read Varghese's full response to Oppenheimer, see http://www.tothesource.org/11_6_2007/11_6_2007.htm

In regard to Varghese's The Wonder of the World (one of the books that helped convince Flew of the scientific case for an intelligent Creator God), Oppenheimer characterizes it as scientific hack work. Interesting! Why does it also come recommended by TWO Nobel Prize Winners (Charles Townes, inventor of the laser; and Arno Penzias, who co-discovered Cosmic Microwave Bacground Radiation), and also physicist (and non-believer) Robert Jastrow? Are they also senile? Come on, folks!

As even Oppenheimer admits, the kind of arguments that Flew cites as demonstrating that the latest science leads (at least) to Deism, are those used by a whole host of other eminent scientists and philosophers. Is Paul Davies senile?

The simple truth is that there are all too many who don't want the scientific and philosophic arguments that convinced Flew of God's existence to receive any recognition. They will do anything to stop others from reading Flew's book. Perhaps they should read it themselves?

4 out of 5 stars

Much subtler than the reviews suggest October 26, 2007
172 out of 224 found this review helpful

Ignore the negative review; it misrepresnts Flew's argument, which is far more subtle than it suggests.
The argument is perhaps too much concerned with the intricacy of cosmic order, and ought perhaps to consider more the ontological question of the *existence* of that order, which is a problem that analytic philosophy has traditionally failed to address convincingly.
Flew, as an atheist, was far brighter than the disappointingly banal new atheists (Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett), who have yet to produce one distinguished argument. As a theist, Flew is still brighter. And both his atheist and his theist arguments are worth reading.

1 out of 5 stars

Badly Written and Dishonest November 8, 2007
159 out of 250 found this review helpful

Flew has confessed to the fact that he did not write this book, and as I have documented online, he appears incapable of even remembering what it contains much less endorsing its contents (regardless of what his literary agent claims he has said). The historical record shows that none of the reasons given in this book were any of the reasons Flew became a Deist (in fact Deism, Flew's actual belief as he has publicly asserted many times, is not even discussed in this book). It is also not written in the logically meticulous style of Flew's real books, but in a very poorly argued, poorly written, and poorly organized manner. Every argument is plagued by obvious fallacies that even competent Christian apologists would not print. In fact, even as an atheist I can tell you there are many far superior books defending belief in God. I would not recommend wasting time reading this poor substitute for them.

As just a few examples:

In chapter five the real authors of this book (neither of whom are Flew) do not understand the difference between mechanical and theoretical simplicity (Occam's Razor only pertains to the latter, which involves the number of assumptions required to sustain a theory, not the number of physical parts). Hence they utter fallacious rhetoric like "What is complex about the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient Spirit, an idea so simple it is understood by all the adherents of the three great monotheistic religions...?" This is a non sequitur. To see why, just change the subject: "What is complex about the idea of a self-generating multiverse, an idea so simple it is understood by all the adherents of science and reason?" This is just as fallacious, and for the very same reason. The book is plagued by this kind of bad rhetoric, to the point of becoming appallingly annoying.

In chapter six, the authors do not even seem aware of the distinction between the weak and strong anthropic principles, nor are they aware of the fact that fine tuning was not an argument that persuaded Flew to become a Deist (even if he is persuaded by the argument now, though I doubt he is even capable of evaluating the argument now, given the evidence presented in the New York Times of his apparent mental decline). Worse, here as in every chapter, the authors ignore already-existing criticisms of the arguments they present, thus making this book not only one-sided, but blindly misleading, as if they and their alleged sources were the first to discover these arguments and no one has been able to think of any response to them. This makes the book essentially useless from a scholarly perspective.

Also in chapter six the authors portray Paul Davies as an opponent of multiverse theory, when in fact Davies published an article in Modern Physics Letters A (volume 19, issue 10, 2004) affirming multiverse theory as viable and scientifically respectable, declaring in his own words that "some version of a multiverse is reasonable given the current world view of physics." In other words, the authors of this book are engaging either in catastrophically bad research, or outright deceit.

In chapter seven the authors completely ignore all the arguments and evidence against their view presented in my article in Biology and Philosophy (November 2004), even though the real Flew cited this article in his new preface to God and Philosophy as having refuted much of what is now being claimed in this chapter. The chapter's understanding of evolution theory is also so juvenile it further suggests that Flew neither wrote nor read it, since Flew has written books on evolution theory that demonstrate a better understanding than this. Indeed, this is some of the worst creationist literature I have read. Dembski must be bowing his head in shame.

Also in chapter seven (and elsewhere) the authors present no clear idea of what actually demarcates science and philosophy or why or when one would ever have authority over the other, despite the fact that the entire book rests on the need to make this distinction, and despite a great deal of rhetoric on the matter, including the distasteful and misleading (but typical) creationist tactic of quote mining.

