Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

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

Antony Flew,

Roy Abraham Varghese

3.71 · Rating details · 2,119 ratings · 336 reviews

In one of the biggest religion news stories of the new millennium, the Associated Press announced that Professor Antony Flew, the world's leading atheist, now believes in God.

Flew is a pioneer for modern atheism. His famous paper, Theology and Falsification, was first presented at a meeting of the Oxford Socratic Club chaired by C. S. Lewis and went on to become the most w ...more

Get A Copy

Hardcover, 222 pages

Published October 23rd 2007 by HarperOne (first published 2007)

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about There Is a God, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about There Is a God

Lists with This Book

Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret by Judy Blume

The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy

Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston

God

782 books — 120 voters

Why God Won't Go Away by Alister E. McGrath

Atheism & Theism - Debates & Discussions

115 books — 3 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 3.71 ·

Rating details

· 2,119 ratings · 336 reviews

More filters

Sort order

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

Oct 31, 2013 عماد العتيلي rated it it was amazing

Shelves: 2014-reads, favorites, best-of-2014

Excellent. Awesome. Brilliant. Magnificent!!
This book is much better than I expected, and it's very important - not because it supports the existence of God, but because it encourages rational thinking.
Antony Flew inspired me. His story can be summarized:
Born Christian -- Skeptic Christian -- Atheist -- Skeptic Atheist -- Believer.

In his journey, Flew followed the Socratic principle: “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.” And the argument led him through so many deep and dark caves o ...more

flag 62 likes · Like · see review

Mar 05, 2009 David rated it did not like it

On the face of it, this is a provocative and interesting book. Flew is a British philosopher, noted for numerous books proclaiming an atheist worldview, who in 2004 startled the intellectual world by announcing that he has changed his mind and is now a religious believer.

Some of Flew's points are well taken, for example his analysis of the ongoing debate over the "multiverse" and big bang cosmology. For those of you who are not familiar with this, many scientists are currently perplexed by numer On the face of it, this is a provocative and interesting book. Flew is a British philosopher, noted for numerous books proclaiming an atheist worldview, who in 2004 startled the intellectual world by announcing that he has changed his mind and is now a religious believer.

Some of Flew's points are well taken, for example his analysis of the ongoing debate over the "multiverse" and big bang cosmology. For those of you who are not familiar with this, many scientists are currently perplexed by numerous features of our universe and its laws that are extremely finely tuned to permit the existence of life. And we're not just talking DNA-carbon-earth-based life, but life even in a very general sense based on a reasonably long-lived universe and stable atoms. In an attempt to explain these features, some scientists have hypothesized a "multiverse" consisting of a huge number (10^500 or even infinite) number of actually co-existing universes. They assert that the reason ours is so finely tuned for intelligent life is that if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to talk about it (i.e., the "anthropic principle"). Flew notes, as even some scientists have acknowledged, that the notion of a universal Creator is at least as plausible as this.

Flew also did a very nice job in summarizing writings of a number of leading scientists, some of whom are outwardly "atheistic", but who are closer reading acknowledge a sublime beauty in the elegant laws governing the universe, at least, and perhaps a creator as well. Among those he quotes are Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, Max Planck, Paul Dirac, and (more recently) Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies and John Barrows. Even Charles Darwin, who by his own statement lost faith in any sort of personal deity, commented on numerous occasions about the wonder of the natural world and felt "compelled to look to ... an intelligent mind".

Unfortunately, Flew's book is marred by his flawed analysis of biological evolution. He starts out by dismissing writings of biologists on this subject, saying that "they rarely attend to the philosophical dimension of their findings". He mentions the question of how a universe of mindless matter can produce beings with "intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities and 'coded chemistry.'" He then asserts "Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem." Are we?

Along the way, he mentions the "monkeys at a typewriter" argument (the claim that monkeys at a typewriter could construct the works of Shakespeare). He noted (correctly) that Schroeder and others have refuted this argument, because constructing even a few lines of text would take enormously more than the age of the universe. But Flew then appears to (incorrectly) conclude that this utterly and totally refutes the notion that an evolutionary process can construct information-rich structures such DNA.

