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

Antony Flew (1923-2010) was the son of a Wesleyan Methodist preacher. His mind was never enchanted by Christian study or worship. During family visits to Germany prior to WWII, Antony was exposed to anti-Semitism and totalitarianism. He found these evils to be incompatible with the idea of a good and all-powerful God. He became an atheist at fifteen years of age. While studying philosophy at Oxford (1946-1950), Antony learned the critical importance of correct verbal usage, which provides our only access to understanding concepts. He remembered admiring his father and other biblical scholars study some peculiar Old Testament concept by collecting and examining all available usages of the relevant Hebrew word. In May 2004, after 66 years of atheism, Flew announced at a debate that he accepted the existence of a God. Alvin Plantinga later said, “It speaks very well of Professor Flew's honesty. After all these years of opposing the idea of a Creator, he reverses his position on the basis of evidence.” Indeed, Flew credits this change to a lifelong commitment he always had to “follow the argument no matter where it leads.” Flew says that his discovery of the Divine was a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith. He made his conclusions on a purely natural level, without any connection to organized religions. From a philosophical standpoint, he was most influenced by David Conway's “The Recovery of Wisdom: From Here to Antiquity in Quest of Sophia” in which he said, “In sum, to the Being whom he considered to be the explanation of the world, Aristotle ascribed the following attributes: immutability, immateriality, omnipotence, omniscience, oneness of indivisibility, perfect goodness and necessary existence. There is an impressive correspondence between this set of attributes and those traditionally ascribed to God within the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is one that fully justifies us in viewing Aristotle as having had the same Divine Being in mind as the cause of the world that is the object of worship as the cause of the world that is the object of worship of these two religions.” Flew says that, as Conway sees it, the God of the monotheistic religions has the same attributes as the God of Aristotle, and could be discovered by “unaided human reason.” Flew had not acknowledged the Christian God, the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Neither did he acknowledge the revelation from the Bible, that God can only be known through His revealing Himself to us, and not through our human reasoning. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “My message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would NOT REST ON THE WISDOM OF MEN, but on the power of God...We speak the wisdom not of this age nor of the rulers of this age...We speak God's wisdom in a mystery...For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God...The thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 1:4-11). Flew did say, however, that regarding the Christian claim that God became man in the person of Jesus Christ, no other religion enjoys anything like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. “If you're wanting omniscience to set up a religion, it seems to me this is the one to beat!” Flew says that he sought to answer 3 questions: 1) How did the laws of nature come about? 2) How did life originate from non-life? 3) How did the universe come into existence? WHAT ARE LAWS OF NATURE? A law of nature is anything that occurs with regularity and symmetry in nature. These regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and “tied together.” Boyle's Law says that given constant temperature, the product of the volume and pressure of a fixed quantity of an ideal gas is constant. The Law of the Conservation of Energy says that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. Many prominent scientists have regarded the laws of nature as thoughts of the Mind of God. THE MIND OF GOD In “A Brief History of Time,” Stephen Hawking said, “If we discover a complete theory...of why it is that we and the universe exist, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason. For then we should know the mind of God.” Einstein did not believe in a personal God. However, in “The Quotable Einstein,” he did say, “My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the comprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” In “The Autobiography of Charles Darwin,” Darwin said, “[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking backwards and far into the future, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look for a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man and I deserve to be called a Theist.” In his book, “The Divine Lawmaker: Lectures on Induction, Laws of Nature and the Existence of God,” John Foster says that regularities in nature are best explained by a divine Mind. Paul Davies, a physicist and cosmologist, says, “Science is based on the assumption that the universe is thoroughly rational and logical at all levels. Atheists claim that the laws of nature exist reasonlessly and that the universe is ultimately absurd. As a scientist, I find this hard to accept. There must be an unchanging rational ground in which the logical, orderly nature of the universe is rooted.” THE FINE-TUNING ARGUMENT (ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE) The laws of nature seem to have been crafted so as to move the universe toward the emergence and sustenance of life. This is the anthropic principle, popularized by such thinkers as Martin Rees, John Barrow, and John Leslie. If the value of even one of the fundamental constants – the speed of light or the mass of an electron, for example – had been to the slightest degree different, then no planet capable of permitting the evolution of human life could have been formed. John Leslie argues that fine tuning is best explained by divine design. Examples include: 1. The principle of special relativity ensures that forces such as electromagnetism have an invariable effect regardless of whether they act at right angles to a system's direction of travel. This enables the genetic codes to work and planets to hold together when rotating. 2. Quantum laws prevent electrons from spiraling into atomic nuclei. 3. Electromagnetism has one-force strength, which enables multiple key processes to take place. It allows stars to burn steadily for billions of years. It enable carbon synthesis in stars. It ensures that leptons do not replace quarks, which would have made atoms impossible. It is responsible for protons not decaying too fast or repelling each other too strongly, which would have made chemistry impossible. How is it possible for the same one-force strength to satisfy so many different requirements, when it seems that different strengths would be required for each one of these processes? Other scientists try to explain fine tuning with the theory of multiple parallel universes, or multiverses. But if we are trying to understand why the universe is bio-friendly, we are not helped by being told that all possible universes exist! Richard Swinburne says, “It is crazy to postulate a trillion universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity, God, will do the job. There is currently no evidence in support of a multiverse. LIFE vs. NON-LIFE Life is (1) teleological (having built-in purposes), (2) self-reproductive, and (3) has “coded chemistry.” The genetic message in DNA is duplicated in replication and then copied from DNA to RNA in transcription. Following this there is translation whereby the message from RNA is conveyed to the amino acids, and finally amino acids are assembled into proteins. The cell's two different structures of information management and chemical activity are coordinated by the universal genetic code. Paul Davies says we need to explain the origin of this information, and the way in which the information processing machinery came to exist. A gene is nothing but a set of coded instructions with a precise recipe for manufacturing proteins. These genetic instructions are not the kind of information you find in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Rather, they constitute semantic information that have specific meaning. These instructions can only be effective in a molecular environment capable of interpreting the meaning of genetic code. The question is, “How did meaningful semantic information emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind and purposeless forces?” PROTOBIOLOGISTS DON'T KNOW HOW LIFE BEGAN Andy Knoll, author of “Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Life,” says, “We don't know how life started on this planet. We don't know exactly when it started, and we don't know under what circumstances.” Antonio Lazcano, president of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life, reports, “Life could not have evolved without a genetic mechanism, one able to store, replicate, and transmit to its progeny information that can change with time. Precisely how the first genetic machinery evolved is an unresolved issue. The exact pathway for life's origin may never be known.” John Maddox, the editor emeritus of “Nature,” writes, “The overriding question is when and then how sexual reproduction itself evolved. We do not know.” There is no law of nature that instructs matter to produce end-directed, self-replicating entities. George Wald, the Nobel Prize-winning physiologist, said, So how do we account for the origin of life? “We choose to believe the impossible. That live arose spontaneously by chance.” Later in life, he concluded, “It is mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life.” THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Richard Swinburne summarizes the cosmological argument: “It is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but rather more likely that God would exist uncaused.” AN INCORPOREAL OMNIPRESENT SPIRIT In his book, “God and Philosophy,” atheist Flew argued that a “person without a body” seemed nonsensical. Later, Thomas Tracy argued in his books “God, Action and Embodiment” and “The God Who Acts” how it is possible to be a person without a body. Tracy considers persons, human and divine, to be agents that can act intentionally. If this is true, then a body is not necessary for being an agent. God can be identified through the way He acts. He is a radically self-creative agent who is the omnipotent creator of all things. God also loves in concrete ways. Since His mode of life and powers of action are fundamentally different than ours, then so will be His love and patience and wisdom. He exists outside time and space, since He is not corporeal, while at the same time acting intentionally within time and space. Flew concludes that his pilgrimage of reason, and following the argument to where it takes him, has led him to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being.

I am a member of Skeptics.com ,not because I am a atheist, but because I like to read what unbelieving people write and talk about. I think if the skeptics would read this book the ones with open minds might learn something. This book is about a man that choose to be an atheist at an early age but also choose "to follow the argument wherever it went" and after fifty years the argument lead him to realize that the only logical way to view the world, people, and the universe was through the knowledge that God did all this. Evolution just does not make sense. It did not make sense when I was in the seventh grade and it has not made sense every day since. Atheism does not make sense. So if you want to read a book that shows how a real free thinker came to the conclusion that there is a God, this is a great book.

To a degree, There Is a God delivers on what it claims to do: reveal how the former atheist, Anthony Flew, was led to belief in God. The problem is that this revelation lacks depth and power; in fact, there is scant evidence for why Mr. Flew actually converted to theism in the first place. (And when he does briefly explain, it notably has little to do with faith). What you are left with are bland arguments and rebuttals that certainly work for a semi-autobiographical account for Mr. Flew, but lack the captivating influence to persuade the curious reader. I say this not as an atheist that was “unimpressed” but rather a theist who was just simply bored with most of the book. There is a God doesn’t really get going until page 50 or so. Until then, the book reads like an autobiographical account of Mr. Flew’s upbringing with analysis of the factors that shaped his prior worldview. The author tells us what motivates him on page 81: “the pursuit of valid arguments with true conclusions.” The reason why Flew ascended to belief begins on page 95. The reader is then led on a pilgrimage of reason that sequentially examines different arguments (e.g. cosmological, teleological, fine-tuning, the flaws of Darwinism) for God’s existence that also poke holes in alternative, atheistic arguments. Indeed, Flew does a splendid job of rebutting Hume’s formulation of causality as he relates it to moral, non-physical phenomenon (starting on pg. 60). Appendix A, written by Roy Varghese, is a delightful and quick synopsis of how the “new atheists” fail to address some of the most basic tenets of human existence. Appendix B is a dialogue with N. T. Wright and details a factual synopsis for the historicity of the New Testament and the sufficiency of explanation of the resurrection for the empty tomb and the eyewitness testimony detailed in the Gospels. Overall, less the Appendices, I felt underwhelmed by this book and I think most readers will do just fine without it (unless, of course, you have burning interest in the life and scholarly work of Anthony Flew).

This an pretty amazing story by a REALLY smart guy about his intellectual journey. His continual references about "going where the evidence leads" brought me to include he had a high level of intellectual honesty and it must have taken a bit of courage to write a book like this after 50 years of professing atheism. Great read!

This is a very helpful book for me as I had long looked for a book explaining atheism. I did not find the accounts of atheism written by the "New Atheists" particularly helpful. This book, written by a serious scholar who was an atheist, was very helpful. Ths is not to say I understood everything here or its significance, but it all part of a process of learning for me. Since there are already ample reviews of the details of the book on Amazon by both those who found it helpful and those who didn't, I will not go into that. I will say that I am not much familiar with the atheist arguments, and thus found the book at points hard to understand. But some things did sink in and were helpful to consider. The two Appendices are both excellent. Slowly, I'm beginning to understand the atheist argument, and do not find it convincing or appealing (Appendix A). And Appendix B on the "Self-Revelation of God in Human History" was also very helpful. I was and remain a theist, and really something much more--a convinced Catholic. This has brought me much joy and hope. Before I began my 40+ year conversion and walk with Christ, my life certainly was what I came to see as somewhat empty and desperate. Books such as this one have helped me, and continue to help me, on my journey with Christ. I recommend this book for those who want to know more about the Christian message and its significance in a person's life.

Though the author doesn't come out and accept God/Christ as his Lord, he does provide an intelectual and logical case that the incomprehensible complexity of our life form could have happened by any other means other than Intelligent Design...well worth the read

Very insightful. While he didn't become a Christian, the influence of C.S. Lewis and NT Wright, in particular, are especially interesting. As a student of logic, I found his faithfulness to the socratic method honest and credible in guiding him away from a-theism as the mostly likely truth. Easy to read and vulnerable from this brilliant mind!

