I really want to read “There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind” by Antony Flew.
-
Recent entries
-
Browse popular tags
u -
Meta
I really want to read “There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind” by Antony Flew.
Great review. I really want to read it also!
Lewis had a similar progression – atheist, deist, christian
With Flew being influenced by Wright we may well see a Christian faith emerge soon
I wonder…. by the way, you are 11 words over the word count.
Sorry I get carried away…:)
I wonder how many words a smiley is?
Sorry Hayesy, There Is a God by Antony Flew doesn’t exist. A book of that name does, but Flew didn’t write it.
The basic story is in the Wikipedia article on Flew – search for the second instance of the word “Varghese”. Established Christian apologist Roy Abraham Varghese actually did the writing, as Flew acknowledges in his quote there. Flew agrees with what was written though, or at least says he does, so it’s not a complete misrepresentation.
So if you’re still interested in reading There Is a God by Roy Abraham Varghese, who did not undergo the same public turnaround, go right ahead. I don’t think a book merely about Flew would be nearly as interesting as a real book by Flew.
Hrmm… thanks for pointing that out. It raises the philosophical question: if a book contains what Flew would have written, had he written it, how is it different to being written by him?
The quote you refer to is interesting:
It seems strange to then describe that as a book ‘merely about Flew’. Surely, even if he had authored it, it would have been merely about him, even though now also by him. It still promises to be interesting and enlightening reading, no?
But I detect, I think, a deeper motivation behind that comment. You mean to undermine his ‘conversion’, do you not? (If not, I apologise for misrepresenting you, but if not you then others certainly have.)
I find very interesting the attempts of atheists to cast doubt on his rationality (eg “Or at least says he does”). Why do they feel the need to explain it away? Is it because this threatens their ability to continue vehemently denying the existence of any evidence. One can only actively avoid evidence for so long….
The book may represent his thinking, but it is not the book he would have written. How do I know? He’s been writing science books and philosophical books since 1953. Varghese has been writing religious books exclusively since about 1984. That’s gonna have some effect on the prose, you know. It’s an entirely different voice, even if the message is the same.
I see the book as equivalent to the Ray Charles biopic, Ray. It’s not just written about him, but written from his own perspective, with his blessing. I liked that movie, but just imagine if Ray Charles himself had poured his heart, soul and life story into one incredible last song, and the single had come out just as he died instead of the movie. That’s the difference.
I didn’t intend to impugn Flew’s presence of mind. I know a lot of people, mostly atheists, have questioned his intellectual soundness in his advanced age and his vulnerability to manipulation, but I don’t doubt that he really believes in a creator. He’s a convert, all right, and a real trophy for any evangelists he knew at the time.
It’s true, one can only actively avoid evidence for so long. (Tell that to a young-earth creationist.) Flew’s conversion, however, had very little to do with evidence. He didn’t find proof of a god. He just accepted all the major arguments at once, as written here:
“(a) nature’s obedience to laws; (b) the intelligently organized and purpose-driven nature of life; (c) the very existence of nature (something rather than nothing).”
In other words, the Transcendental, Design and Cosmological Arguments. There are plenty of objections to each. On my site they’re three of the four Great Big Arguments (Flew’s rejected the other, the Ontological Argument) and I’ve ripped into them all. Go find them if you like.
And please, Hayesy, don’t be like all the others and assert the existence of undeniable evidence without actually showing it or linking to it.
Usually when I refer to evidence I link to books containing the particular evidence I was referring to. (Often I offer to post a copy of the book. Strangely, no-one has accepted my offer)
You should show Flew those objections, maybe he hasn’t seen them! (note ironic tone… why do you think he accepts the arguments?)
Oh, and I should have said: SmartLX, you are most welcome here as an amateur philosopher! (re: your asktheatheist comment)
Ta for the welcome. Topic here isn’t philosophy, of course, it’s Flew.
Good approach to evidence, then. Keep it up. I think you’ll generally find that evidence on these subjects isn’t confined to books; if something actually does look like persuasive evidence for or against a religion, it’s all over the Web in a week. Web links are also much quicker to take in.
To use my usual example of the evolution issue, links to individual pages on EvoWiki and/or CreationWiki make excellent jumping-off points. Being wikis they’re not 100% reliable, but they are well-referenced and you can verify them yourself.
The big arguments work because in a general sense, they are convincing. I see glaring issues with them, which is firstly why they didn’t work on me and secondly why I wrote about them, but that doesn’t mean everyone will see the same issues. They may not even be issues to some, or not be issues at all if I’ve got them wrong. Judge for yourself.
Flew sure didn’t have a problem with them. In the case of design, he accepts capital-ID Intelligent Design based at least in part on the irreducible complexity argument by Michael Behe (as part of (b) above). I just can’t agree with him on that.
Only Flew really knows why he accepts the arguments, and what objections to them he’s actually aware of. I know why I don’t accept them. May I ask which ones you accept, and tend to use?