Unfortunately, reams of scientific evidence argues the other way -- evolution CAN and DOES increase information content. There are numerous examples of beneficial mutations, for example, the strain of bacteria that, due to a "frame shift" mutation, was able to metabolize nylon, and (tragically) the development of multi-antibiotic-resistant strains of tuberculosis and STDs. Numerous recent experiments are starting to shed light on the problem of abiogensis -- how the first reproducing molecules formed. More importantly, the record of mutations in the DNA of every human (and every other species for that matter) is replete with literally millions of relics of our evolutionary past. Finally, I should mention the field of "genetic" or "evolutionary" computing, which employs evolution-like schemes to devise new engineering designs that in many cases are superior to anything designed by humans.

In spite of this, though, overall Flew's material is not bad. But the coup-de-grace is Appendix A, written by Roy Abraham Varghese, who is listed as a co-author and who Flew acknowledges was a major factor in his "conversion".

Varghese's article is awful. He starts by giving the example of a marble table. Since it is impossible that it could become conscious, and since it is made of atoms, how could we ever expect any other collection of atoms to acquire properties such as consciousness. He continues this general line of reasoning for 20 pages.

I'm sorry, but this argument won't work. It is identical in many respects to John Searle's "Chinese room" argument -- if a roomful of clerks performing mechanical operations were able to "translate" Chinese, one could not say that this "computer program" was conscious. Searle's flawed reasoning has been refuted over and over again -- what one can say about individual atoms and low-level structures is NOT what one can say about a high-level system involving billions or trillions or of such structures acting out high-level imperatives imposed by evolution.

Besides, all of these arguments will soon be laid to rest. Little known to the public, the field of artificial intelligence is currently making great strides. The main turning point here was about 10 years ago with the adoption of Bayseian (probabilistic) analysis schemes, instead of the deterministic rules previously preferred. This has greatly improved the effectiveness of intelligent software ranging from translation to medical diagnosis and industrial process monitoring. Anyone who questions this can just try to translate a paragraph of foreign-language text using Google's online translation facility. Most likely you will find that while it is by no means perfect, it is often good enough that someone reading the resulting English can polish it up. Recently Google won an international competition sponsored by a government agency for translation. This was in spite of the fact that there was no one on Google's staff who was knowledgeable in either of the target languages -- it was achieved entirely by analyzing (using Bayseian methods) a huge corpus of UN documents in English and the relevant foreign languages.

In short, it's too bad that such an interesting book as Flew's is so deeply flawed. This makes it an easy target for the very "atheists" that Flew is trying to convince. Sadly, I'm inclined to agree here with Richard Dawkins (with whom I strongly disagree for his acerbic in-your-face rhetoric in the science-vs-religion debate): critical portions of Flew's book are nothing more than the old "god of the gaps" logic -- the thought that God is to be found in the "gaps" of current scientific knowledge. I was hoping that a world-renowned philosopher would do better.
...more

flag 41 likes · Like · see review

Jun 22, 2013 Ross Blocher rated it did not like it

I was raised a Christian, and was a very ardent church member and proponent of my faith up until the age of 21. In the 9 years since my "apostasy", I have continued to read books on both sides of the God debate. I have endeavored to follow the evidence where it leads, as the author of this book, Antony Flew, has asserted for himself. It was then of interest to me that a well-known atheist such as Flew should claim to now believe in God. This announcement was a hot topic a few years back (prior t ...more

flag 37 likes · Like · see review

Sep 09, 2020 Alex J. O'Connor added it

Flew is at times quite self-indulgent, but there is a certain humility in how casually he seems to change his mind based on new arguments. I expected more of a narrative following his conversion to deism, but instead was met with a broad overview of arguments for God's existence that largely emerged or have been buttressed by new scientific information from the late twentieth century.

