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 | Are these arguments worth to read?

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 63 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

Are these arguments worth to read?

How Atheists mad responses to this book even Anthony Flew himself?

Did Flew "wrote" this book?

Did these arguments worth to read and ponder whether who wrote them?

One things clear this book wrote, "Flew is a Deism" but not a Theist, Its still valid refutes atheism.

"At the outlet I should make one thing clear. When reports of my change of mind were spread by the media and the ubiquitous Internet, some commentators were quick to claim that my advanced age had something to do my "conversion." It has been said that fear concentrates in mind powerfully, and these critics had concluded that expectations of an impending entrance into the afterlife had triggered a deathbed conversion. Clearly these people were familiar with neither my writing on the nonexistence of an afterlife nor with my current views on the topic. For over fifty years I have not simple denied the existence of God, but also the existence of an afterlife. My Gifford Lectures published as the Logic of Mortality represent the culmination of this process of thought. This is one area in which I have not changed my mind." p.2

Take and Read it!

for more information click here

Refreshing, essential book!

This is an excellent, well-written book. I have been waiting for this book since last spring, when I learned of its scheduled release. I had read Flew's interview with Gary Habermas a few years ago (www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm) and was eager to hear the story.

Having read an older debate between then atheist Flew and Habermas regarding the resurrection (Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate), I was impressed with Flew's honesty and intellectual integrity. It is this honesty and integrity that shines so brightly in his most recent book, There Is A God. It is truly refreshing to read a book that is not trying to smooth talk you into buying an agenda. Intellectual honesty is an endangered species. Flew spent most of his accomplished life writing against theism. In a powerful testimony to his willingness to, as he says, "follow the evidence wherever it leads" he has not only changed his position to theism, but has courageously published a book detailing the event.

And that is what this book is: It is a biographical account of Flew's progression from atheism to theism. Though it does contain explanations of the evidences and arguments that he has found convincing, it is not a treatise on arguments for God's existence. Such a treatment would be impossible in the 213 pages of this easy to read book.

Though I was not surprised by Flew's honesty, I was surprised by his apparent openness to further investigation of Christianity.

The book also includes some interesting and powerful critiques of the "new atheism" spearheaded by Dawkins and the like.

All in all, I would highly recommend this book. It is essential reading for the Christian who wrestles with these issues, but should also be of interest to anyone interested in the honest pursuit of the truth.

It is a refreshing and pleasureable read.

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

The Honest Antony Flew Follows the Evidence to Deism

As a Deist, I was very happy when Antony Flew announced that he was no longer an Atheist, but that he had evolved into a Deist. When I heard he had written a book about his journey to Deism I couldn't wait to read it!

The preface to the book is written by the Christian Roy Abraham Varghese. Not once in the preface are the words "Deism" or "Deist" even mentioned. He did a good job, in my opinion, however, examining some of the writings of Atheists like Dawkins who have attacked Antony Flew for honestly and sincerely dropping Atheism for the more reasonable Deism.

I was happy to read the first line written by Mr. Flew found in the introduction that reads, "Ever since the announcement of my 'conversion' to deism, . . ." It's great to see Deism even mentioned! Deism played such an important role in history, it's hard to understand why so few people are even aware there is such a thing as Deism. After all, the US Declaration of Independence was written by the Deist Thomas Jefferson and is a Deistic document in that it only mentions God in Deistic terms, and not in Christian or Biblical terms.

Antony Flew presents himself as a true Deist. He believes that the designs found throughout the known universe presuppose a Designer. That is where Deism begins and ends. All the conflicting "revelations" that the various "revealed" religions add onto that simple and beautiful reason based belief is what causes most of the violence and unrest in the world. People need to realize that revelations are nothing more than imagination.

Atheists seem upset that Mr. Flew has allowed Christians to write the preface and Appendix A and B of his book. Appendix A is by Roy Varghese and deals with Dawkins and the other "new" Atheists. Appendix B is by Bishop N.T. Wright and deals with the question of "self-revelation of God in human history in the person of Jesus Christ." Flew says that Wright's writing on divine self-revelation, "comprise the most powerful case for Christianity that I have ever seen." I can't help but believe Mr. Flew allowed Wright to write Appendix B to demonstrate just how weak Christianity really is. Most of what Wright wrote goes directly against our God given reason!

One point I wish that Mr. Flew had made is how "revelation", that is a direct communication from God to an individual, is in a practical way totally meaningless. The reason it is meaningless is because it can only be a divine revelation in the first case and after that it is mere hearsay. For example, if God told me something directly, that would be a divine revelation. However, when I tell it to anyone else, they have to put their faith, not in God, but in me. They have to believe that I am telling them the truth. And this principle applies to the Bible, Koran and any other book that people claim to be The Word Of God. As Thomas Paine wrote in his powerful and thought provoking book on God, Deism, Christianity and the Bible, The Age of Reason, "That the idea or belief of a Word of God existing in print, or in writing, or in speech, is inconsistent in itself for reasons already assigned. The reasons, among many others, are the want of a universal language; the mutability of language; the errors to which translations are subject; the possibility of totally suppressing such a word; the probability of altering it, or of fabricating the whole, and imposing it upon the world."

Hopefully, Mr. Flew will write another book specifically on Deism which contrasts Deism with Atheism and the various "revealed" relgions.

I welcome Mr. Flew to Deism! He sincerely and intelligently followed the evidence and the evidence brings us to Nature's God!

Robert L. Johnson
http://www.deism.com

for more information click here