For a philosophical genius, Flew is very real and readable. A true academic, a man of integrity and fairness takes you on a lifelong jo

In short, Antony Flew dismantled and exposed the fragile new atheism in this book. He exposed how new atheism has no legs to stand on. He exposed that atheists intentionally avoid critical questions that would indicate the existence of an immaterial being, a Creator. He addressed life, consciousness, thought, and the self and how they are transcendent to the materialistic world. He addressed how Dawkins among other atheists were self-contradictory.

This book is honest, intelligent, challenging, inspiring, and educational. The first chapters are philosophical and a bit difficult for the lay person to follow; but manageable. The following chapters lay out an irreducible conclusion that leaves you standing up and saying, "YES!" It is worth the read and be ready to be transformed to the philosophical world of great thinkers, great minds of science, and by the time you reach the end of the book maybe, just maybe.... you'll be able to detect a Voice saying, ... "can you hear Me now ? ! "

Antony Flew (1923-2010) was the son of a Wesleyan Methodist preacher. His mind was never enchanted by Christian study or worship. During family visits to Germany prior to WWII, Antony was exposed to anti-Semitism and totalitarianism. He found these evils to be incompatible with the idea of a good and all-powerful God. He became an atheist at fifteen years of age. While studying philosophy at Oxford (1946-1950), Antony learned the critical importance of correct verbal usage, which provides our only access to understanding concepts. He remembered admiring his father and other biblical scholars study some peculiar Old Testament concept by collecting and examining all available usages of the relevant Hebrew word. In May 2004, after 66 years of atheism, Flew announced at a debate that he accepted the existence of a God. Alvin Plantinga later said, “It speaks very well of Professor Flew's honesty. After all these years of opposing the idea of a Creator, he reverses his position on the basis of evidence.” Indeed, Flew credits this change to a lifelong commitment he always had to “follow the argument no matter where it leads.” Flew says that his discovery of the Divine was a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith. He made his conclusions on a purely natural level, without any connection to organized religions. From a philosophical standpoint, he was most influenced by David Conway's “The Recovery of Wisdom: From Here to Antiquity in Quest of Sophia” in which he said, “In sum, to the Being whom he considered to be the explanation of the world, Aristotle ascribed the following attributes: immutability, immateriality, omnipotence, omniscience, oneness of indivisibility, perfect goodness and necessary existence. There is an impressive correspondence between this set of attributes and those traditionally ascribed to God within the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is one that fully justifies us in viewing Aristotle as having had the same Divine Being in mind as the cause of the world that is the object of worship as the cause of the world that is the object of worship of these two religions.” Flew says that, as Conway sees it, the God of the monotheistic religions has the same attributes as the God of Aristotle, and could be discovered by “unaided human reason.” Flew had not acknowledged the Christian God, the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Neither did he acknowledge the revelation from the Bible, that God can only be known through His revealing Himself to us, and not through our human reasoning. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “My message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would NOT REST ON THE WISDOM OF MEN, but on the power of God...We speak the wisdom not of this age nor of the rulers of this age...We speak God's wisdom in a mystery...For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God...The thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 1:4-11). Flew did say, however, that regarding the Christian claim that God became man in the person of Jesus Christ, no other religion enjoys anything like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. “If you're wanting omniscience to set up a religion, it seems to me this is the one to beat!” Flew says that he sought to answer 3 questions: 1) How did the laws of nature come about? 2) How did life originate from non-life? 3) How did the universe come into existence? WHAT ARE LAWS OF NATURE? A law of nature is anything that occurs with regularity and symmetry in nature. These regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and “tied together.” Boyle's Law says that given constant temperature, the product of the volume and pressure of a fixed quantity of an ideal gas is constant. The Law of the Conservation of Energy says that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. Many prominent scientists have regarded the laws of nature as thoughts of the Mind of God. THE MIND OF GOD In “A Brief History of Time,” Stephen Hawking said, “If we discover a complete theory...of why it is that we and the universe exist, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason. For then we should know the mind of God.” Einstein did not believe in a personal God. However, in “The Quotable Einstein,” he did say, “My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the comprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” In “The Autobiography of Charles Darwin,” Darwin said, “[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking backwards and far into the future, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look for a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man and I deserve to be called a Theist.” In his book, “The Divine Lawmaker: Lectures on Induction, Laws of Nature and the Existence of God,” John Foster says that regularities in nature are best explained by a divine Mind. Paul Davies, a physicist and cosmologist, says, “Science is based on the assumption that the universe is thoroughly rational and logical at all levels. Atheists claim that the laws of nature exist reasonlessly and that the universe is ultimately absurd. As a scientist, I find this hard to accept. There must be an unchanging rational ground in which the logical, orderly nature of the universe is rooted.” THE FINE-TUNING ARGUMENT (ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE) The laws of nature seem to have been crafted so as to move the universe toward the emergence and sustenance of life. This is the anthropic principle, popularized by such thinkers as Martin Rees, John Barrow, and John Leslie. If the value of even one of the fundamental constants – the speed of light or the mass of an electron, for example – had been to the slightest degree different, then no planet capable of permitting the evolution of human life could have been formed. John Leslie argues that fine tuning is best explained by divine design. Examples include: 1. The principle of special relativity ensures that forces such as electromagnetism have an invariable effect regardless of whether they act at right angles to a system's direction of travel. This enables the genetic codes to work and planets to hold together when rotating. 2. Quantum laws prevent electrons from spiraling into atomic nuclei. 3. Electromagnetism has one-force strength, which enables multiple key processes to take place. It allows stars to burn steadily for billions of years. It enable carbon synthesis in stars. It ensures that leptons do not replace quarks, which would have made atoms impossible. It is responsible for protons not decaying too fast or repelling each other too strongly, which would have made chemistry impossible. How is it possible for the same one-force strength to satisfy so many different requirements, when it seems that different strengths would be required for each one of these processes? Other scientists try to explain fine tuning with the theory of multiple parallel universes, or multiverses. But if we are trying to understand why the universe is bio-friendly, we are not helped by being told that all possible universes exist! Richard Swinburne says, “It is crazy to postulate a trillion universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity, God, will do the job. There is currently no evidence in support of a multiverse. LIFE vs. NON-LIFE Life is (1) teleological (having built-in purposes), (2) self-reproductive, and (3) has “coded chemistry.” The genetic message in DNA is duplicated in replication and then copied from DNA to RNA in transcription. Following this there is translation whereby the message from RNA is conveyed to the amino acids, and finally amino acids are assembled into proteins. The cell's two different structures of information management and chemical activity are coordinated by the universal genetic code. Paul Davies says we need to explain the origin of this information, and the way in which the information processing machinery came to exist. A gene is nothing but a set of coded instructions with a precise recipe for manufacturing proteins. These genetic instructions are not the kind of information you find in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Rather, they constitute semantic information that have specific meaning. These instructions can only be effective in a molecular environment capable of interpreting the meaning of genetic code. The question is, “How did meaningful semantic information emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind and purposeless forces?” PROTOBIOLOGISTS DON'T KNOW HOW LIFE BEGAN Andy Knoll, author of “Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Life,” says, “We don't know how life started on this planet. We don't know exactly when it started, and we don't know under what circumstances.” Antonio Lazcano, president of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life, reports, “Life could not have evolved without a genetic mechanism, one able to store, replicate, and transmit to its progeny information that can change with time. Precisely how the first genetic machinery evolved is an unresolved issue. The exact pathway for life's origin may never be known.” John Maddox, the editor emeritus of “Nature,” writes, “The overriding question is when and then how sexual reproduction itself evolved. We do not know.” There is no law of nature that instructs matter to produce end-directed, self-replicating entities. George Wald, the Nobel Prize-winning physiologist, said, So how do we account for the origin of life? “We choose to believe the impossible. That live arose spontaneously by chance.” Later in life, he concluded, “It is mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life.” THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Richard Swinburne summarizes the cosmological argument: “It is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but rather more likely that God would exist uncaused.” AN INCORPOREAL OMNIPRESENT SPIRIT In his book, “God and Philosophy,” atheist Flew argued that a “person without a body” seemed nonsensical. Later, Thomas Tracy argued in his books “God, Action and Embodiment” and “The God Who Acts” how it is possible to be a person without a body. Tracy considers persons, human and divine, to be agents that can act intentionally. If this is true, then a body is not necessary for being an agent. God can be identified through the way He acts. He is a radically self-creative agent who is the omnipotent creator of all things. God also loves in concrete ways. Since His mode of life and powers of action are fundamentally different than ours, then so will be His love and patience and wisdom. He exists outside time and space, since He is not corporeal, while at the same time acting intentionally within time and space. Flew concludes that his pilgrimage of reason, and following the argument to where it takes him, has led him to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being.

I am a member of Skeptics.com ,not because I am a atheist, but because I like to read what unbelieving people write and talk about. I think if the skeptics would read this book the ones with open minds might learn something. This book is about a man that choose to be an atheist at an early age but also choose "to follow the argument wherever it went" and after fifty years the argument lead him to realize that the only logical way to view the world, people, and the universe was through the knowledge that God did all this. Evolution just does not make sense. It did not make sense when I was in the seventh grade and it has not made sense every day since. Atheism does not make sense. So if you want to read a book that shows how a real free thinker came to the conclusion that there is a God, this is a great book.

To a degree, There Is a God delivers on what it claims to do: reveal how the former atheist, Anthony Flew, was led to belief in God. The problem is that this revelation lacks depth and power; in fact, there is scant evidence for why Mr. Flew actually converted to theism in the first place. (And when he does briefly explain, it notably has little to do with faith). What you are left with are bland arguments and rebuttals that certainly work for a semi-autobiographical account for Mr. Flew, but lack the captivating influence to persuade the curious reader. I say this not as an atheist that was “unimpressed” but rather a theist who was just simply bored with most of the book. There is a God doesn’t really get going until page 50 or so. Until then, the book reads like an autobiographical account of Mr. Flew’s upbringing with analysis of the factors that shaped his prior worldview. The author tells us what motivates him on page 81: “the pursuit of valid arguments with true conclusions.” The reason why Flew ascended to belief begins on page 95. The reader is then led on a pilgrimage of reason that sequentially examines different arguments (e.g. cosmological, teleological, fine-tuning, the flaws of Darwinism) for God’s existence that also poke holes in alternative, atheistic arguments. Indeed, Flew does a splendid job of rebutting Hume’s formulation of causality as he relates it to moral, non-physical phenomenon (starting on pg. 60). Appendix A, written by Roy Varghese, is a delightful and quick synopsis of how the “new atheists” fail to address some of the most basic tenets of human existence. Appendix B is a dialogue with N. T. Wright and details a factual synopsis for the historicity of the New Testament and the sufficiency of explanation of the resurrection for the empty tomb and the eyewitness testimony detailed in the Gospels. Overall, less the Appendices, I felt underwhelmed by this book and I think most readers will do just fine without it (unless, of course, you have burning interest in the life and scholarly work of Anthony Flew).

This an pretty amazing story by a REALLY smart guy about his intellectual journey. His continual references about "going where the evidence leads" brought me to include he had a high level of intellectual honesty and it must have taken a bit of courage to write a book like this after 50 years of professing atheism. Great read!

This is a very helpful book for me as I had long looked for a book explaining atheism. I did not find the accounts of atheism written by the "New Atheists" particularly helpful. This book, written by a serious scholar who was an atheist, was very helpful. Ths is not to say I understood everything here or its significance, but it all part of a process of learning for me. Since there are already ample reviews of the details of the book on Amazon by both those who found it helpful and those who didn't, I will not go into that. I will say that I am not much familiar with the atheist arguments, and thus found the book at points hard to understand. But some things did sink in and were helpful to consider. The two Appendices are both excellent. Slowly, I'm beginning to understand the atheist argument, and do not find it convincing or appealing (Appendix A). And Appendix B on the "Self-Revelation of God in Human History" was also very helpful. I was and remain a theist, and really something much more--a convinced Catholic. This has brought me much joy and hope. Before I began my 40+ year conversion and walk with Christ, my life certainly was what I came to see as somewhat empty and desperate. Books such as this one have helped me, and continue to help me, on my journey with Christ. I recommend this book for those who want to know more about the Christian message and its significance in a person's life.

