Customer Reviews
Flew's flip is a flop - By: Stephen A. Haines, 31 Jul 2008 
Never having encountered a book by the "world's most assertive astrophysicist" or one by the "world's zaniest zoologist", Flew's subtitle came as something novel. Compounded by the fact that i'd never heard of him - my not being a scholarin "atheism" - it would have been easy to pass this by as a crank's production. However, at the insistence of some respected colleagues, i was impelled to give it a look. It's difficult to impart what a stunning waste of time this little tome proved to be.
It's bad form to chide a man's account of his own life. After all, he's the one who lived it. However, even his account of his early life exhibits some glaring omissions. Raised by a Methodist family - his father was a Cambridge tutorin the sect - Antony went off to a boys' school for his secondary education. There, as a "unenthusiastic Christian", his faith eroded away - mostly due to the "wearying ritual" he encountered at Chapel. That's it. No other fundamental reason is given for his atheism, which he successfully concealed from his parents for many years. After some erratic efforts to become a philosophical scholar, Flew produced a paper, "Theology & Falsification", upon which he built his career. The "Falsification" bit was supposed to indicate his interestin science, & his desire to follow where the evidence might lead. If the remainder of the book is any indication, somebody changed the pointers along the track & Flew arrived at some never-never land.
As a "philosopher", of course, Flew need not be held to a fixed position once taken. He recounts his readingsin philosophy & the encounters he had with notable peoplein the field. None of it, however, is used to expound on his self-professed lack of faith. Issues of gods, the universe, life or the world, never arisein this account. At least not until he attempts to explain his "conversion" - which is a bumbling failure.
To open his segment on "My Discovery of the Divine", Flew provides an update of Paley's "watch on the heath" concept,in this case with a satellite 'phone! From this, he works up a succession of ancient, weary arguments about Nature exhibiting "design" - Paley's contention, which Darwin ably dismissed over a century ago. Flew, apparently, has not caught up with the times. Worse, Flew also adopts Paley's notion of Nature's organisms having evolved for a "purpose". If ever an argument has been dispelled by science, teleology stands highin ranking. It's astounding to see anybody propose that fallacyin these times.
Along with these gaffes, Flew actually dredges up the old comparison about the odds of life emerging from material processes with the "monkeys typing the works of Shakespeare" fallacy. No greater misunderstanding of evolutionary biology could be displayed. There are those who claim that Flew was entering dementia when this book was written. While that remains unproveable, his lack of knowledgein fields relating to his arguments is glaring. Yet, he has no problem with out-of-context or irrelevant quotes being sprinkled throughout the text. His mental state is of no consequence, but it would have been kinder to himself & unsuspecting readers to have kept this empty dissertation under wraps. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
sadly, you won't learn much - By: george fowkes, 10 Jun 2008 
I have also read this book from cover to cover & I think that sadly it it is an illustration of the unproductive & often petty argument that flows back & forth between the 'new atheists', who (at the risk of oversimplification) object primarily to organised religion's insistence on compliance, & their opponents, who (see risk above) tend to recycle whichever of the 'cosmological' or 'argument from design' proofs of God they prefer. People seeking enlightenment as to the nature of atheism or theism will feel frustrated at the reliancein this book on the 2 proofs mentioned above. And if they get that far, they will feel downright disheartened at Varghese's anti-Dawkins piecein the Appendix, which is full of logical holes & indulgesin the "what a silly argument!" nonsense that Dawkins is also prone to.
If you really want to understand the crux of the argument/s, without any polemic, IMHO you're better off reading Julian Baggini's succinct & thoughtful "Atheism - a very short introduction". It contains just enough to keep you pondering for years.
The most convincing riposte to Dawkins I have read. - By: Mr. I. N. Stannard, 06 Jun 2008 
As a philosopher & teacher, I have read Flew for 20 years. This book is a measured & readable account that successfully presents a coherent reason why it is possible to embrace cosmology & beliefin a 'God'. I use the term deliberately as Flew is not a Christian - he is a Deist. Some atheists who feel betrayed have portrayed this change of heart as the jibberings of an old man. Not only is this attack on his integrity a pathetic slur, it is also far from the man who I have had the pleasure of meeting fairly recently. He was far from senile. The trouble with fundmentalists - & Dawkins is a fundamentalist - is that they cannot embrace anything that contradicts their worldview. This exposes the weakness of their argument. As any philosopher will tell you, Dawkins is an able Biologist but no philosopher. This is said by many agnostic, theist & atheist philosophers. In fact, a former tutor of mine (Phdin Physics & MAin Theology & retired Professor at Oxford) will no longer share a platform with the man & many of his fundamentalist followers- so arrogant & offensive he is to anyone who dares to question his omniscience!
I recommend it to anyone who wants to read an intelligent, thoughtful & moderate response to the question "why is there anything, rather than nothing at all'. The appendix written by the Bishop of Durham is an excellent & compelling defence of Christianity.
Rather sick, actually. - By: P. Clancy, 23 May 2008 
A wonderful ghost-written coup for unscrupulous religious zealots exploiting an old man who knew just about nothing of what wasin this book. Anthony Flew had not met the people who he was supposed to have talked to & as such please do not take this book seriously. Please research the base, Machiavellian wayin which this book came into existence before you start declaring it as proof of the futility & unaswered questions of atheism. Quite disgusting, even by Christian standards.
review of "There is a God" - By: John Schormans, 06 May 2008 I enjoyed this book immensely. It is a very nice change to read someone having the good grace & good sense to admit to their errors, & correct them, & even more pleasant to get away from the mouth-foaming rhetoric of Dawkins et al.