Flew was obviously quite impressed with big bang cosmology and the complexity of genetics (as we all should be), Flew is at times quite self-indulgent, but there is a certain humility in how casually he seems to change his mind based on new arguments. I expected more of a narrative following his conversion to deism, but instead was met with a broad overview of arguments for God's existence that largely emerged or have been buttressed by new scientific information from the late twentieth century.

Flew was obviously quite impressed with big bang cosmology and the complexity of genetics (as we all should be), and can't be blamed for thinking they contradicted his previous worldview. Though there are of course various responses to the arguments he raises, none comprehensively refute them such that it is irrational to use them to support a belief in God.

One exception to this is that Flew appeared, as an atheist, to have been quite moved by the problem of evil, for which the most popular religious response tends to be the free will defence. Flew was as I am now an incompatiblist about free will, though he used to be a determinist incompatiblist, and died as a libertarian incompatiblist.

It appears that Flew's reversal on the subject of free will was crucial in his adoption of deism, since he saw the problem of evil as a serious challenge, and the free will defence as inadequate due to the nonexistence of free will. It is implied that once he became convinced that we are free agents, this allowed him to escape the problem of evil objection.

But Flew's account of how certain causes can 'incline' rather than 'necessitate' misses the mark entirely, not considering how whatever bridges the gap between inclination and action is itself a process out of one's own control.

I wonder if Flew might have held onto his atheism due to the problem of evil had he not made this error (as I perceive it to be). His case is an affirmative one relying on scientific discoveries and philosophical analysis, so perhaps he still may have converted as a determinist, but it is unclear.

This made me realise that should I ever become a believer in a (moral) God, perhaps an unexpected condition would be to become first convinced that libertarian free will exists, something I currently consider to be logically impossible. ...more

flag 32 likes · Like · see review

Jul 22, 2012 Shaimaa Ali rated it really liked it · review of another edition

In "There's a God", Flew takes us in an intellectual journey searching for God. Starting with Plato's logic ( We must follow the argument wherever it leads), he managed to compare new Science discoveries & late scientists' opinions like "Einstein, Hawking ..etc" to old philosophers (mainly Russell & Spinoza), and also to attack famous atheists like "Dawkins". He managed to review his own beliefs and came to a new radical conclusion on his question of: God, "superior mind," "Illimitable superior ...more

flag 24 likes · Like · see review

Dec 25, 2012 Rob Springer rated it it was amazing

Recommends it for: Anyone interested in the big questions.

Anthony Flew was one of the philosophical fountainheads of much of the atheist thinking of the 20th century. When he announced he had decided the best evidence and argument no longer supported that position, that he in fact had become a deist, atheist believers were shocked. They assumed that this was a late-age deathbed conversion.

Flew begins his book by disposing of that notion. What led him to accept that the existence of God (an omniscient, omnipotent, creator being) was the same thing that Anthony Flew was one of the philosophical fountainheads of much of the atheist thinking of the 20th century. When he announced he had decided the best evidence and argument no longer supported that position, that he in fact had become a deist, atheist believers were shocked. They assumed that this was a late-age deathbed conversion.

Flew begins his book by disposing of that notion. What led him to accept that the existence of God (an omniscient, omnipotent, creator being) was the same thing that had led him to initially deny His existence: The Socratic Principle, which states, “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.”

As an atheist, Flew wrote several influential papers. These not only influenced atheists, but theist philosophy as well in that over time rebuttals were formulated. Modern theist philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga, and Roy Varghese (co-author of this book), and David Conway, stand on more solid philosophical ground for having developed responses to Flew’s arguments.

Why did Flew change his mind? “The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science.” His departure from atheism developed over the last two decades as a consequence of his “continuing assessment from the evidence of nature.” He says that “[t]hose scientists who point to the Mind of God do not merely advance a series of arguments or a process of syllogistic reasoning, rather, they propound a vision of reality that emerges from the conceptual heart of modern science and imposes itself n the rational mind. It is a vision that I personally find compelling and irrefutable.”