Though the author doesn't come out and accept God/Christ as his Lord, he does provide an intelectual and logical case that the incomprehensible complexity of our life form could have happened by any other means other than Intelligent Design...well worth the read

Very insightful. While he didn't become a Christian, the influence of C.S. Lewis and NT Wright, in particular, are especially interesting. As a student of logic, I found his faithfulness to the socratic method honest and credible in guiding him away from a-theism as the mostly likely truth. Easy to read and vulnerable from this brilliant mind!

For a philosophical genius, Flew is very real and readable. A true academic, a man of integrity and fairness takes you on a lifelong jo

In short, Antony Flew dismantled and exposed the fragile new atheism in this book. He exposed how new atheism has no legs to stand on. He exposed that atheists intentionally avoid critical questions that would indicate the existence of an immaterial being, a Creator. He addressed life, consciousness, thought, and the self and how they are transcendent to the materialistic world. He addressed how Dawkins among other atheists were self-contradictory.

This book is honest, intelligent, challenging, inspiring, and educational. The first chapters are philosophical and a bit difficult for the lay person to follow; but manageable. The following chapters lay out an irreducible conclusion that leaves you standing up and saying, "YES!" It is worth the read and be ready to be transformed to the philosophical world of great thinkers, great minds of science, and by the time you reach the end of the book maybe, just maybe.... you'll be able to detect a Voice saying, ... "can you hear Me now ? ! "

if biological evolution is rationally, scientifically and physically* impossible then HOW did we 'get' here? The REAL 'missing link' isn't the nearest chimp or shrew - it's the "branch" of plants - mineral - veg Oh, and gasses. *There's this pesky little law of entropy...

This is a fairly readable account of an atheists transition and gradual acceptance of deism. Apparently Antony Flew did not become a Christian, but in the mind of secular atheists, he did defect to the other side. The author presents philosophical concepts and arguments in an accessible way, from an author who spent a lifetime toying with the semantics of academic language. Flew's conversion reflects the growing strength of creationist arguments in the light of recent scientific discovery and his commitment to "follow where the evidence leads". Some of these are: where does DNA come from? What is the origin of genetic coding? Why is the universe so finely-tuned for life? The fact that there is no naturalistic explanation for how non-living matter could've developed into self-replicating living biological organisms is not only a deep problem for atheists, it is an elementary realization. The conclusion of this book mirrors something written in about AD56. In the book of Romans 1:20 we read: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse".

A great read on how one of the worlds leading atheists had changed his "mind". A definite must read for those whose thoughts often drift towards the question of Gods existence

Dear God please forgive me You’re my witness You know, only you know.. Please reward me One day you will be my judge and I will let out all these tears and ask you for my payback

A highly readable tour through all the rational arguments against and for belief in God by the 20th Century’s leading atheist. Who when he thought it through, changed his mind

Nothing he said left me feeling enlightened. Perhaps I'm too well-read, but nothing he says was a surprise. Not work the read.

This book is one of required books for my class. Few years ago, I read this book with my friends to shear thoughts. It’s really good to the group bible study and share ideas for God.

My wife really enjoyed this book and easy to read, more like having a conversation with the author.

I'm an agnostic and was interested in why Antony Flew changed his mind about atheism.

This used book was advertised as in "Good" condition. However, the book came with internal markings throughout, including highlighting and handwriting. At best, this book should have been advertised as "Acceptable." Had it been so described, I would not have bought it. Buyer beware of this Seller!

The book was in excellent condition. Though it is a used book, It doesn't look like anyone read it. I studied Flew back in the early 70's and will really enjoy reading this book and referencing his beliefs from before his declaring there is a God.

Just finished this book and found it fascinating. It is not a case per se for Christianity, although there are many interesting intimations. Rather, it is a lifelong philosopher's description of his change of mind, and the reasons therefore. Antony Flew started out with a famous paper on atheism read to CS Lewis's "Socratic Club" at Oxford, an organization chaired by Lewis and dedicated to an ongoing dialogue between Christians and atheists, with the Socratic dedication to "follow the evidence wherever it leads." Flew dedicated his life to this principle, as this book explains. It is full of thought, loaded with arguments on both sides, and has many interesting quotes and anecdotes, including an extremely touching observation about Bertrand Russell, by his daughter. Einstein, today's' atheists, and more! A great read. Some of the reviewers wish the book were longer, which is itself a tribute. It is an honest account of an intelligent and sincere man's change of mind, and his reasons.

A very honest and good written book.

Great book for Christian Apologetics.

A succinct and engagingly written argument on the most fundamental of questions usually inadequately argued by most others. PHILOSOPHY 101 for anyone seriously asking the question ‘is there a God?

Flew was a brilliant philosopher. His investigation of, and search for, truth is laid out here logically and reasonably. Totally recommend this one.

Easy to read.

I found this book to be a rather mixed bag, offering both positives and negatives. To start with the positive, Flew provides a convenient summary of compelling arguments which might sway a science-oriented reader towards some conception of a "God" which accounts for our modern scientific understanding. However, to be clear, this God is rather abstract and vague, and is along the lines of some sort of Mind rather than anything resembling a personal God. In this regard, the book doesn't really offer support for Christianity (contrary to what some reviewers suggest), and in fact the opposite could be argued. Now to the main negatives: 1. The writing quality is uneven and sometimes poor, and the book could be better organized overall. There's unnecessary repetition, and the more subtle concepts are sometimes brushed over too quickly. I actually found Varghese's writing to be generally better than Flew's. 2. Many of the arguments which aren't science-based come from the tradition of analytic philosophy, and I found them often dry and overly technical. 3. There's not much that's really original in the book, and perhaps it makes more sense to instead read firsthand the sources Flew references. 4. I was rather unimpressed by the appendix written by Wright, and I was surprised and dismayed by Flew's semi-endorsement of it. On the basis of this flimsy essay, Flew suggests that Christianity is "the one to beat" as religions go, yet he makes no comparisons with other religions, nor even evidences any real knowledge about them. In fact, if one wants to use the kinds of arguments Wright makes, a stronger case could probably be made for Islam than Christianity. As I said, the book has both positive and negative points, so I can give it 3 stars. I notice that I'm one of very few reviewers giving that intermediate rating, so this book has apparently elicited a polarized response, probably along the lines of the views readers brought to the book in the first place. In other words, the book has probably changed few minds. Given my mediocre rating, it's hard to recommend the book. However, readers who are really interested in this topic, or who are fans of Flew, may find it worthwhile, and it's a quick read, so not much time needs to be invested. A much better book I can strongly recommend is

Gift

Great book. Atheist comes to theism via reason, but makes distinction that it’s not by faith. Wonderful ‘taste’ of philosophy headliners on the topic. Fast and easy read, but very impactful.

The author used common sense arguments for the existence of God. The book has many difficult words and might not be a fun book to read for weak English Language user.

An amazing story of a person who examined the evidence with an open mind and realized that belief in God is rational and is the best explanation for the facts.

Antony Flew's intellectual honesty and humility is refreshing. I enjoyed learning about his journey and his line of reasoning. Highly recommend this book.

I would recommend buying this book. The reasons it is worth your time are the following: the breadth of arguments that led Flew to conclude a god must exist are displayed. Then, the fact that Flew is well read so even though this book is short, it provides the names of major players in the debates. Someone who is interested in further reading can easily use this to actually learn about the discussions. Third, it challenges the church to offer a good reason for the faith we hold rather than giving blank looks. Fourth, Flew shows that populist reasoning has little to do with his decision to change. Fifth, Antony Flew opens up dialogue with NT Wright and others, which is always a healthy thing. On the benefit to a believer spending hours reading so as to give an answer: --Flew grew up with friends and teachers who could not provide an answer to the problem of evil that seemed reasonable. In the US, this is a good challenge to the church to be better equipped. I think the weakness of the book is Flew's remaining merely a theist (or deist).-- So... these things considered it is a useful book to see what someone discovered when he was willing to study arguments in depth for theism. It gets past simple rhetoric.

A book based on the evidence. How science and philosophy point to a devine Mind. Either the Universe has always existed or there was a cause (devine Mind or God). Something before the Universe came into being. Science says the universe did have a beginning. It call it the Big Bang. The book also refutes such nonsense as multi-verse theory. There is no evidence to support a multiverse and since we are confined to our own universe there never can be any evidence to support such a theory. I wonder why PBS doesn't do a show on this book like they have done shows on the multiverse and other far out theories.

Great book

Fantastic book! A bit deep for me at times, but this was incredible! The arguments and such that are being ignored by evolutionists are stunning and how people can ignore these is even more stunning. This book opened my eyes in ways I could never have dreamed. It gives both sides of the coin, something that just doesn't happen. It gives the arguments, the basis of the arguments, etc, as only one who has lived both intellectually can do. This is a must read for anybody wanting to argue either way.

Flew provides a thorough analysis of his life journey and a comprehensive but concise historical review of philosophical thought. He attempts to be primarily analytical rather than participating in the mud-slinging rhetoric of those who criticize him as a heretic to a purely atheistic mindset. Whether or not you agree with his "new" view regarding the existence of God, this book is a good stroll through philosophical analysis for those of us who are not philosophers by trade, or personal perception. The only aspect of this book that caused me to rate it less than five was the writing style Flew employed. It is written as if it is more of a discourse to other philosophers than to those of us who are not so enlightened as to be philosophers. Less formality in the verbiage would make it a more comprehendible read for the non-philosopher types. I do highly recommend this book because the reader can learn much in a relatively short book.

Prof. Flew provides first a readable account of why he changed his mind on the matter: "because he would go to wherever the evidence led him." As a scientist I find his philosophical approach sensible and enlightening. Science has its huge strengths. Thanks to them we are changing our world. But science is only one one way of reaching knowledge. Actually, it may be argued that the topics most important to humankind fall in the realm of philosophy rather than science. To be wise regarding these topics is critical, as Prof. Flew cogently argues. A must read for anyone who does not believe in the existence of God.

Very well written cogent argument by a credible expert.

The message deserves five stars, the book only four. I read it for the message. Didn't like the structure of the book or how it was written. This is Flew's reconciliation of his beliefs and his past writings and his evolving through the latest scientific discoveries to a conclusion that there has to be a creator behind the nature of life. This book is not for the uneducated or lite reader. I would have written it for the very young and made it a easier to read.

The author takes us along on his journey from a champion of atheism to a champion of theism, sharing his thoughts along the way, and describing his adherence to the principle of "following the argument wherever it might lead."

This is one of my three favorite books from 2009. I found it interesting, how Flew first helped the reader understand the basis of his atheism, and then helped the reader to see the things that gave him the clarity to make a rational change of mind regarding the existence of God. I particularly liked the correspondence in in the appendix at the end with N.T. Wright regarding the validity of the Ressurection. It was a stimulating book for me from beginning to end, and though it's short in length, it took me a while to really read it because each page set me to thinking and pondering.

