 |
There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Antony Flew, Roy Abraham Varghese
Book Summary InformationAuthor: Antony Flew, Roy Abraham Varghese Edition: Hardcover Audio: English (Unknown); English (Original Language); English (Published) Published: 2007-10-23 ISBN: 0061335290 Number of pages: 222 Publisher: HarperOne
Book Reviews of There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindBook Review: "Flew's Last Will and Final Testament" Summary: 5 Stars
As Antony Flew says in the introduction of the book,-- "I have now been persuaded to present here what might be called my last will and final testament"(page 1)--. This book was very enjoyable, my only complaint is that it is only 200 pages. I read it in only 3 days.
Since not very many reviewers have cited passages from the book I thought I would do so, it give people considering this book a taste of what it is like. I wanted to also show that Flew had a major contributions of dictating what he wanted in the book. The book strongly follows the Socratic Principle that strongly points to Flew.
It's interesting that his age was brought up right after the book came out since Flew deals with this issue in the Introduction of his book on (page 2)"When reports of my change of mind were spread by the media...some commentators were quick to claim that my advanced age had something to do with my "conversion".
Part 1 of the book deals with Flew's early life and embracement of atheism. To show that Flew clearly provided information for the book there are some points that Flew makes which only Flew would know. On (page 23) Flew talks about a walk home after watching a C.S. Lewis debate against Elizabeth Anscombe.-- "I still remember being a memeber of a small group of friends returning together from that great debate, walking directly behind Anscombe and her party. She was exultant, and her friends were equally exultant. Immediately in front of this party C.S. Lewis trod alone, walking as rapidly as he could to refuge in his rooms in Magdalen College, just off the bridge we were all crossing." -- I quote this because this is strikingly an accurate discription of someone who provided the information for this book. He also says that despite rumors that C.S. Lewis felt very defeated that night he ate dinner with Lewis and others a few weeks later and said,-- "nor Professor Jack Bennett remembered any such feelings on Lewis' part...I am inclined to construe the odd accounts of the matter by some of his friends...as an interesting example of the phenomenon called "projection".-- (page 24) Flew also calls with great detail the first time he met his wife. He obviously was not tricked into writing this book.
Part 1 also deals with much of his famous works and clarifies what he intended with them, and tries to explain who many atheists often misinterpret his work. I will cite one example that stuck with me because I am a double major in Biology and Religion at the University of Hawaii, and in my religion class my textbook in Philosophy of Religion tried to use Flew's "Theology and Falsification" paper as saying all religious language means' and asserts nothing. It seems my professor and the professor who wrote my book thought that is what he meant, but Flew clears this up in his book on (page 44 and 45),--"Although my intention in raising these questions seems clear, I have repeatedly encountered claims that I was expounding my views about the meaning-or often the meaninglessness-of all religious language...I was explicitly appealing to... and relying upon the notorious verification principle of the old original Vienna Circle of logical positivists-that the only statements that could be verified using the methods of sciences were meaningful.",-- and again -- " I was not offering any comprehensive doctrine about all religious belief or religious language. I was not saying that statements of religious belief were meaningless. I simply challenged believers to explain how their statements were to be understood, especially in the light of conflicting data."-- So in other words he wanted religion to be more apologetic, which is what Flew did end up doing anyways, since Flew's arguements facilitated the rebirth of rational theism in analytic philosophy.
Flew also believed his paper completely refuted the Vienna Circle logical positivists as he says on (page 24-25)-- "During my last term at Oxford...A.J Ayers's book..persuaded many members of the Socratic Club that Ayerian heresy of logical positivism-the contention that all religious propositions are without cognitive significance-had to be refuted..."Theology and Falsification" provided what I considered to be a sufficient refutation. I believed I had achieved total victory and there was no futher room for debate."--
Part II deals with the arguments that persuaded him to deism (a form of theism) and why he no longer agrees with the atheist position. Here are some passages. (page 88-89) are very persuasive,-- " Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is that nature obeys (rational) laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. Third is the very existence of of nature. But it is not science alone that has guided me. I have also been helped by a renewed study of classical philosophical arguments....When I came recoginize the existence of a God, it was not a paradigm shift, because my paradigm remains the same, as Plato in his Republic scripted his Socrates to insist:"We must follow the argument wherever it leads."-- In the book he also revises some of his thoughts on David Hume's arguments.
Flew also says he always disagreed with some atheist arguements like Bertrand Russell's views on conscious thought. He says he disagrees with Bertrand Russell's claim he quoted in "An Introduction to Western Philosophy". He quoted Russell as saying,-- "perception gives us no immediate knowledge of a physical object."-- Flew says,--"If this were true, I said, then there is no such thing as perception. And since the scientists do and must rely for the ultimate vindication of their discoveries upon direct observation.."-- (page 37)
Flew also says why his "Presumption of Atheism" is wrong. Flew in chapter 8 said he began to reconsider his position of God as early as the 80's because in his Presumption of Atheism he was assuming the universe was eternal or infinite. He wrote it before the big-bang discoveries. So Flew's position change has been long coming, it seems. He even admits he was doubting his atheism long before he announced it. Since the Universe had a beginning and the laws of nature are so finely-tuned and rational he says this on (page 112) that ,--"Those scientists (Einstein,Newton,Boyle,Hawking,Davies,Plank,etc.) who point to the Mind of God do not merely advance a series of arguements or processes of sylogistic reasoning. Rather, they propound a vision of reality that emerges from conceptual heart of modern science and imposes itself on the rational mind. It is a vision that I personally find compelling and irrefutable." --
Basically he is saying that the Universe is rational, we are rational beings and can understand that rationality. In our experience rationality, comes only from rational beings, so the rationality in the universe came from a rational mind, the Mind of God. Flew said he was hard pressed to give an explanation of rationality apart from a rational mind. Probably because to say a non-rational force created a rational universe goes against everything in the second step in the scientific method of observing rationality coming into existence, from rational minds only.
I think that is enough, the book is very well written and I enjoyed it very much. I highly recommend it to anyone with a rational and open mind. I also enjoyed learning about Flew's life it gives you a better understanding of his arguments and was important to the book. N.T Wright's contribution was awesome as well. I like much of Wright's work, I find his points very hard to refute.
I think enough has been said in other reviews that Flew did in fact have Roy Varghese write what he wanted in the book. He was not tricked or manipulated into writing this book. If you read the book you will see why and you will also find it highly enjoyable!
|
 |
|
|
|