Scan barcode
zkendall's review against another edition
2.0
Christians found Flews change from Atheism to Deism encouraging. His discussion of others in the field and their views and the other prominent high thinkers who are not atheists is also encouraging.
But when it came to the arguments. I was quite disappointed. Little of the argumentation is new. Much of it is just his realization that arguements that have been around are sufficient. Which is fine, as it is his sort of memoir, but I expected more. And there were some problems:
-
Durring the 2nd half of the third chapter Flew gives a retched dealing of evolution. He credits the tipping over of The monkey and Typewriter Argument (which is quite the straw man!). And next he knocks Dawkins about his "selfish gene" ideas. All the while not acknowledging Dawkins nice dealing with The Monkey and Typewriter argument in his book The Blind Watchmaker, in which he shows how (obviously) the chances of randomly creating something intelligable are nill, but combining chance with selection works rather nicely.
-
In Chapter 6 he starts of with a story of a person checking into a hotel room and finding that everything in the room is their favorite. The snacks, a book on the table by their favorite author, the toiletries in the bathroom etc. Therefore, he says, that person would think they were expected, and this is how we should feel about our universe. But this is assbackwards. An accurate analogy would be a guy entering his hotel room and aquiring a taste for what is there having no previous exposure to it. In light of evolution, etc., we are shaped by our universe, the universe is NOT shaped by needs or tastes, and I know of no philosophic reason to think so.
I think teleology is compelling (though emotional), but I find the anthropic principle backwards.
-
In apendix A, Roy Varghese, attacks the "new Atheists". But in the midst of it he knocks the belief of a natural coming about of life. He does this by saying: Imagine a marble table in front of you. Will it ever become alive or think? Neither will any other material. Therefore, life couldn't come by itself, and there is probably a God." Seriously? What a straw-man.
-
In appendix B, N. T. Wright puts forth a little essay on the resurrection of Jesus. It's a nice little essay. But I think the book he wrote [b:The Resurrection of the Son of God|148780|The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God)|N.T. Wright|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1172198027s/148780.jpg|143592], should be read by serious people.
Over all it was an enjoyable read. Nothing to serious, which I guess is good, like The Reason for God. It's a good book for people who scarcely have their feet in the philosophic water.
But when it came to the arguments. I was quite disappointed. Little of the argumentation is new. Much of it is just his realization that arguements that have been around are sufficient. Which is fine, as it is his sort of memoir, but I expected more. And there were some problems:
-
Durring the 2nd half of the third chapter Flew gives a retched dealing of evolution. He credits the tipping over of The monkey and Typewriter Argument (which is quite the straw man!). And next he knocks Dawkins about his "selfish gene" ideas. All the while not acknowledging Dawkins nice dealing with The Monkey and Typewriter argument in his book The Blind Watchmaker, in which he shows how (obviously) the chances of randomly creating something intelligable are nill, but combining chance with selection works rather nicely.
-
In Chapter 6 he starts of with a story of a person checking into a hotel room and finding that everything in the room is their favorite. The snacks, a book on the table by their favorite author, the toiletries in the bathroom etc. Therefore, he says, that person would think they were expected, and this is how we should feel about our universe. But this is assbackwards. An accurate analogy would be a guy entering his hotel room and aquiring a taste for what is there having no previous exposure to it. In light of evolution, etc., we are shaped by our universe, the universe is NOT shaped by needs or tastes, and I know of no philosophic reason to think so.
I think teleology is compelling (though emotional), but I find the anthropic principle backwards.
-
In apendix A, Roy Varghese, attacks the "new Atheists". But in the midst of it he knocks the belief of a natural coming about of life. He does this by saying: Imagine a marble table in front of you. Will it ever become alive or think? Neither will any other material. Therefore, life couldn't come by itself, and there is probably a God." Seriously? What a straw-man.
-
In appendix B, N. T. Wright puts forth a little essay on the resurrection of Jesus. It's a nice little essay. But I think the book he wrote [b:The Resurrection of the Son of God|148780|The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God)|N.T. Wright|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1172198027s/148780.jpg|143592], should be read by serious people.
Over all it was an enjoyable read. Nothing to serious, which I guess is good, like The Reason for God. It's a good book for people who scarcely have their feet in the philosophic water.
benrogerswpg's review against another edition
3.0
Nearly Half The Book Is Athiest
This book had a great message, but the way that message was formulated was overtly verbose and convoluted. In fact, this book went into great detail FOR atheism before getting into why there is a God, which I feel could negatively convert believers on the fence reading this book.
I would much sooner recommend reading [b:The Christian Athiest|58328472|The Christian Athiest|Craig Groeschel|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1623614443l/58328472._SX50_.jpg|10020562] instead.
3.2/5
This book had a great message, but the way that message was formulated was overtly verbose and convoluted. In fact, this book went into great detail FOR atheism before getting into why there is a God, which I feel could negatively convert believers on the fence reading this book.
I would much sooner recommend reading [b:The Christian Athiest|58328472|The Christian Athiest|Craig Groeschel|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1623614443l/58328472._SX50_.jpg|10020562] instead.
3.2/5
selaadin's review against another edition
3.0
As someone who attends the University of Reading, it is thoroughly interesting to read about one of the previous professors of the university, and his experience with his various changes in philosophy. I wouldn't say this is either the most informative or the most compelling book about theistic philosophy, but it does provide a lot of names to refer to in the area, as well as a fairly warm take on Flew's own personal journey to discovering his philosophy through the path of reason.
lassebirk's review against another edition
3.0
After having produced a lifetime of atheist arguments, Flew now thinks an omnipotent intelligent mind is the most probable explanation for three main phenomena:
* If the laws of nature or physical constants had been even a tiny bit different, life would have been impossible according to scientists. Some try to explain this by the multiverse theory, but Flew thinks that this just increases the amount of evidence that atheists need to produce when explaining not one universe but countless universes. I find this to be the strongest of Flew's arguments.
* Flew claims that biologists' estimates of the time required for abiogenesis (life being created from non-living material) is too large to have happened with known age of earth and the universe. And: Life exists with the purpose of living and reproduction, and Flew argues this purposeful teleological behavior cannot arise from mindless matter.
* How was the universe created? What was before the big bang? Science's missing answer leads Flew to accept the existence of a God.
While the book deals with the existence of a God in the general sense, in the appendix N.T. Wright argues specifically for christianity, especially regarding the circumstances of the resurrection.
* If the laws of nature or physical constants had been even a tiny bit different, life would have been impossible according to scientists. Some try to explain this by the multiverse theory, but Flew thinks that this just increases the amount of evidence that atheists need to produce when explaining not one universe but countless universes. I find this to be the strongest of Flew's arguments.
* Flew claims that biologists' estimates of the time required for abiogenesis (life being created from non-living material) is too large to have happened with known age of earth and the universe. And: Life exists with the purpose of living and reproduction, and Flew argues this purposeful teleological behavior cannot arise from mindless matter.
* How was the universe created? What was before the big bang? Science's missing answer leads Flew to accept the existence of a God.
While the book deals with the existence of a God in the general sense, in the appendix N.T. Wright argues specifically for christianity, especially regarding the circumstances of the resurrection.
nerdy_scholar's review against another edition
5.0
Or a very compelling work of defense of the existence of God. Just a waste of your time, to be honest. Full of personal anecdotes that don’t bare relevance to the topic. Shallow in its presentation.