I could go on, but these failings are typical of the entire book. Even in general it isn't written well. It also ends with a rage-filled calumny against Dawkins, Dennet, and Harris by Varghese and a rather lame defense of the resurrection of Jesus by N.T. Wright (even though his name is not on the cover), which is embarrassing compared to his book on the subject, as flawed as even that is. But anyone should know there are far better defenses of the resurrection to read. This chapter isn't worth the bother. And neither is the rest of this book.

Since this book contains no discussion of the many arguments against what the book claims, and any true seeker should read both sides of any argument, I recommend reading as a response to the philosophy and theology of this book, my own Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism and in response to Wright's arguments that Jesus rose from the dead, see the anthology The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave.

4 out of 5 stars

The Delightful Journey of a Great Mind November 2, 2007
149 out of 187 found this review helpful

This book, with the ever catchy subtitle "How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind" is sure to infuriate most dogmatic atheists and capture the heart of zealous Christians. Both would be making a mistake. First, Flew has never been known as the most notorious - maybe the most brilliant or most influential of the last century, but he was almost always gracious and unlike Dawkins, Dennet, and Hitchens, he was not overly polemic; but instead, he focused on sharpening his logical arguments. Flew was one of the few atheists philosophers I enjoyed reading and watching. He also always demonstrated great respect for those whom he disagreed, a true demonstration of grace and honor.

Second, many modern atheists, more concerned with their zealotry (mention in the book) than properly constructed arguments are sure to hate this book; Dawkins, Dennet, and Harris, et al, are sure to resort to fallacious rebuttals (like Dawkins did at a lecture several months ago calling Anthony Flew a "once" great mind who is now suffering from old age - where is the argument Dawkins?). One will notice these people by the one star reviews - they cannot evaluate a text on its own terms, but must hate it regardless of any merits it may have.

Third, many Christians may overly praise the book. The book, while interesting, does not produce so much a tightly constructed argument as much as shows the journey and the arguments he encountered that changed his mind (DNA, Physics, etc) and he takes pains to show that many other thinking people can be theists, etc. I may be mistaken, but I think he would prefer people investigate the matter further and hence, his arguments are brief and interwoven with a biographical sketch. The arguments still uphold pretty well, but probably not as sophisticated as they could have been or in other books elsewhere.

There is a good appendix section involving a brief encounter with theologian NT Wright and Roy Abraham Varghese provides a nice preface and appendix section as well. All in all a fun, quick, and easy read. The book is delightful in some respects; but, in other respects, I wanted just a little more argument.

Lastly, I have added this edition to my original review to also provide a quick response to many atheists who are so enamored with the NYT
article and claim it is proof that the zealot Christian right and others have taken advantage of an old senile man. First, Oppenheimer's article has been rebutted by Varghese and many inconsistencies have been noted by others as well. Further, Flew himself has provided an interview claiming the book is his "last will and testament" on these things. Furthermore, did ABC and other mass media take advantage of Flew when he said he was no longer an atheists?

It is an embarrassment to all that some people who are so dogmatic about their atheism (or whatever ism it is) that they appeal to a sloppily developed article. Wiker's review provides the address to his website that has the Flew interview.

1 out of 5 stars

The horrific exploitation of an old man October 30, 2007
101 out of 149 found this review helpful

Most of what you really need to know about this book is contained in the New York Times Magazine article, "The Turning of an Atheist." It makes clear that Flew did not write the book, his memory has declined to the point where he is incapable of understanding the issues discussed in it, and is in fact being cynically exploited by religious propagandists.

Since I have, in fact, read the book, I'll offer some comments on the end product. One way to understand what's wrong with this book is to read any of Flew's earlier books on philosophy of religion and comparing. While not perfect, Flew's earlier writings display a care for careful argumentation that is entirely lacking in this book.

This book fails to answer any of the questions raised by Flew's previous work, and by the very public vacillations he engaged in during his turn around. The first section deals with his previous views, and on two key points, just says what other people have said in response to them without giving Flew's current position or explaining how he reached it. On free will, there is a statement that Flew used to believe that it exists and is compatible with determinism, now believes it exists and is incompatible with determinism, but no clear explanation for the turn around. Instead of a discussion of any depth we get a brief exposition of a version free will that looks plagiarized from a pop theology book.

The first section was pretty bad, but the second, which was supposed to give Flew's reasons for believing in God, disappointed even my lowest expectations. First it declares that scientists were wrong to criticize him for getting the facts wrong, and that the scientific facts don't matter. Then, in place of substantiative arguments for the existence of God we get a parade of quotes that aren't critically analyzed at all. Some of the quotes are from philosophers, but the focus is on scientists, making the previous disregard of science utterly hypocritical.

Don't buy this book. But if you must, I reiterate my recommendation to read it alongside a real work in philosophy of religion, so you can see the difference between serious analysis and propaganda. And read the NYT article--you'll be shocked by it's revelations.

Powered by Associate-O-Matic