He says “the three items of evidence we have considered in this volume—the laws of nature [the anthropic principle], life with its teleological organization, and the existence of the universe—can only be explained in the light of an Intelligence that explains both its own existence and that of our world.” “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.” ...more

flag 23 likes · Like · see review

May 06, 2020 Jessaka rated it it was amazing

Shelves: philosophy, religion

Anthony Flew was a renowned atheist that had written more than 30 books about the subject of atheism. It appears that his books influenced atheists greatly. In the meantime, in the last several years, we have had a new breed of atheists. Some call them new atheists, others, militant atheists. When Flew announced that he now believed in God, he was attacked. The new atheists thought that he had flipped his wig in his old age. Like some Christians, the new atheists were like pit bulls. The need to ...more

flag 16 likes · Like · see review

Aug 21, 2011 Muhammad Askar rated it it was amazing

The book is in three sections. Each section is like a time-lapse view at a portion of this incredible man's life. I found it amazing that this great British philosopher managed in his book to both profoundly analyze, and easily portray his thoughts and beliefs in each section of the book.

He has an amazing ability to analyze inputs and thoughts and how they originate, develop and culminate into a final 'belief'. Temporary as they may have been; all his beliefs, as the book states, resulted out of ...more

flag 16 likes · Like · see review

Apr 17, 2009 Rich rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: religion

For more than 50 years atheists turned to the writings of Antony Flew, a British philosopher. Flew first came to fame with the essay, Theology and Falsification, which he presented at the C.S. Lewis chaired Socratic Society at Oxford.

He spent the next 50 years as an atheist, but he always added the caveat: I'll follow where the evidence leads. In 2004, at a conference on atheism in New York City, Flew dropped a bombshell: He had finally rejected atheism, and was now a believer in God.

(He's not ...more

flag 12 likes · Like · see review

Mar 01, 2008 Jamey rated it liked it

Once in a while I read yet another book by a sophisticated thinker on the issue of whether a God exists. Often it turns out that there's also a chapter on the alleged "resurrection" of Jesus; this always feels like a betrayal, as well as an admission that the main driver of the argument has actually been magical thinking all along.

I'm aware that many brilliant and honest people over the past 18 centuries have claimed to believe that this fellow Jesus was dead for three days and then became aliv Once in a while I read yet another book by a sophisticated thinker on the issue of whether a God exists. Often it turns out that there's also a chapter on the alleged "resurrection" of Jesus; this always feels like a betrayal, as well as an admission that the main driver of the argument has actually been magical thinking all along.

I'm aware that many brilliant and honest people over the past 18 centuries have claimed to believe that this fellow Jesus was dead for three days and then became alive again, but it seems to me quite impossible and unworthy of special pleading.

I am far more ready to entertain the hypothesis that there is a divine mind without a brain (though I can't imagine how this could be true), than that a particular guy rose from the dead and was, for that matter, a human incarnation of the infinite God of the ancient Hebrews, and was somehow his own Father and his own Son, and so on. It is so absurd, so pitifully, heartbreakingly far-fetched that I won't waste ink on it. Such a belief may be laudable as a cultural formation, but it's not my culture. Unfortunately, Flew's book does include such a chapter, written by a guest author he admires. It seemed very silly to me.

I'm genuinely and un-ironically interested in the question of what speaks for theism and what speaks against it. I would like very, very, much to become convinced that God exists, which is my reason for putting in the time reading such books as this one by Antony Flew. When such a book turns up the old saw that God provides a transcendent foundation for moral values, I give the book away as non-worthwhile (for example, God: The Evidence, by Patrick Glynn).

Happily, this book doesn't do that. It claims that God is a good explanation for the origin of life, the phenomenon of consciousness, and the fact that there is a world at all. While I agree that Richard Dawkins seems to be an a-hole of some kind, I am not ready to believe that no amount of biochemistry can account for emergent self-replicating macromolecules. As to why there is a world at all, I don't prefer to ask why there is a God at all, which is the obligatory next move if I say there's a world because a God made one. Consciousness as an emergent property of a computational neural network, I just don't understand; but I certainly don't understand consciousness as an incorporeal spirit any better.

