I remembered the name Antony Flew from studying philosophy in the late sixties. Rightly or wrongly I associate him with dry post-war Oxford names like Gilbert Ryle, PF Strawson and John Austin. This book though felt like something shiny off the evangelist shelf, the sort of thing shiny fundamentalists hope will convince you because it’s in print. But you can’t judge a book by its cover, even if this one proclaimed it was the WINNER OF THE CHRISTIANITY TODAY BOOK AWARD.

[Review continues in: Another Flew over the cuckoo’s nest.]

I'm half way through now, and, to be honest, I don't think I'll be finishing this one before its due date. I'd recommend this to a fundamentalist atheist, a philosopher, or a scientist; for the rest of the reading world, however, I think it's going to be a bit of a chore to plow through. That said, it might be a chore for anyone.

Anthony Flew "converted" from atheism to deism in 2004, and this caused quite a sensation. The "conversion" was the result of many years of intellectual refinement of his philosophical opinions through the process of open debate. He is not a believer in revelation, in the Judeo-Christian God, but he has come to the conclusion that there is, in fact, a God. His book does include a chapter by N.T. Wright, arguing on behalf of the Christian God, which Flew describes as the most convincing argument in favor of revelation he has ever encountered. I would not go so far as that, but it is an interesting Q&A, and probably the best written part of the book. (I skipped ahead to the Appendix, which also contains an article on the "New Atheism.")

In addition to some technical detail (academic terminology), some of the biographical detail makes the book slow going at first: do I really need to know ever academic honor Flew has ever earned? I felt like I wanted him to get more to the point about why, in clear terms, he was an atheist and why, in plain language, he changed his mind.

I would have liked to have known more about what led him to his atheistic conclusions in the first place from a personal (rather than a purely philosophical standpoint). As I read, I wondered if it had anything to do with his incomplete exposure to the wide range of religious thought. I was surprised when he said, "Quite recently I found out that John Wesley...had led a great controversy against predestination and in favor of the Arminian alternative…" Quite recently? He's an educated thinker, a philosopher, and the son of a METHODIST minister nonetheless, and he only "found out" that fact "quite recently"? I'm still reeling from that line and haven't been able to process much since then.

الفصول الأخيرة من الكتاب كانت غير مهمه بالنسبة لي، فهو يوضح كم أصبح منفتحا لفكرة المسيح، لكان خليقا أن يستثمر تلك الصفحات في شرح الأفكار المعقدة.

Interesting book in understanding how one person can go from being theistic, to fully atheistic (and debating it) to finally deistic with an openness to theism again. It's interesting because Flew fully shows how plausible it was for him to come to the conclusion of believing in "a God" through reason alone, and not through "religious speculation" Or "revelation." And it's interesting the amounts of people he quotes in support of atheism, who provide at some point some leniency towards an option of theism or deism.



The ending of the book was curious, as he had 2 appendices, one by a Malayalee guy (who helped to write the book) and the other by my favourite bishop, N.T. Wright in which he talks about how God spoke through Jesus Christ. Flew comments on Wright, that this is probably one of the best arguments for a God who reveals Himself, out of all the options, which leads me to believe (and hope) that he is on the path towards Christ. But an openness that says he may not. Just an interesting/curious book that I found.

Was there anything new in Flew's book? Not to me, as I was familiar with the various arguments he refers to. Essentially Flew states that recent scientific advances have led him to believe that the universe does give evidence to having been designed, and seems to be the product of an Intelligence. Flew's style was very engaging, and his humble interest in Truth is very appealing.

I also very much enjoyed Appendix B, where Flew and Bishop N.T. Wright have a dialogue on the merits of the case for Christianity.

What an interesting book. I was really taken with Flew's categorization of modern atheists as being less intellectual, scientific and respectful and more snarky and superior in their arguments. Flew - having spent the majority of his career around other great minds of debate admits to being disappointed with the lack of civility in discourse. His quest to always follow the facts, even if they lead to uncomfortable places eventually takes him at age 80 to a place of belief in God. What I really appreciated was in honesty in saying that although he now believes that the science points to God, he has yet to experience a "personal experience" with God and remains open to it.