Robert Newton Flew was a Methodist minister and Cambridge scholar. From 1927-1937 he served as chair of New Testament Language and Literature at the Westcott House at Cambridge. He was awarded the Doctor of Divinity degree from Oxford in 1930. His work, The Idea of Perfection in Christian Theology: An Historical Study of the Christian Ideal for the Present Life was published in 1934 and became regarded as the standard work on the subject. In his "Preface," Newton paid tribute to his father, a Wesleyan Methodist minister whose life-work was to influence souls. Newton Flew was elected the conference president of Methodism in 1946. His only son, Anthony Garrard Newton Flew, was born in 1923 and attended Kingswood School, which had been founded by John Wesley. And yet by the age of fifteen, Anthony had concluded that there was no God. His heart had never been strangely warmed. While he had learned critical investigation from his father, that same critical investigation led Anthony to reject his father's faith - partially because of the problem of evil. While Anthony never discussed his doubts with his father, by the time he was nearly twenty-three, the word had gotten back to his parents that he was an atheist. For nearly seventy years he pursued the philosophy of atheism, denying both the existence of God and the existence of an afterlife. By the time his father died in 1962, Anthony was the leading champion of atheism, having published over thirty philosophical works. Anthony also participated in the Socrates Club, chaired by C. S. Lewis. His first paper defending atheism was presented at the Socrates Club. However, at 84, Anthony said no one is as surprised as he is that his denial of the Divine has turned to discovery. Yet Anthony contends that this does not really amount to a paradigm shift since his paradigm remains, along with Socrates, "We must follow the argument wherever it leads." Anthony wrestled with such questions as: How did the laws of nature come to be? How did life originate from nonlife? How did the universe come into existence? Since the early 1980s, Flew began to reconsider the evidence. He came to believe that he had arrived at his conclusion regarding the nonexistence of God much too quickly, much too easily, and for the wrong reasons. It seemed to him that those who advocated the cosmological argument were providing scientific proof that the universe had a beginning. An infinite regress does not explain causation. The almost unbelievable complexity of DNA points to the fact that the universe in intricately purpose driven. Faced with the arguments of Intelligent Design, Flew has a new answer to the question "Who wrote the laws of nature?" He has concluded that there is a Divine lawmaker. Varghese, who coauthored this book, is not impressed with the "new atheism." He references three of the "four horsemen," Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, describing them as sounding like fundamentalist preachers. Their books are fiery and there is no room for ambiguity. It's black and white. Either you are with them all the way or you are with the enemy. Ironically, Dawkins claims that Flew has committed "apostasy." Varghese replied, "It has perhaps never occurred to Dawkins that philosophers, whether great or less well known, young or old, change their minds based on the evidence." Yet Varghese says the new atheists refuse to engage the real issues involved in the question of God's existence and seem unaware of new arguments generated within philosophical theism. Varghese concluded that something always existed. Take your pick: God or universe. Flew claims that his pilgrimage has been of reason and not of faith. He has not yet made contact with the Divine Mind, but he concludes with the statement, "Someday I might hear a Voice that says, 'Can you hear me now?'" Does this mean that Flew has been seeking God simply through his own rational process? The biblical doctrine of prevenient grace teaches that God makes the first move. While Flew claims that he has not yet heard from God, perhaps he has a preconceived notion of the voice of God. It is the Spirit of Truth which guides us into all truth (John 16:13). Flew now believes that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected, whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. In an appendix, Flew dialogues on this possibility with N. T. Wright, claiming Wright presents by far the best case for accepting Christian belief that he has ever seen. Flew believes that his father would be hugely delighted with his present view on the existence of a God. I pray that, in God's grace, Anthony will come to know the God of his father. Although he is now old, apparently he has not been able to remain in a state of departure from his training as a child.

This is a great little book. Tough going for one not involved the details of the controversy though - Flew hits the high points of the various arguments but I think I'm going to have to read a few of the materials he references to really get a handle on his point of view. In any case, the controversy seems a tad amusing to me from afar. Flew simply changed his mind on the existance of god after many years of thought. This is just his short, interesting and well considered view of matters. The tone of some of the reviews is awfully strident. On the subject of god's existance no one's got a lock; as Randy Newman sang, "there ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy, there's only you and me and we just disagree."

I remember seeing the headlines in late 2004/early 2005. One of the world's most famous atheists, Anthony Flew, had declared his belief in "a God". This was a major coup for the theists in the atheism versus theism battle. So, when I saw the book "There Is No A God" had been published, I had to get it. I had to see what new evidence had persuaded one of the most prominent philosophers of our time. Anthony Flew was an atheist for more than 60 years. He spent time debating Christian apologists (including presenting papers to C.S. Lewis. You may know that C.S. Lewis was, at one time a pretty staunch atheist before he became of the best known apologists for Christianity. I want to know what makes men like that tick; men who are willing to completely change their views on something as critical on whether or not there is a God based on reason and logic. The subtitle of the book is "How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind". The book begins at the beginning- talking about Flew's youth, his days in school and what led him to being an atheist in the first place. His father was a minister. So, he did not start off as an atheist. But, in his teens he had already decided there was no God. The book takes through his formation as an atheist and the reasoning that led him there. Early on in life, he decided to "follow the evidence wherever it may lead", which is a Socratic principle. When I made that commitment to myself a couple of decades ago, I didn't know it was a Socratic principle. But, I decided that I would pursue truth above all else, even if it led me away from Christianity. It's fascinating that the same commitment that led Flew away from being a theist over 60 years later brought him right back. The book is written in language a layperson can understand. I've struggled to read some philosophers as they speak their own language and even seem to use their own logic. However, Flew and his co-author Roy Varghese speak in language the common man can understand. Flew's "religion" would probably be called Deism. He is not a Christian, even though he has acknowledged that the Christian argument for revealed religion is probably stronger than any other. Flew's religion is not "revealed" and is not based on either faith or personal experience. He came to the conclusion that there is a God simply based on logic/reason/philosophy although recent scientific discoveries (including the Big Bang theory) certainly helped. Actually, the core of Flew's argument, IMO is the fact that there is something rather than nothing. He goes on to talk about the fact that there seems to be a goal or a design to life, talks about the rising of the living from the non-living and the intelligent from the supposedly non-intelligent. In each case, he tells why materialism/atheism simply doesn't work to answer the questions that a simple acknowledgment of a Creator answers. IMO just the fact that there is something rather than nothing means that there has always been something because every effect must have a cause. Nothing exists completely independently of everything else. Materialists choose to believe the universe has always existed and have come up with some fanciful and intellectually dishonest ways of explaining how something can come from "nothing" (like "nothing" is unstable and kind of decays into "something") or the multiverse theory which attempts to explain the fine-tuning of the universe with the theory that there are an infinite or almost infinite number of universes. I've actually come to the conclusion it takes a lot more faith to be a true atheist (as opposed to an agnostic) than it takes to be a "believer". Some philosophers get themselves so twisted up that they begin to doubt the existence of their very selves and their own minds. As one philosopher said to another in the book some of their theories don't really require refutation. If they actually believe the stuff they say, they need help. If your philosophy causes you to doubt your own existence or the existence of your mind, it's time to put down the books and get back to the real world. The description of Flew's journey from atheism to theism is followed by two appendices. The first is a refutation of the "new atheism" which is really a rehashing of materialism or positivism and is nothing new. The second is a defense of the divine relevation of Christianity. I didn't find this defense to be particularly strong and I'm kind of surprised Flew does. But, when it comes to believing in a Divine Mind, a Creator, a First Cause, I think Flew shows conclusively this is exactly where the evidence leads us. Whether one chooses to call this "God" or not is a matter of preference. But, there is sufficient reason to believe that the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being does indeed exist and to believe so doesn't require a great leap of "faith" or really any faith at all other than the faith to honestly follow the evidence where it leads.

Sometimes difficult to follow, but very good.

I like that the first section summarizes his former view and lays out his original case for atheism. Flew explains in (mostly) layman’s terminology why evidence led him to change his mind.

The deeper you get into the information of the creation of the Universe, the more "faith" it takes to believe "it just happened." If in fact Stephen Hawking now claims that spaceship aliens from another universe (or something like that) brought life to this planet--well, how far-fetched is that? As the writer says, quoting from the Sound of Music where Maria sings, "Nothing comes from nothing nothing ever could...", that about sums it up. It's impossible. Intelligent creation must have an intelligent Creator.

This book is mostly a narrative account of the process that Antony Flew followed first to become an atheist, and then to become a believer in God. It even has an appendix chapter by a Christian apologist discussing philosophical reasons for belief in Jesus. Flew admits he does not go that far, but he is open as he has shown, to changing his mind. The book is unusual on many levels. Not many people make drastic, even 180 degree changes in core philosophy past their twenties, much less into their eighties. Most people are pretty well set in their ways by that eightieth birthday or so. It is also remarkable because of the notoriety of Flew as a philosopher; he's not just some guy flipping pizzas who suddenly heard a voice- he's a guy who's thought about this a lot and for a long time. Finally it's remarkable just from the sheer span of years the history covers. Much of Flew's academic life overlapped with Lewis and other well known philosophers of bygone eras, but has continued right up to the present. The book explains some philosophy, not on any overly intricate level, but more as a complement to personal history where most of the philosophy is detailed only to the level necessary to explain his extraordinary change of view. One thing probably bothering many reviewers is the ghost writer, but after all Flew is 84, and certainly isn't the first person, young or old, to have a writer. The other thing is probably the fact that a lot of the new developments in microbiology along with some of the work from Intelligent Design had a big (although not necessarily primary) role in Flew's metamorphosis. I enjoyed much of the charm that carried over from his era. For instance he describes the courtship of his wife, noting that he never attempted to seduce her before marriage. I smiled at how arcane that sounded, although it was a sad, bittersweet smile. In summary, the philosophical arguments in this book are meant to be illustrative more than comprehensive, but they are well written and worthwhile. The more important point is the life itself, and I hope that it is still a work in progress. In any case, it's a remarkable story and a remarkable life.

Flew's book spent a lot of time explaining his original position as an athiest and why he decided that recent scientific evidence led him to a belief in a higher intelligence. He said athiests ignore evidence that there is more than evolution at work in the world. He changed his mind because the amount of intelligence at work in the universe was too compelling for him to ignore. In the last part of the book, he analyzes and accepts the Christian point of view with a somewhat tenuous argument. I was left with many questions and no answers. It was a very unsatisfying feeling. He was very good at taking the reader to a "tabula rasa". Why jump immediately to Christianity? Why not analyze the natural world, the universe, science and mathematics to see if there are clues as to what this intelligence is and what our place might be in the Universe. Or why not meditate on the tabula rasa and see if he could discern a direction from his own being. This is what I was hoping for.

Anthony Flew. It was a name that so many either looked up to or reviled, depending on where you stood on the God vs. Atheist debate. Here was an atheistic scholar, stubborn as all get out, who had made one of the greatest impacts in his field during the latter half of the 20th century atheism. Then, after seeing more and more evidence come forth that chipped away at his position, he shocked the world (in 2004) by announcing that he no longer disbelieved in a god. Rather, as he talks about in the book, he moved over to a more Deistic position, even though he still rejects a personal god and miracles such as the resurrection. And how the Atheists howled, as it is obvious from the blogosphere and reviews of this book on Amazon as well. Funny how things change. Regardless of which side you find yourself, reading this book is worthwhile because of its historical significance. It certainly is deeper in nature, and you have to have your philosopher's hat on, but Flew's perspective is certainly worth considering. Co-author Roy Abraham Varghese adds an appendix where he critiques the New Atheists such as Dawkins and Co., and there is a wonderful section in the appendix written by British scholar N.T. Wright. It's well stated and is also worth the price of admission. Again, I suggest reading it for yourself, so I'll stop here. Let me add to the atheists who love to add comments to the reviews that I don't have time to play silly games writing back and forth in meaningless dialog that gets nowhere. I rarely check my reviews and see who's left what, so please don't be disappointed if I don't respond. I have people to see, things to do, and a life to live. Oh, and I've got shelves of books I am having a hard time getting to! Perhaps some of the complainers ought to write a self-published rebuttal that they will be able to sell to their friends (and very few others).