Somehow Antony Flew thought others would be persuaded by this book, and I respect him so I wonder if I simply read it too fast. I don't think so. ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Mar 08, 2018 Ghayeth Ersheidat rated it it was amazing

Shelves: read-feed

"It's time for me to lay my cards on the table, to set out my own views and the reasons that supports them. i do believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite intelligence. I believe that this universe intricate laws manifest what scientists have called The Mind Of GOD"

Flew's journey of discovery in finding God was not just based on pure reasoning, but also on following the arguments wherever they'd led.

as Flew says in his book " Such discovery of the Divine does not come ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Nov 06, 2012 Terri Lynn rated it did not like it

Shelves: nonfiction, books-by-disturbed-people, author-is-an-idiot

As an Atheist, I was never impressed with Antony Flew even when he claimed to be one too. He always struck me as being sort of egomaniac and all around lightweight idiot and I wished the Christians had him then low and behold- brothers and sisters, we have a miracle here!- they did!

No, there is still not a god nor any goddesses, and Flew presents exactly 0 proof of one. Flew grew up in a religious family that brainwashed him into believing christian mythology but when he grew up and got some As an Atheist, I was never impressed with Antony Flew even when he claimed to be one too. He always struck me as being sort of egomaniac and all around lightweight idiot and I wished the Christians had him then low and behold- brothers and sisters, we have a miracle here!- they did!

No, there is still not a god nor any goddesses, and Flew presents exactly 0 proof of one. Flew grew up in a religious family that brainwashed him into believing christian mythology but when he grew up and got some education, he put that ignorance aside.

In this book he is desperately seeking company from scientists. For example, he tries to claim Stephen Hawking who has repeated said that he is an Atheist. He also tries to claim Albert Einstein, apparently never reading the things Einstein wrote about the bible being fairy tales and that he did not believe in a god. Einstein explained repeatedly that when he said "god" he did not mean a religious god but that his god is science. In the very last letter he wrote before dying (sold for a lot of money in 2008), Einstein answered a friend who had been concerned hearing Christians saying Einstein was one of them. Einstein told his friend that he was still an Atheist and that people misunderstood his use of the word "god".

There is no proof here of any god but Flew did borrow from the thinking of C.S. Lewis who had been an Atheist until he lost his wife and got older and hoped he would see her again so turned Christian. Lewis laid out a challenge to nonbelievers that Jesus would have to be a lunatic, a liar, or the lord then tried to prove by the bible itself that he was not a lunatic or liar. Ah, but he conveniently left off the real answer- lunatic, liar, lord, or NONEXISTENT. D is the correct answer. Essentially Flew says here that there must have been a jesus because the bible says so and that he must have been god because otherwise he would be nuts. Go figure that.

A piece of information that is vital to understanding why Flew suddenly turned Christian is the fact that he wrote this after being diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease. The simple reason he changed his mind is that he is losing his mind as the brain cells die off. Sad.

...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Jul 10, 2019 Sharon Barrow Wilfong rated it it was amazing

Philospher and former atheist Antony Flew set the agenda for modern atheism with his 1950 essay "Theology and Falsification" ...in his commitment to "follow the argument wherever it leads" led him to a belief in God as Creator. (From the back of the book)

I had heard of Flew a number years ago because of his radical turn from atheism to deism in his eighties. I love to hear people's arguments as to how they arrive at conclusions and this book does not disappoint. Imminently readable and coherent, ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Feb 15, 2013 Glenn Myers rated it really liked it

Enjoyable, brief ramble from the former to the probably final state of philosopher Antony Flew's thinking, particularly about God, and including how he changed his mind from atheism to Deism. It is bookended by a lengthy introduction and an appendix by the actual writer of the book, Roy Abraham Varghese, and another by the biblical scholar of the hour, Tom, or NT, Wright. Flew took care to write, and personally sign, his own introduction.

