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

Although this book was ghost-written on Dr.Flew's behalf, that is exactly the hindrance that some people have had when giving this book a chance to to be read and understood for what Dr. Flew was trying to explain for why he genuinely changed his mind without any sort of coercion or bribe from others. After doing my own research on the web about this book, I learned that the NYT article by Nick Oppenheimer was simply to discredit Flew citing his age and that he was manipulated by those in the Christian camp to promote their agenda. Even Richard Dawkins at a conference at Randolph-Macon Women's college in Lynchburg, Virginia proclaimed that Flew was specifically convinced my Michael Behe and that he said that Darwin had a deathbed conversion. Well after reading this book which Flew himself read and scrutinized all ten manuscripts prior to its publication, there was mentioning of Michael Behe or a deathbed conversion from Darwin. In actuality, the quote in the book that Flew cites was something that Darwin himself had said in his autobiography. So this was a lesson for me to really seeking the truth for myself as to what was going on considering that Flew doesn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus or an a afterlife doesn't sound like a person who was manipulated at all. The chapters that really grabbed my attention which was the primary theme of the book was chapter 5 "Who wrote the laws of Nature?", chapter 6 "Did the Universe know we were coming? and chapter 7 "How did life go live?". I personally skipped over the case made for the Jesus resurrection made by NT Wright since that wasn't what interested me, but to just focus my attention on Flew's journey to a theistic position. So I hope people will put aside their bias and whatever they've heard from Dawkins or anyone else to exercise their own free will and judgment to determine for themselves whether Flew's pilgrimage makes sense or not.

I really enjoyed this author's writing style. He came across sincere in his convictions with detailed explanations for his conclusions in belief.

The preface by R. Varghese was just as intriguing and entertaining as the remainder of the book. It is individuals like Flew that make knowledge and debate a successful endeavor for humanity. He quotes Plato, in that, we should follow where the evidence leads. There are many in this life who genuinely pursue this maxim, but there are just as many who are dogmatic and unmoveable. If you are of the former, you will enjoy this book.

This is definitely not a book of proselytization. Flew clarifies that he hasn't had "contact" with God and isn't loyal to any particular belief. It is only a testament to his change of mind dealing with the possibility of their being a God.

He seems to share apprehension, like myself, to the "new" atheism promulgated by those like Dawkins, Dennett, etc. Flew states that his former atheism had "juvenile insistencies" and R. Varghese places the new atheists into the same box as religious zealots. Flew champions debate, but not at the expense of personally vilifying those who are in disagreement. You can follow where the evidence leads without marginalizing others who are seeking the same destination.

In a spirit of generosity, I am giving this book 4 stars - somewhere around 3.5 stars seems more apt. The reason why its not an excellent book is that its of varying quality. The first third of the book which is a kind of memoir is not likely to be of great interest to those who have not followed Flew's career. However, I suppose it was necessary to some degree to explain why he changed his mind. There again, his change of mind seems to be down to one factor, the increasingly expanding science of cosmology.

For Flew, Cosmology radiates Mind, the very laws of nature woven into the fabric of the Universe shout aloud: "I have been created by a rational Supernatural Mind". The book is particularly good at answering the New Atheists, who, according to Flew, simply are not good at doing philosophy (well, thats cutting to the thrust of his argument): he sees them as impoverished positivists.

I particularly liked the point made about monkeys and typewriters - the idea that Monkeys if given enough time could by chance produce a sonnet of Shakespeare of indeed the complete works of Shakespeare. In term of chance, there is a 1 in 10 to the power of 80 chance of this happening i.e. which is more than the numbers of protons, electrons and neutrons in the whole world.

Anyway, so what are his basic arguments?

I) Nature obeys laws: why is this so, why is the whole Universe law abiding - is not law a manifestation of ratio - can ratio come from inanimate matter?

II) Life itself: why is it intelligently organised and goal driven - and how did life arise from matter. The very gentic code of human being speaks of MIND. Why did sexual reproduction arise - survival of the fitness is not an answer - it merely demands that we ask the question: why is nature purpose driven - why does it "care" where say Human Nature or Elephant Nature survives.

III) The very existence of the Universe and of nature - why does it exist at all? He notes the minute likelihood of us existing at all and further notes that to say that there may be many universes, does not answer the question at all - why are there multiuniverse and why would they obey rational laws

IV) Consciousness which is itself not explicable in terms of matter only i.e. Brain does not equal Mind.

The above reminds me of a comment Christopher Dawkins made in one of his books, namely that it was precisely because it is in Christianity that the world is seen as rational - Christ is the Logos - i.e. reason or mind, that it was in the context of the Western World that science itself burgeoned. There is no point doing scientific experiments at all if there is not an intrinsic logic to the world. Otherwise experiments would tell us nothing - it would all just be chaos.
The appendices are good - I thought NT Wright's arguments for Christianity were particularly rational!

Now, I don't believe for one minute that any of the above will convince Dawkins and Co or his many disciples because it seems to me that there is a strong volitional element to this. For me, the evidence of Mind is extremely strong to suggest a Creator but others will prefer to believe in utter blind chance - we appeared out of some cosmic soup, which itself spontaneously emerged out of nothing. Note here that with the Big Bang theory, Plato's theory of the Universe being eternal no longer seems valid on cosmological grounds. We are not pre-determined - we do have choices and I respect the choice of those who listen to the same evidence and say: "there is no God". I simply ask that they respect my choice and belief that the Universe proclaims the glory of God!

In this book we have a world-renowned scholar/philosopher changing his mind over the main direction of thought which he has pursued for over fifty years, and that is very unusual. This change of mind is something well worth reading about. What brought about a change of mind of this magnitude? To find out, you will need to read the book yourself, and it is not a difficult read. Interestingly, the key arguments which changed him from being an atheist (there is no God)to a theist (there is a God)are not philosophical; they are arguments from science.

Some commentators have rejected this little volume as the the musings of an old man who is past his best, but such 'argumentum ad hominem' is unfair and unwarranted. The arguments stand or fall on their own merits. The author's integrity and commitment to a search for truth shine through his writing. Are the arguments convincing?

I find them thought-provoking, and significant - but then, as a Christian believer, I might be expected to be sympathetic. I doubt whether Flew's book would change the mind of a convinced atheist, although for some reason it has made some atheists very angry. Flew's arguments do not deal with the classic ethical and philosophical objections to theism, but they ought to make any thoughtful reader pause and consider.

It would seem that respect for intellectual honesty would not be related to content. In other words, if someone displays a high level of integrity in what they believe and how they arrive at conclusions, it would be respected by intelligent people regardless of whether or not they agree with those beliefs. Alas, I must live in a fantasy world. In this book Antony Flew explains clearly and carefully how the underlying foundation of his intellectual life: "follow the evidence where it leads" first led him to atheism and now leads him to theism. The names he is called by his former friends calls into question their own intellectual honesty and whether or not they have the courage to follow the evidence where it leads. I highly commend this book not based on my support for its conclusions, but for a very clearly written travelogue of a brilliant man's journey through the deepest questions in life.