In the Platonic dialogue know as the Republic, Socrates issues a statement that has come to be known among philosophers as the Socratic Principle; namely to follow the argument wherever it may lead. This principle at it's core is simple: be honest. If your point of view does not align with the facts, change it. If a point of view has holes in it, continue to look for answers and adjust your method. Sounds simple, but considering that if you do it you may have to renounce what has made you famous, it may not always be easy. Enter Antony Flew, one of the leading analytic philosophers of the 20th century. For more than five decades, Flew argued that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence (evidence testable by the 5 senses) for a God emerges, a case he makes in books such as The Presumption of Atheism and God and Philosophy. However, Flew never was like the so called "New Atheists" of today; there was no hatred or vitriol in his works. While he fiercely defended atheism, he would often say in his books "However, I am open to the evidence." In 2004, the evidence lead him from being the world's most notorious to being a deist; a theist who believes in an all-powerful non-interventionist God. Flew begins his book by detailing the early years of his life, stating that while he was raised by a father who was a minister, by the age of fifteen he had become an atheist, in large part due to the problem of evil. He first made a name for himself with an essay that he presented to the Socratic club at Oxford known as Theology and Falsification, wherein he argued that religious arguments must be within a frame of debate that is falsifiable if it is to be meaningful. While this essay is over 50 years old now, it is a classic in the area of philosophy of religion. As a matter of personal reflection, I recall reading it in my philosophy of religion class and as a theist I found the arguments that Flew presented reasonable and fair. Flew then outlines the evidence that lead him to believe in a God; namely the arguments found in the complexity of DNA and in the fine-tuning teleological argument. He points out that while these arguments lead him to believe in God, they did not lead him to the belief of being a religious man and did not change his views on life after death, a view he rejected until the end of his life. However, in the closing interview of the book with N.T. Wright, he again affirmed his allegiance to the Socratic Principle; stating that he could come to believe that Christianity was true if the evidence led him there. Professor Flew passed away on April 8, 2010, so while he did not change his mind during his lifetime about life after death, he certainly knows now. The book itself is well-written and very simple, accessible to both philosopher and non-philosopher. The arguments presented are given in a clear, concise matter and are well developed, as well as counterarguments. Through it all, you do not hear the voice of a vitriolic preacher trying to convert you; rather the calm voice of a humble man who was willing to change his mind in the face of new evidence. If there is anything a reader should take away from this book, it is what I mentioned in the opening paragraph : Be willing to follow evidence wherever it may lead, even if it means you must radically alter your own views.

Antony Flew's "There is a God" deserves a careful read by both believer and non-believer. Flew, the son of a Methodist minister, tells of his upbringing and time at Kingswood School. Flew was an atheist by age 15, and he kept this fact a secret before the time it leaked out by age 23. Flew interacted with C.S. Lewis and met with Ludwig Wittgenstein. Flew the Oxford educated philosopher became an icon of atheistic thinking, as well as a philosopher of many publications. The atheist remained honest with his principles, he followed the argument where it led. Flew tells that he has changed his mind before, several times. He defected from full compatibilism, and became a supporter of free will. Flew (page 63) writes: "A moving is a movement that can be initiated or quashed at will; a motion is a movement that cannot. The power of moving is an attribute peculiar to people, whereas entities incapable of consciousness or intention can only manifest motion. Agents are creatures who, precisely and only insofar as they are agents, can and cannot but make choices." Flew (page 75) tells that he stopped being an atheist in 2004, and announced to the world: "What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It's the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence." Flew (page 80) pokes at Dawkins's selfish genes that were thought to control our human like emotions, and writes: "Although he [Dawkins] later issues occasional disavowals, Dawkins gave no warning in his book [The Selfish Gene] against taking him literally. He added, sensationally, that `the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes.' If any of this were true, it would be no use to go on." Flew (page 88) lays his cards on the table: "I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source." Flew sews together an evidential tapestry, mostly by pointing to the work of others like Albert Einstein, Paul Davies, Gerald Schroeder, John Barrow, Richard Cameron, David Berlinski, and several others. Overall, I am impressed with Flew's thinking. Flew (page 115) writes on cosmological fine tuning: "The fine tuning has been explained in two ways. Some scientists have said the fine tuning is evidence for divine design; many others have speculated that our universe is one of multiple others -a `multiverse'- with the difference that ours happened to have the right conditions for life. Virtually no major scientists today claims that the fine tuning was purely a result of chance factors at work in a single universe." Flew (page 119) writes: "Three things might be said concerning the arguments about fine tuning. First, it is a hard fact that we live in a universe with certain laws and constants, and life would not have been possible if some of these laws and constants had been different. Second, the fact that the existing laws and constants allow the survival of life does not answer the question of the origin of life. This is a very different question, as I will try to show; these conditions are necessary for life to arise, but not sufficient. Third, the fact that it is logically possible that there are multiple universes with their own laws of nature does not show that such universes do exist. There is currently no evidence in support of a multiverse. It remains a speculative idea." Flew (page 137) writes: "Modern cosmologists seemed just as disturbed as atheists about the potential theological implications of their work. Consequently, they devised influential escape routes that sought to preserve the nontheist status quo. These routes included the idea of the multiverse, numerous universes generated by endless vacuum fluctuation events, and Stephen Hawking's notion of a self-contained universe." Regarding life as purpose-driven, Flew (page 125) notes the views of philosopher Richard Cameron: "Something that is alive, says Cameron, will also be teleological-that is, it will possess intrinsic ends, goals, or purposes. `Contemporary biologists, philosophers of biology, and workers in the field of artificial life,' he writes, `have yet to produce a satisfying account of what it is to be alive, and I defend the view that Aristotle can help us fill this gap... Aristotle did not hold life and teleology to be coextensive simply by chance, but defined life in teleological terms, holding that teleology is essential to the life of living things.' " Regarding the connection of mind and life, Flew (page 131-132) quotes physiologists George Wald: "Both questions [having to do with mind and life] might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality -that the stuff of which physical reality is constructed is mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create; science-, art-, and technology-making creatures." Flew (page 132) comments: "This, too, is my conclusion. The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such `end-directed, self-replicating' life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind." Flew (page 155) writes: "I must say again that the journey to my discovery of the Divine has thus far been a pilgrimage of reason. I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being." Flew's book also comes with two appendices; Appendix A written by Roy Abraham Varghese; and Appendix B written by N.T. Wright. Varghese also wrote the preface, and I understand that at age 84 Flew required Varghese's help as a ghostwriter (or coauthor).

Socrates insisted that one must follow the evidence wherever it leads them. Antony Flew was raised in England in a religious household. His father was an academician and theologian. By the age of 15, Flew was an atheist. His long and distinguished career allowed him to associate with the greatest philosophic minds of his time. In his 80's, a life-time of searching and following the evidence led him back to theism. He could no longer resist the logical conclusion his data acquisition had provided. Antony Flew's autobiography is an interesting tale of one man's life long journey for the ultimate answer. This book is a must read for anyone who has taken part in this debate, regardless of where they currently stand on the issue. Flew provides clarity of thought from both sides of the fence, having been inimately involved in both sides. Importantly as well, are the references he provides that add additional edification to both arguments. To me, this is always the hidden gift in any literary work, uncovering additional resources to broaden the perspective. This comes in hardcover and adds nicely to ones library.

5stars

I so often meet people who say that they are scientists, or have a scientific mind, so they can't believe in God. So, when a notorious atheist, who offered pretty much the same claim, has decided that no legitimate seeker of truth and a perception of reality can legitimately deny the very impossibility of the reality being studied by scientist is simply not possible without the involvement of a deity. That is, science actually confirms the conviction of creation and design. It is not just a matter of blind faith. The math, the physics, the odds, the incredibly subtle complexity of life all point to a creator. How cool is that?

This was a great book! One has to realize the magnitude of his change of mind. This would be like Billy Graham announcing he no longer believed in God a few years before his death. Flew was the most prominent atheistic philosopher of the last 100 years. Dawking's is small fry compared to him... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The first half of the book is autobiographical and tells of the formative events in his life. He makes it clear he has changed his mind on numerous issues over the years as a result of study and debate. He also notes his major impacts on philosophy. The second half lays out the various lines of evidence that caused him to change his mind about the God question. One has to do with the orderliness/set of laws in the Universe that made it suitable for life: they did not have to have this very precise tuning that was necessary. Another has to do with the origin of life as there is no valid naturalistic explanation for the encoded information in the DNA and necessarily coinciding mechanism for self-replication. His final argument has to do with consciousness. It is not reducible to physicality. This book ends with an essay by a fellow philosopher who expounds upon this final point only to be followed by another essay in which Flew has a dialogue with N.T. Wright over the question of God's revelation in Jesus Christ. Flew ends his book convinced the God of Aristotle exists. He mentioned the fact that this God has the exact same attributes as the Judeo-Christian God and said he came to his conclusions based on scientific and philosophical grounds alone. As for special revelation, a comes to no conclusion but states it is possible if a god exists. He also notes Christianity offers the most plausible case for special revelation and he has never read a better case than the one laid out by Wright in this book. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a side note, Flew notes he is now a Deist when he begins his book. He also states he does not believe in an afterlife and his position on this has not changed from the position he had as an athiest. This should dispell any notion that he changed his mind because he was near death and hoped for an afterlife. Reading this book also convinced me he had not lost his mind as his arguments were quite lucid: well-reasoned and clear.

Antony Flew showed a spectacularly humble approach to giving his reasons for leaving atheism and covering those "neo-atheists" like Dawkins, Harris and others. I particularly liked his harkening back to allowing the facts to go where they would and he was committed to follow them. Either we're left with an eternal, pre-existent God or an eternal pre-existent universe and the latter has been ruled out. His coverage of Darwin's lack of info on DNA was another profoundly excellent argument.

Mr. Flew addresses the big picture and touches on most of the issues in the debate on "who/what" created the universe. It provides a philisophical view with some of the cosmotology issues too. He concludes that there must be a God, while he does not believe in a personal God. It adds a Biblical view from another writer in an appendix for a religious position too. It was my first Atheist/Theist book and provided the basis for additional reading. For most readers it will be enough to cover the subject with good answers to the questions we have. I passed it on to my grandson, at 15 he is questioning these issues and I believe will help him on his life's journey. My only negative comment is he gives a bit too much of his personnal history, so you can skim that section early in the book.

What if a highly respected, well-known, Oxford-educated, atheist philosopher changed his mind, late in his career, and decided that he, now, believed in God? You say, "Well, he would probably write a book with this kind of sub-title: `How The World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.'" You're right. And that brings us to Antony Flew's book and this review. This book is a little bit autobiography and a good bit of philosophy with a little bit of the philosophy of science. (It's everything I can do to resist some kind of reference to: it's "a little bit country" and "a little bit rock and roll".) Flew provides a good bit of information about his background, and this helps the reader see the larger context of his life. I found this to be interesting. To those of us who believe in God there is great satisfaction in the fact that Flew stresses, numerous times, that one of his guiding intellectual values has long been to follow the evidence wherever it leads. And "the evidence" has led him to this conclusion: "I now believe there is a God! So there!" Alright, if you look in the book the "So there!" part isn't really included in the text. But, in my imagination, it's a nice little shot. Flew provides his evidence for belief in God and makes a good argument. It is also interesting and satisfying to theists that Flew credits recent scientific advances as a significant factor in his opinion regarding the existence of God. This is satisfying to theists because sometimes belief in God is portrayed as an entirely unwarranted; blind leap of faith; embraced by uneducated people--usually wearing no shoes or socks; with no rational basis whatsoever. Since I'm a Christian, I found another line in the book to be quite pleasing. Flew says about Christianity, "If you're wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat." I know, I know, atheists and non-Christians will find that to be ridiculous and aggravating. But, it's still true that he wrote it. So there! The book has two interesting appendices, one written by Roy Abraham Varghese, who is the co-writer of the book and one written by Bishop N.T. Wright. Bishop Wright's essay on "The Self-Revelation of God in Human History" is outstanding. Dan Marler Oak Lawn, IL