Here's a quote, cue unreasoned, buttock-clenching joy from Enjoyable, brief ramble from the former to the probably final state of philosopher Antony Flew's thinking, particularly about God, and including how he changed his mind from atheism to Deism. It is bookended by a lengthy introduction and an appendix by the actual writer of the book, Roy Abraham Varghese, and another by the biblical scholar of the hour, Tom, or NT, Wright. Flew took care to write, and personally sign, his own introduction.

Here's a quote, cue unreasoned, buttock-clenching joy from theists and wailing and gnashing of teeth from his former atheist pals:

I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It has been an exercise in what is traditionally called natural theology. It has no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor do I claim to have had any personal experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith. (p93)

The 'pilgrimage of reason' soundbite could not be more perfectly chosen to delight and infuriate in equal measure.

The book is a good read. The Internet is also a good read, seeing some atheists build a case against the book using the same kind of tactics usually employed by cigarette companies, traffic lawyers, climate-change deniers or creationists, on the lines of 'the old boy lost it, very sad, and was bundled into the back of a van by evangelicals and forced to sign a script someone else had written for him.'

Actually, the book is clear that Flew became a Deist, and never stopped personally rejecting all the received religions. He didn't believe in an afterlife. He thought Christianity was the best available religion, but he didn't claim to embrace it, despite the admittedly gorgeous scholarship of N T Wright. All this is in the book. It's nice to find good and honest atheist commentators who recognize this, and who agree with the broadsheet obituaries of Flew, not least in the New York Times which put some journalistic resource into investigating the circumstances of the book. Flew had his marbles and after a lifetime of brilliant atheist philosophical discourse, took to believing that the universe was created by an infinite, immutable, omnipotent, First Cause. Flew's widow agreed that that was his position. The jeers and hoots coming from the Theist side may be in bad taste, but perhaps we should be allowed our little moment of fun. Remember, we also have to put up with Creationists and Republicans, and sometimes even have to call them 'brother'. ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Nov 12, 2014 ♥ Ibrahim ♥ rated it it was ok

Shelves: philosophy, religious-studies

If this is the great philosopher's book, what is Roy Abraham Varghese doing giving Antony Flew such a vitriolic preface? I didn't like the guy as he sounds like a ticked-off Christian who is all up in arms for those "atheist infidels". The author says in the introduction that in the last seven chapters he was greatly helped by Richard Swinburne and Brian Leftow. Who is helping who? Isn't this Antony Flew's book or he is leaving for every Tom, Dick and Harry to add in his two cents worth?! And wh ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Jun 12, 2010 S.L. Surovec rated it did not like it

Shelves: atheism-religion-philosophy

Possibly one of the biggest loads of crap the fundamentalists have attempted to shovel at us since Prop. 8. How sad that they have to invent someone who never was really an atheist to begin with, much less the "world's most notorious atheist" (considering that most freethinkers would classify Dawkins or Hitchens as such) in order to "prove" their point. Then again, they're quite good at crafting imaginary beings to defend their point of view, so it's not such a surprise after all; just incredibl ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Dec 16, 2014 Ali Reda rated it liked it · review of another edition

In The Presumption of Atheism and other atheistic writings, Flew argued that we must take the universe itself and its most fundamental laws as themselves ultimate. Every system of explanation must start somewhere, and this starting point itself cannot be explained by the system. So, inevitably, all such systems include at least some fundamentals that are not themselves explained. This is a consequence following from the essential nature of explanations of why something that is in fact the case, ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Dec 12, 2010 Mohammed Algarawi rated it liked it

Although I believe in God, I believe that there isn't an absolute clear conclusive evidence of his existence. People, whether atheists or believers agree that there's a reason/truth/cause for our existence or our perception to this world, but everyone has their own interpretation of that truth. Aside from all that, I don't believe that the burden of the proof should be on those who say that there is a God, or those who say that there isn't. I believe that every person is entitled to their own be ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Jan 01, 2014 Alan rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: apologetics

Flew is truly a man who is courageous enough to change his position after a very long career in philosophy as an outspoken atheist. This book can be used as inspiration to unbelievers who aren't willing to honestly approach the evidence for the existence of God. After all, if Flew can convert to theism from atheism...any atheist can. ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Nov 29, 2015 Yomna Sherif rated it liked it

I have found real toughness in getting along with that book's language and philosophy. As a matter of fact, I consider myself new to this whole reading experience, but my curiosity took me to this book. Although I had an unexplained weird journey while reading it, I enjoyed the thoughts it brought to me.

