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

There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind | Antony Flew, Roy Abraham Varghese | Great explanation of Flew's change of Mind

books:

There Is a God: Ho...

	There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind Antony Flew, Roy Abraham Varghese HarperOne, 2007 - 222 pages average customer review:based on 61 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

God Wins Another One!

"There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind" is a fascinating book, primarily written by Antony Flew - a contrite, bright and honest man. Mr. Flew's philosophical path to God is a testament to his scholarly desire to follow the rivulets of reason to THE ULTIMATE TRUTH. This is more than one can say about today's Western proponents of "religious" atheism, who seem to have fixed on an anti-God argument that is driven largely by a secular and commercial fervor than by one of enlightened reason. For secular progressives, their three-pronged goal is designed to promote an arrogant, self-loathing view that works toward the attenuation of those moral precepts that have guided and allowed the West to flourish for centuries; seeks the diminution of restraints on the most abhorrent forms of human behavior; and promotes an "anti-religion" religion that turns a nice nihilistic buck in our capitalistic society - a free market society that they so irrationally despise. Go figure! It was wonderful to read about an intellectual journey that was not bound by hackneyed shibboleths or petty political demons. Great book!

for more information click here

Great explanation of Flew's change of Mind

I was really interested to see the reasoning behind Antony Flew's change from devote atheist to deist. I found it quite profound to see his thought process and the way he always questioned, and then followed where the answers led him. It also contains a mini-biography, as well as the history of his thoughts. He details the reasoning that changed his mind, and does so with deep thought, and a childlike attitude, which is so refreshing. So often great thinkers really now longer leave doors open in their minds, and only provide the deep thoughts to find reasoning for what they already believe.

This was a great read, I look forward to reading some of the books, articles and essays he mentioned that helped challenge his beliefs.

for more information click here

The Road Less Traveled By

Several years ago I read Antony Flew's book, "Thinking about Thinking" in its American incarnation (titled "How to Think Straight"). I immediately discerned three things. Flew was (1) a profound thinker, (2) an atheist, and (3) a decent human being. I was so impressed by his intellect that when I reached the last page, I turned back to page one and immediately read the book again.

I have since bought "God and Science" and "Merely Mortal". In "God and Science", Flew weighed the case for the Christian God and found it wanting, and in "Merely Mortal" he decided that there was no life after death. As I understand "There is a God", Flew sticks to both those positions. Flew has found God, but he has found Aristotle's god, the impersonal Unmoved Mover which, like God in Hobbes' "Leviathan" was the first cause of every subsequent effect. Aristotle's god is so ungodly that I have always considered him (Aristotle) the functional equivalent of an atheist. Flew's take on the Christian view of God seems to be as follows: God hasn't been proven to be like that, but it would be nice if he were. I can't say for sure, but I don't think Flew's assessment of the Christian God was any different before he renounced atheism. Flew has always been somewhat of an anomaly among atheists--an atheist who was polite to theists. A wit once said that an evangelical Christian was a fundamentalist with good manners. Flew was an atheist with good manners.

I've read a lot of atheist polemic, and I'm turned off by the ad hominem character of most of their arguments. It puts me in mind of Cicero's old dictum, "When you have no case, abuse the plaintiff". I've also read a lot of fundamentalist polemic which turns me off for the same reason. When an argument generates more heat than light, you have cause to suspect the bona fides of the person making the argument.

A New York Times article maligned Flew's book as the pseudo-scientific product of a "senescent scholar". Flew never claims that his book is science. He says it is philosophy which has been guided by scientific discovery made after he announced his atheism in 1950. I will admit that I had to look "senescent" up in the dictionary. It means "old". Okay. Are we to presume that all Social Security recipients are too dumb to be listened to? The terms "pseudo-science" and "senescent" are examples of subtle ad hominem arguments, designed to appeal to emotion rather than logic. The article engages in several other ad hominem arguments under the guise of factual reporting. I'll mention only one other.

The article suggests that a friend of Flew's, Ray Varghese, is a Christian "autodidact" who exploited poor old senescent Flew in the writing of the book. (I looked up "autodidact". It's a self-educated person. Shame on Varghese for teaching himself). It says on the cover of the book that the two collaborated. How did Varghese exploit Flew? By writing too much of the book? Varghese rebutted the article by admitting that he was responsible for the colorful anecdotes and witty section headings, but maintained that the core thought was through-and-through Flew.

I found this book yesterday afternoon and read it yesterday evening, blissfully ignorant of the controversy. These are the impressions I formed before I became aware of the controversy (I haven't changed them after reading about the controversy):

1. The work is not as rigorously reasoned as previous work by Flew. This was both good and bad. It was easier to read, but not as challenging.

2. The work repeated some recent arguments made by theists (such as the "fine tuning" argument) without subjecting them to the searching inquiry characteristic of Flew's earlier work.

3. The heart and soul of the book is Flew, and it is not that different from the Flew who was an atheist. Flew was always willing to change his mind if someone could show him through rational argument that there was a God. Someone did, and he changed his mind--but not much.

Most people come to God through faith, not reason. Flew has taken the road less traveled by, and that has made quite a difference. He has only approached Theism. You might say that he has come to the strait gate, but he has yet to enter thereby. I respected Flew from my first encounter with him, and this book has increased my respect.

for more information click here