This is a book that I found out about while reading the book "Signature in the Cell". Of course I'd heard of the amazing conversion of Dr. Antony Flew, a world famous atheist to theism as he describes it. Not Christianity, but theism. However, he does say that if you have to choose a religion you can't go too far wrong with a religion that has such a charismatic figure as Jesus and a world class intellect such a Paul as your founders. Much of this book went completely over my head. Even though this book was probably written for a general audience, only parts of it could I completely understand. The reason was because Dr. Flew is talking about very precise philosophy arguments, and the books that make them. However, the parts that I could understand well were well worth reading. Roy Abraham Varghese, who is the co-author, also wrote the introduction, and the first appendix. He takes apart the so called new atheism which he says isn't new and doesn't even rise to the level of logical positivism, and ignores all the arguments being made for theism today. Basically they just rail against organized religion of any kind and are trumpeted by the media as something new, although they are not. The whole book was worth reading for the way that he took apart Richard Dawkin's, my favorite atheist to despise. After Dr. Flew, an eminent philosopher and proponent for atheism for many years, Richard Dawkin's apparently went ballistic, and went for the "ad hominem" attack. Dawkins first said that Bertrand Russel "was an exaggeratedly fair-minded atheist, over-eager to be disillusioned if logic seemed to require it," He added in a footnote "We might be seeing something similar today in the over-publicized tergiversation of the philosopher Antony Flew, who announced in his old age that he had been converted to belief in some sort of deity (triggering a frenzy of eager repetition all around the Internet). On the other hand, Russell was a great philosopher. Russell won the Nobel Prize." Varghese writes "The puerile petulance of the contrast with the "great philosopher" Russell and the contemptible reference to Flew's "old age" are par for the course in Dawkins's epistles to the enlightened. But what is interesting here is Dawkins's choice of words, one by which he unwittingly reveals the way his mind works. "Tergiversation means "apostasy." So Flew's principle sin was that of apostatizing from the faith of the fathers." That's funny writing as far as I'm concerned and it only gets better. He related a statement made by Dr. John Barrows an English cosmologist, theoretical physicist,and mathematician who is a Research Professor of Mathematical Sciences at Cambridge University, said, regarding Dr. Dawkins disregarding the fine tuning of the Universe, "You have a problem with these ideas Richard, because your not really a scientist. You're a biologist." Julia Vitullo-Martin says that Dr. Barrow feels that biology is little more than a branch of natural history. Dr. Barrow has said; "Biologists have a limited intuitive understanding of complexity. They're stuck with an inherited conflict from the nineteenth century, and are only interested in outcomes, in what wins out over others. But outcomes tell you almost nothing about the laws that govern the universe." Just reading those parts of the book were worth reading the entire book. Dr. Flew wrote and presented a paper called "Theology and Falsification" and presented it at the Socratic Club, that was sponsored by C.S.Lewis at Oxford university, in 1950. This has been one of the most quoted articles about atheism of the last half of the 20th century. It's a short article and it can be found on the web if you would like to read it. This article supposedly changed the entire dynamic of the argument against God. I didn't really see how it changed the argument, but that may be because the argument that he presented is now so well known that I've heard it before in other forms. One of the things that Dr. Flew points out is that when he became and atheist in the middle of the 20th Century much of the evidence that he now considers important as evidence of a deity was not known. One example is that the DNA molecule shape was not determined until 1953, and it was after that that it was possible to determine how it worked. Also, a lot of the discoveries of the fine tuning of the Universe were not known at that time. After taking all of these new discoveries into consideration Dr. Flew decided that the best explanation of the Universe is that it is designed, and if it is designed then there must be a designer. He also addressed the comments by the idiot Dr. Dawkins by saying that some people had accused him of getting old and changing his views because he was worried about the afterlife. However, Dr. Flew said that he has not changed his ideas of humans having an immortal soul. He doesn't think we do have a soul so he doesn't think anything will happen after he dies. He also said that he has always been willing to follow where the evidence leads and has changed his ideas in the past. He said that many people are supprised when they learn at one time he was a Marxist, and that he later became a supporter of capitolism. Another interesting part of the book are the two appendices. One is by Roy Abraham Varghese who also wrote the forward. Dr. Flew says that he has recommended the book "The Wonder of the World" and that anyone who argues against theism "would need to take into account [The Wonder of the World] which provides an extremely extensive argument of the inductive argument from the order of nature." He appendix is a paper called "The 'New Athiesm': A Critical Appraisal of Dawkins, Dennett, Wolpert, Harris and Stenger". He basically says that their arguments are not new and that they are very shallow, but that the popular press is giving them a lot of press and attention. One of the great things he says is that the atheists are trying to say that if you sit at a marble table, the argument is that if you sit there long enough the table will start talking to you. He points out that the atheists are making that somehow inanimate matter became animate and then progressed until we are the results. The second appendix is by Bishop N. T. Wright. Bishop Wright is one of my favorite Christian writers. Dr. Flew writes "Appendix B concerns the claim that there is a self-revelation of God in human history in the person of Jesus Christ. The claim is defended by one of today's premier New Testament scholars, Bishop N. T. Wright. In my view, Wright's responses to my previous critiques of divine self-revelation, both in the present volume and in his books, comprise the most powerful case for Christianity that I have ever seen." Dr. Flew apparently is not convinced by Bishop but thinks his arguments are good. I concure. Of course I always like it when someone really smart agrees with my opinion. Still I think that's high praise for Bishop Wright. I didn't realize how good his arguments were. His appendix is excellent. It caused me to go and see if Bishop Wright has written anything new that I might read since I enjoyed the appendix so much.

Flew is a true example of intellectual honesty... a logical, intelligent thinker who is ruthlessly honest and willing to go wherever the argument takes him, regardless of his own prior assumptions and biases. It is also refreshing to see a philosopher who takes into account the latest findings and philosophical implications of science, rather than doing philosophy in a vacuum, so to speak. Enlightening and refreshing reading!

The best enemy a theist ever had. Careful critical thought benefits friend and foe alike. Both sides had to hone their skills to contend with professor Flew's atheist razor sharp philosophical incisions. If you hate this man, you have not read him... or maybe understood him. He makes thinking clear and precise and beautiful. So much more satisfying than fundamentalist raving: theist and atheist.

Amazing to read THIS book by Antony Flew. I grew up philosophically while reading his defenses of atheism. What is fascinating about this book, and Flew's change of course, is that his primary sources for his turn to God are recent discoveries in science, including astrophysics and DNA/genetic research. True to his commitments, his conclusions are based on evidence. Very interesting.

Finally got around to actually reading Flew’s 'There Is a God' after some years of reading withering criticisms. Flew's ‘follow the argument’ approach is basic philosophy. Flew’s not a scientist. He approaches deductive reasoning at a higher altitude while trusting in the science. His mental experiments are consistent with classic philosophy and more specifically with Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard . Flew is not professing Christianity, rather he’s deduced a Creator. I enjoyed his logic and narrative along the way.

This book is a must-read for those who desire a clear-thinking approach to the philosophical search for whether or not there is a God who created the world and all known physical things. It contains a critical review of the relevant literature and philosophical schools over the past century, the ones that discuss atheism and theism. It lays a clear foundation for asking the questions in a logical and consistent academic framework worthy of true scholars, then shows how Antony Flew came to his own final conclusions after over 50 years of research. The writing style is interesting and captivating. Flew's own biography is an integral part of the book, and is also quite captivating. It shows how Flew, although at the gut-level he believed atheism was the truth, refused to take any academic shortcuts in investigating the question of a God's possible existence. His academic excellence and his integrity-based approach led him to change his mind on the subject after many decades of believing in atheism. I highly recommend this book, especially for scientists and engineers interested in probing questions on the existence of God. However, I think that non-philosophers and non-scientists will also enjoy the book.

Anthony Flew's new work is a short concise reflection on his early life and career path that lead to his athiesm. The reasons for his change of mind. An argument for God by his co-author, and then a brief dialogue with N.T. Wright on the Resurrection. It is geared towards someone with a working knowledge of philosophy, and also some familiarity with his previous works, as parts of the book consist of correction he now wishes to make upon some of his earlier work, and having not read much of it I was frequently at a loss. The purpose of Flew's section is not to prove that theres a God but merely to show what led to his change and promote discussion, he's respectful to both sides though he does take the New Athiests to task on a few points. His co-author argues for theism in the end and as a Christian I found little to disagree with (though I'm not sure I agree with his position on universals, he did only give one statement on it though). And N.T. Wright's section is the most readable with some new interesting ideas about the resurrection. For what it's meant to be it's very well done. It has an appeal that might be larger than it's audience with it's more sophisticated argumentation. If your curious what happened to Flew there's no better source to find out, if you're looking for an apologetics resource it doesn't quite fit the bill. I recommend it to all interested in philosophy of religion

From skeptic to evolutionist to creationist, my journey as a technical professional and critical thinker has been enhanced by this book by Flew and Varghese. For the serious and honest intellectual, I recommend that you read it carefully . If you are, and if you do, you may very well recognize the answer to my riddle in titling this review "I Think Therefore God." Clues reside throughout the book if you have the willingness to think in terms of "science" (as in verifiable knowledge), of "philosophy" (as in pursuit of wisdom and understanding values and reality via logic and reason) and of "religion" (as in a cause or systematic belief held to with faith). None singly holds the answer. Only by integration have Flew and Varghese arrived at the answer.

As a self-proclaimed agnostic who harbors no interest or lust for the divine, I found Flew's novel to be an eye-opening read. Though although no epiphanies or revelations were made, and I do not consider myself closer to the idea of the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent God, I am now more willing to do seek further research into a subject that I would have otherwise left to gather dust.

With a few minor issues. Firstly I would hardly call Anthony Flew "the worlds most notorious atheist". In my view Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are far more notorious. Before the printing of this book, I had never heard of Flew. Needless to say Flew does raise some great points for the existence of God in regard to the complexity of life and the laws of nature. A great book for anyone to read who is interested in learning about deism.

Extraordinary revelations from the mind of a scientist! I will read this book again to enjoy it all over again! The writers' emotions and discoveries kept me in suspence and shed much light on the belief of the existence of GOD. He just confirmed what I believe to be true!

Dekle and Demming have both done an admirable job rating this book. I'll confess, I was unfamiliar with Flew when I started this book and had to get up to speed on him through other resources. I've also watched a number of his "You Tube" debates to get a personal flavor for him. If you are unfamiliar with Flew you will like him. He is intelligent and educated beyond belief but manages to remain amazingly personable and courteous. One can particularly sense in his writing and his debates (you tube) how personally respectful he is to those who might disagree with him which is such a rarity these days. (I even get a remarkable amount of 'ad-hominen' attacks just from writing reviews here). Flew is a class act. what is refreshing about Flew is his commitment to simply following the evidence, the 'data'. He reminds of Grissom on CSI, he just follows the evidence, and after 50 years of researching the issue, the science of DNA finally convinced him of the existence of an intelligent creator. THAT is a remarkable concession in today's day and age and the implications of the existence of an intelligent creator are quite significant. for those of you who think of yourselves as atheists, this will be a challenging read. I would suggest if you have an opinion such as that you begin with Jonathan Haidt's book 'The Righteous Mind' and really deal with the challenge that 'Cognition Bias (CB)' presents to all of us. Flew thankfully is NOT infected with the CB that so infects much discourse, and it is his openness to new information and new discoveries that allowed him to come to the informed decision that he does. So please, get over your own CB so you can begin this inquiry with a fresh perspective. On balance, the other reviewers are correct, Flew does not finish as an evangelist by any means. He simply reasons his way to a God that is intelligent but he has litte further insight into the character of God beyond that. I am still looking for someone who starts where Flew left off and takes us in an evidenced based way to the character of God. For those who take the science seriously, I have learned through Hugh Ross's writings at CALTECH that physicists today have concluded there is sufficient evidence to posit a 'flat universe'. don't ask me to explain that further but suffice it to say that science doesn't consider the 'Big Bang' to be a repeating event, i.e. so any consideration of the Hindu 'cyclical' universe theory (i.e. the cycles of Maya and such) apparently is off the table today. So apparently "In the Beginning. . ." is a sound statement. There WAS a Beginning. Overall a great book, a quick read, but if you need more 'science' to get you over the atheist challenge try 'The Creator and the Cosmos'.

Flew's story was a journey that not many men will admit to. I enjoyed his honesty and candor, and it was an informative read for me about the life of a man that had little faith in a higher power. There is power in knowledge, and especially if it is channeled properly, as Flew has done.

This is a very well written and interesting book about one man's journey of faith. Driven by a deep conviction to follow the truth where ever it led Mr. Flew rejected the concept of god in his early life only to return to belief towards the end of his life. This is an easy read and is one of the best apologetics for the existance of God that I have read in recent years.

My first exposure to Flew was the logic text "How to Think Straight", it's incredibly impressive to see one of the world's foremost philosophers follow the Socratic Club's edict to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Lesser thinkers would have been guided and restricted by intellectual pride, but Flew calls it like he sees it. This text puts to rest any rumors of a slipping, aging mind or a deathbed conversion. The writing is lucid, we'll structured, and thorough. Additionally, he is quick to point out that he still doesn't believe in an afterlife, nor any specific religious faith, just that a divine mind must exist. So for any of the so called "new atheists" who have condemned Flew for not adhering to their "faith" I would challenge them to read this and follow the Socratic Club's maxim themselves.

In a world of unbelief, it was fascinating to read the rational reasons why atheism does not make sense. Flew's arguments in favor of a Higher Cause for the existence of intelligent life is compeling

The book is about Antony Flew's Journey from being raised in the house of a Methodist minister, his father, his movement towards atheism at an early age, his life as a philosopher and his debates, and finally his acceptance of a Divine Creator (except that he didn't accept the idea of revelation). The book is divided into two parts, and has two appendices. The first part is about his early life, his atheism and finally considering atheism in a logical and calm manner. The second part is about his acceptance of a Divine Creator, and the reasons that lead him to that conclusion, whether they are scientific or philosophical reasons. Appendix A is written by Roy Abraham Varghese, and it's a criticism of "New Atheism". He considers arguments about "Rationality", "Life", "Consciousness", "Thought" "The Self", and "The Origin of the Supraphysical". This appendix is a really great read, and one of the really great arguments that I would recommend to any one. Finally, the last appendix is written by Bishop N. T. Wright, and it concerns the claim that there is a self-revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Frankly, I didn't like this part at all, and it would have been the reason of reducing this book's score. I think that this part might appeal to Christians, however not a Muslim like me, especially that I have read a lot about Christianity. Didn't like N. T. Wright's logic, and how he arrived to the conclusions. The book is much smaller than I thought it would be; Flew's part was about 160 pages. It's a good quick read, and quiet easy to understand and follow. I totally recommend this book (except for the last part).

I had heard a debate that Dr. Flew was in several years ago and he took the position of an atheist. When I heard about this book I wanted to read it to find out what brought about that change. I would recommend this book. It arrived in good shape.

I particularly appreciated Flew's description of his journey "to where the evidence leads" as he says. It wasn't that he suddenly changed his mind to change his world view from atheist to theist (or deist), but that he changed his mind on many issues gradually on the basis of evidence. It was also good to see his disassociation from the "new atheist" ethos and his critique of them. The real bonus for me is his two appendices by Varghese and N T Wright. I am now enjoying Varghese's "The Missing Link" as a result.

Logic and reason eventually lead Anthony Flew to the conclusion that there is a God. A good read for the atheist or agnostic who is willing to follow the evidence to where it leads.

I think the "conversion" of Flew to theism from atheism stands as a monument to the failure of atheism to meet the demands of human minds. Flew followed the path that genuine scientists are mandated to, to follow the evidence where it leads, even if that goes against your presupposed beliefs. That is the importance of this event. It is NOT that he is a convert to Christianity, for I am a Christian and know one when I see/hear one. He is not a Christian. Rather, he is an honest and consistent scientist that when confronted with the evidence, does not fall back into irrationality to defend his dying presuppositions [there is no god being the primary presupposition, but which itself is exquisitely a unscientific claim!]. This is not an opportunity to call a former atheist to the defense of Christianity, but it sure does seem to support a number of scientific statements by Christian scientists such as Behe's irreducible complexity. The science of genetics is stabbing at the very heart of atheism and Darwinism, and most atheists are running scared.

I have always been interested in this question from a philosophical, spiritual and scientific viewpoint. This is one of the best books I have read on this subject. Compulsory reading.

This is an honest book from an honest man. Anthony Flew was a hard-core atheist who changed his mind on the possibility of the existence of God based on scientific evidence. Regardless of where you stand on the religion/atheism spectrum, one thing is clear: you have to respect this man's integrity. When one's life-work has revolved around the advocacy of a certain side of an ideological debate, it becomes extremely hard to switch sides. Momentum is strong. Fear of loss of relationships and of academic respect is powerful. Even doubts about your own identity may come into question (if I am not that, then what am I?) Yet Mr. Flew is a truth-seeker. He follows the evidence wherever it leads, and it led him to the conclusion that, for random occurrence of life to be possible, there had to be 10 to the power of 20 more molecules in the universe than there actually are. The DNA is way too complex, life is way too complex to have occurred by chance. Even though he clearly states that he has not become a Christian, yet he lets us know that he finds the system of thought most plausible to explain the relationship between the Universe and its creator is the Christian Faith. He then yields the pen -another sign of inspiring humility- to another great man he knows to be able to do a better job explaining Christianity than he can, Bishop N.T.Wright. This is a must-read for any serious seeker or thinker.

For the majority of his adult life Anthony Flew was an atheist and only recently came to the conclusion that there has to be a God. His logic is impressive and makes arguments for atheism seem childish. Flew writes for other philosophers and if you aren't one, or have not read other philosophic writings, this book can take some time to fully understand. Flew has not converted to any organized religion since acknowledging the existence of a God, nor does his perception of God fit neatly into the commonly held religious beliefs. What the book points out is that there had to be some supernatural force behind the creation of the universe. It is excellent reading.

It made the new atheists angry, and I understand the reason now. Flew has laid out a very compelling argument for his transformation.

it talks over the normal person but makes a good point

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.

I cannot recommend this book enough. This book is truly within a class of its own. Be prepared to be challenged

The author gives us an easy-to-read book explaining clearly and logically why he left behind his atheism. Based on scientific and mathematical principals, he now believes in God as defined by him as being a rational mind that brought into existence the physical universe. And he explains why he believes this.

good order

It is refreshing to read a work by someone who is willing to follow the evidence where it leads, regardless of whether it challenges cherished assumptions. Note that Flew cannot be said to have converted from atheism to Christianity, but he is certainly impressed by Christianity among the various world religions, and has come to the conclusion that the evidence for God is so compelling that it is not rational to remain an atheist.

Great book. Very insightful while maintaining an ability to connect with a general audience.

An excellent expose in the understanding 'What makes an Atheist' An excellent read for anyone trying to understand their Christianity and those that simply 'fall' off the cliff in the belief that ALL life comes in an 'ordered' way and it's beginnings. God was, Is, and will Always Be.

Refutes every so called logical as well as the outlandish arguments that there is no God by one of the great philosophers of our time.

Well, I have been a Theist for most of my life, so I never really gave a second thought to the fact that there are others, many others who don't share the basic view that a Higher Power exists. I found myself wondering, do I really know if there is a Deity who created and ordered the universe and our existence? Deism appeals to me now. It is the most simple, basic, and profound ideology to give rational, scientific evidence that Someone of a much Higher Intelligence did indeed create this universe, world, and humanity. And with that I leave others to make the decision to read this book, and look at the matter themselves. God bless.

Interesting read. An open agnostic may find a few things that are useful in it.

Very unusual to spend a lifetime believing one then change! But a very compelling story. Lots of material to work from.

Love it. Giving it away for evangelistic reasons. His message is clear, concise, and strong. This writing is a clear testimony to his almost faith, and meets the needs of people who are also searching. Alexander

A Christmas Present so not used, but looked fine and didn't have any complaints.

Like this take on the evidence for God and Christianity. Very much based in logic and solid science. A good read for analytical people.

So you want to know how an atheist changes his mind and becomes a deist? This book sheds some light on the subject although I found the book to be very complex. It is challenging because it introduces a lot of philosophy. The arguments presented as to why Antony Flew decided to believe in God are at least logical. It seems the problem of evil was what caused him to not believe in God in the first place. It seems he honestly changed his mind because he found new scientific evidence that there was a intelligent mind behind creation. So really this is about going from denial to discovery. So if you like philosophy or thinking about DNA, this book may interest you. ~The Rebecca Review

Reading the other reviews, it's a bit saddening to see committed factions trying to profit from this short, honest little book. Flew evidently found himself stuck on three questions (1) the origin of natural law (2) the origin of life, and (3) the origin of the universe. This short list is very close to my own short list of unanswered questions. Question (3) may be the most important of the lot. For centuries, lots of people have held a belief that the universe was eternal: it has always existed, and will always exist. Somewhat surprisingly, the modern science of cosmology does NOT support this idea. The universe had a beginning (the Big Bang) and it will have an ending, if only through increasing entropy and "heat death." As for the Big Bang...let's try a thought-experiment. You're sitting quietly at home one night, and suddenly a wooden table appears magically, from nowhere. You investigate: it's a wooden table, all right. But its appearance from nowhere is surely impossible. Now stretch your mind and imagine the entire universe suddenly appearing out of "nowhere." Do you have an explanation handy for this? It sure looks like we're confronted with the old problems once more: Aristotle's "First Mover" (or even "The Force" from Star Wars!) Question (2) is also a huge one. How DID life originate, after all? Flew goes into this in some depth, and demonstrates that the latest biological theory about the spontaneous synthesis of amino acids is NOT going to answer Question (2). Question (1), about natural law, is a good one as well. I have heard another version, which has to do with mathematics. If you start thinking hard about math, well, is it something we humans made up? If so, why are natural laws so easily expressed in this little tool "we created?" Or, more mysteriously, is math, in some sense, "out there," and we simply discovered it --- and are continuing to discover it? If we posit some impossibly intelligent being (The Great Spirit, The First Mover, The Force, The Logos) as the force driving all these mysterious changes, at least we have a consistent answer. You need to read this book for yourself to understand Flew's precise thoughts, but he's not "senile" and he's not a "Christian" either. He's continuing his life work, which is following where the evidence leads. And what he has come up with is not exactly zany. It's one of mankind's oldest beliefs. Oddly enough, I think Arthur C. Clarke went with the same sort of explanation in 2001: A Space Odyssey. I don't remember anyone making a stink about that. For more information, please take a look at

A+

great book, but the people who need to read this probably won't

Very interesting logic. Flew says he follows the argument where-ever it goes and I thought there were some very interesting ideas

Anthony Flew impressed me with this book. He basically stated his life story and showed extreme honesty on why he fell out of theism, and how he slowly got into deism. It all started with the problem of evil, but after reading about Alvin Plantinga's Free Will defense he realized that maybe it is respectable to believe in God. Slowly over the years after debates with William Lane Craig and readings from Richard Swinburne starting to leave rocks in the shoe of Anthony Flew. I really liked the story about C.S Lewis and Elizabeth Anscombe's debate that winded up changing C.S Lewis' Chapter 3 in Miracles. I had no idea Anthony Flew was part of that group. After reading more and more books about Philosophers and Apologetics I'm starting to see that a good number of these believers and non-believers all know each other on a personal level. I had no idea Richard Swinburne (who is easily one of the "elite" Apologists of our time) was the man who took Flews place at a university that Flew was teaching at. Anthony Flew then gets into the design argument and states something extremely important in which I agree wholeheartedly with "the rebuttal for the *Fine tuning argument* called the Multiverse theory is an embarrassment" Flew also takes a few well deserved shots at Richard Dawkins, I mean hey who isn't now a days. For those that think Flew left his unbelief, because of fearing hell at his old age needs to realize, Flew didn't become a Christian or any religious member that believes in the afterlife, therefore he still doesn't believe in Hell. I definitely recommend this for the day in the life of a great philospher, who lost his faith when he was a teen, then followed the evidence where it lead and came to beleiving in a higher power, the greatest conceivable being...Code Name.....God

Very informative. Great price and fast shipping. Thanks

This book is a great overview of the reasons Anthony Flew converted to theism. It gives a lot of really interesting information about his background. His arguments really come down to the argument from intelligibility, and he gives a good presentation of that. The Appendix written by N.T. Wright on Jesus is honestly worth the price of the whole book and is a splendid presentation of the Jesus of the Gospels.

Just getting into this. So far interesting.

Real eye opener. Highly recommend it

Anthony Flew writes a very compelling book.

I personally have never been privy to an objective atheist who decided that upon further exposure to move evidence did not feel comfortable holding an atheistic position. This book about an intellectual journey has been simply fascinating.

A most insightful book. Sets out the reasons why Flew became an atheist and then sets out the reasons why he became a theist.

GOOD BOOK.

Characteristic Flew - even with a ghost writer. It is only a short summary of some of the available evidence and thought, but he hits the high points. There certainly are better books out there. May I recommend God's Undertaker, by Lennox, for the inquiring mind who wants a more in depth discussion?

Excellent

1

More proof God works in mysterious ways. Even an egg head can see the forest once in a great while.

This book is an extremely fluid, easy to read story of the transformation of one of the worlds most notorious atheists changed his mind. It is rather unfortunate and ridiculous that there are those who say that flew has succumed to senility or fear of death(he still maintains there is no afterlife). Would you say the same about Billy Graham if he rejected his faith and became atheist? Probably not, you would say he finally came to his senses, even if the book he wrote about it was merely the incoherent ramblings of a crazed man.

Critical, honest questions from a brilliant former leader among intellectual atheists.

God is alive and well in today's events. Don't be closed to the obvious. Please read the book with an open mind and see where it takes you.

Satisfied with this purchase.

A book for both atheists and Christians to read. Since Flew wrote most of it himself, it is coming from his own personal perspective. He is honest and transparent in the changes he has made.

I loved the book. I having been a believer in God from my youth. I always like to see evidence that supports the general belief in God. I think the author does a good job of weighing the evidence. He is committed to take the truth wherever it leads. His argument from DNA is convincing. Unlike some scholars, he has written so the average person can follow the story.

When you read this book you will understand why Hawking came out with his new book to say there is no need for a god. Flew quotes Hawking a lot in his book and finds God through Hawking's own writings. I enjoyed reading the book and have used some of the illustrations when talking about God.

Easy read, clear and concise.

Antony Flew's journey to theism is quite fascinating. God reveals himself to the most unlikely of characters. Antony Flew is one of the most unlikely theist yet, "know the truth because the truth can set you free."

Excellent

This is a book that I have read from cover to cover three times and am still going back for more. It's the story of a minister's son who to his dying day thought that reason should be more important than faith. He really works at it with a passion. He's wrong! But he really gives it his best. I will treasure this book for years to come, or to my dying days.

Excellent guide to thinking on the issue.

Terrific in content and presentation

I liked this book a lot. Nothing like getting it "straight from the horse's mouth." Written in a very personal way - enjoyable read.

This book is Antony Flew's account of how he came to believe that God exists. Rather than being a deep philosophical treatise, the book is generally autobiographical in nature which means that even non-philosophers can understand it. Some of the arguments aginst the book--like, Flew didn't really write it (many books are written with the help of ghost writers), or that he was too old to know what he's saying (ageism)--sound like desperate attacks by some who seem terrified that their worldview might crumble. The book is well written and hard to put down. Whether you argree with Flew's conclusions or not, a world renowned philosopher who changes his mind after advocating atheism for more than 50 years deserves a hearing. Read the book and decide for yourself.

A good testimony that was poorly written. It is obvious that Flew is a debater accustomed to bullet points with brief explanations.

This brilliant philosopher has written a book about his change of mind about his disbelief in a God in very clear and understandable language that anyone can understand! No deep philosophical verbiage, just a good personal talk with his readers!

I must thank Mr. Flew for his honesty set forth in this book. In this book, Mr. Flew discloses how his commitment to "follow the argument wherever it leads" led him to a belief in God as Creator (First Cause). I am very pleased to see that this once atheist is exploring the implications of the Big Bang theory, it's philosophical as well as theological implications. I do hope that he continues this journey to faith in Jesus Christ, which he was considering in his Appendix B in a dialogue with N.T. Wright, a New Testament scholar.

Flew's personal testimony for his journey from atheism to belief is succinct and to the point. Doesn't contain in-depth analysis from the realms of physics or molecular biology, but plenty of other new books do, so this one works great as a quick intro to various arguments---again, with a personal touch.

Very good, not quite as compelling as I was hoping. The author's intellectual honesty and clarity are impressive and his credentials alone lend weight to the Intelligent Design hypothesis.

Flew's apologetic for becoming a theist is presented concisely and clearly. While his decision is ostensibly personal, his argument engages any serious thinker. Regardless of private disposition, the book invites both theologian and skeptic to examine the evidence and "follow where it leads." In addition to Flew's material, Varghese has included an Appendix which presents five phenomena that he argues, "can only be explained in terms of the existence of God." These 20+ pages alone make the book worthwhile.

Antony Flew gives the best argument that God exists, that I have ever read. Coming from over 60 years of Atheism, and writing many books on Atheism, he knows the arguments against God and the critics of his arguments. He was true to the Socratic philosophy of, "Follow the evidence where it leads you." He shares his decades long pilgrimage to the final ultimate truth, God exists.

Flew demonstrates a complete lack of understanding not only of science, but the pre-eminent scientists he depends upon for his insanely weak arguments. Presenting outspokenly atheistic Einstein & Hawking as being proponents of a theistic god to justify his own decision to banish science from the questions of ultimate causation is a flat out lie. Claiming the argument from design as both obvious & well supported demonstrates he has no comprehension of the science. One has to wonder, how was Flew ever taken seriously on anything?

Mr. Flew doesn't really base his decision on any solid antithetical reasoning, but rather a flimsy notion that we *need* a god in order to have a basis for morality. Yes, having a god would be necessary to have an absolute basis for right and wrong, but just because we face this dilemma as a race of creatures faced with difficult decisions and a means of creating order, doesn't mean that god has to exist...it's just unfortunate that we don't have a god to provide that foundation.

Science and Philosophy make efforts to answer the first questions. Science seems to be now in the lead but still cannot answer where the laws of nature come from or how life came out to be. Antony Flew reflections is an interesting view to reach rationally to the First Cause that explains where we need to go to understand nature, life and our own existence. It will be interesting to know what the new atheist will have to say to Flew arguments.

Very Good Reading!!!!!!!

An interesting read for theists and atheists alike.

I've heard nothing but good things about this book so I had to give it a read. Antony Flew was one of the most reasonable persons and one of the greatest minds that the field of philosophy has encountered. His conversion story is summed up so simply: he followed the evidence where it led. I don't want to spoil the book so I figure i won't say much about what evidence led him to believe in God. It was both the scientific data and the Aristotelian philosophy that brought him to his conclusion.

A philosopher relates the story of his personal journey from philosophical atheism to the deism akin to Aristotle's. The fascinating aspect of the origin of his intellectual 'about face' was not philosophical insights as such, but the truths of science especially the function of DNA and its relation to proteins. Two distinct languages are mapped to each other. This is a phenomenon of 'semantics' and can only be accounted for by the existence of a mind. A beautiful example of an inquiring philosophical mind discovering scientific realities and drawing conclusions from the evidence.

It was a gift and he loved it.

very good product, fast shipping, highly recommended.

Very good condition

Well written, very entertaining. Flew's honesty is refreshing. Highly recommended.

very interesting

this man who was one of the most famous athiest s of all time converted to and believed fully the truth about Jesus Christ before he passed away!

Very introspective.

Enjoyed it thoroughly. Not to deep in philosophy.

I've read several of this type of book, which is a response to the new atheist writings of Dawkins et al, and I'm usually disappointed by the strident, attacking tone, which leaves me very much in doubt about how well thought out the arguments actually are. I was happily surprised to finally find a book that was different. This book is a respectful and reasoned account of how one person changed his mind regarding the question of God. It was so refreshing to read someone who did not feel he had to attack the other side (even though they've since attacked him), but instead simply made his case. I recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand how scientific evidence has not proved that God does not exist, but instead may actually be used to make a case FOR God's existence.

I have always been an admirer of Anthony Flew having read most of his books. One of the reviewers of this book referred to him as a militant atheist which was not true. He was always a gentleman philosopher. I can't help but feel he was used in an inappropriate manner by Mr. Varghese as a platform for asserting his own views. Why did Mr. Varghese and N. T. Wright opinions about Christianity need to be included in the book? It was clear that Professor Flew never claimed to be a Christian (though one got the sense in the book that he was leaning in this direction). The book would have been much better had he not had help writing it. The fact is he did not need help. Unfortunately, his arguments against atheists are weak at best. It is obvious that Professor Flew was not up to date on the latest finding of science. The fact that he was at the end of a distinguished career and perhaps not able to devote the necessary energy to be immersed in the current debate, Professor Flew did not critically adhere to the Socratic principle of ' following the evidence wherever it may lead. ' I had no problem with his conversion and actually thought he did a good job of explaining his journey to theism. He was always an eloquent writer and even in his old age had not lost his flair. This was all good stuff and I am convinced of his sincerity in his conversion. What I found appalling was the coauthor's attempt to ride on his coattails. Shame on all those who turned this book into a battle cry for theism! It just goes to show there is no difference between atheists and theists when it comes to the levels they will stoop to to make their points. Honestly, I expected more from the theists. This comment also applies to all the reviewers who also jumped on the bandwagon. It is not very Christian to use people as a means to your own ends.

Excellent book, well written

As much of a believer in God as I am, I have to say that I was quite disappointed in this work. The idea that there is simply a God because of intelligent design is a real slap in the face to God. God would have to fix something He screwed up on? Isn't that insulting? However, I was satisfied with his rejection of David Hume's theories of the cause starts an unavoidable outcome, and the assertion of free will.

I bought this book as a gift for someone close to me that has lost faith in God. It is my hope that by reading it together they might find insight in Flew's path to enlightenment.

Great book on evidence for the Christian faith. I heard Mark Dever recommend it and picked it up to hand out to an atheist friend. It's good for a christian to also be equipped with this knowledge.

Flew divided his book into two parts .The first one was a short summery about his life , and how he start to get interested in philosophy and embraced atheism . The Second was about how he started to believe in the divine , and the argument he gives for that belief . He cited three arguments for God . First , The laws of the nature explain the mind of God . Second , The origin of life . Third , the cosmological argument. it is very good book for both believers and non-believers to read

five stars

Need degrees in philosophy and theology to really understand it.

Courageous book by someone who is not afraid to follow evidence wherever it leads... This alone is a lessons that most of the World needs. Teh rest of the book is great insight. Worth the read if you are willing to reexamine why you believe what you believe. God is not silent.

Fairly well-written. Just not convincing. Flew argued logically as an atheist for years. Later, he just thinks that DNA is too complex to be evolved without a god. Once you accept the supernatural into your worldview, then you can make up whatever you like. He thinks Christianity is really cool because God became a man for a while. But he doesn't believe in an afterlife - it seems like he disavows an afterlife so he can negate critic's suggestion that he is just getting religion now because he is advanced in age and wants to get in. I was hoping for stronger rationale.