First of all, the dictionary and google search didn't leave my side while reading as to me there was a huge difficulty in getting every phrase in the right way. And I don't have to mention how ma I have found real toughness in getting along with that book's language and philosophy. As a matter of fact, I consider myself new to this whole reading experience, but my curiosity took me to this book. Although I had an unexplained weird journey while reading it, I enjoyed the thoughts it brought to me.

First of all, the dictionary and google search didn't leave my side while reading as to me there was a huge difficulty in getting every phrase in the right way. And I don't have to mention how many times I had to repeat reading paragraphs over and over! But "I found myself inclined to the pleasure of" grasping each word. However, only one idea controlled my mind from the very first page to the last one which is (my belief). It is not that I question my religion, of course not! But it is the fact that I am a muslim and my Quaran tells me to discover nature, universe and facts! Quaran pushes me to understand, to read, to learn and to question everything for the sake of finding the Lord's Greatness all around and believe in Him more. Despite this fact, I stayed dormant. I belong to muslims, yet, I did nothing to feel the ultimate belonging to Islam.
On the other hand, "the world's most famous atheist turned into a believer" because of his continuous passion towards discoveries, understanding and knowledge which guarded his journey.
No matter how much I disagree with some points in that book and how irrelevant some examples are, I discovered the tremendous flaw in myself. I guess I am not the only Arab Muslim who have been ignoring being responsible about her religion, understanding the universe and defending her beliefs! Most of us are muslims because we were born to muslim parents as if it is a genetically inherited trait. We do muslims' stuff because we have been told to without getting any deep in our beloved religion. No wonder why we are not on the top of the world. We refuse to think, discover and question. "Our understanding is radically limited" and that's why "I must say that the journey to my discovery of the divine" should start now. It has been postponed for so long already. And "I have to follow the argument to where it will lead me."

Very poor writing, but I had to let out these thoughts. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Dec 31, 2013 Firas Ghomraoui rated it it was amazing

"Follow the evidence wherever it leads" -Socrates
And follow he did. For more than half a century, the author has been a steadfast champion of athiesm and a sour critic of belief, only to appear yet again with a concrete, scientifically-based conclusion: There is a God.
How so? The author eloquently answers this question (and many others), tackling one at a time. From reflecting back on previous debates with theists, down to criticizing the (I would like to call "supremacist" and "arrogant") menta ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jul 28, 2014 Sarah rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: favorites

There is a God
by Antony Flew
In There Is a God, one of the world's preeminent atheists discloses how his commitment to "follow the argument wherever it leads" led him to a belief in God as Creator.
A person who changed his mind after more than 60 years of atheism to be a theist
The book explained how a leading atheist believed in God ,more or less,based on scientific evidence.
He showed how the atheists nowadays try to deceive people by there fake theories and how they elude from many problems and ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jul 03, 2012 Joshua rated it did not like it

The fact that the author wrote a whole book on this topic means he recognizes it's an interesting, important question. However, 70+% of the book is devoted to the author's background and credentials and the opinions (in some cases, clearly quote-mined, even while they accuse others of doing the same thing) of others.

Let's get to the actual argument, huh? However, the "big reveal", the kernel of the argument, is a fairly standard "argument from design", with a very strange pivot. The author is c ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Nov 15, 2013 Salma rated it it was amazing

former atheist "antony flew" puts forward his theistic arguments that proves modern scientific
hypotheses invalid.
"There's a god" introduces the early life of the son of a priest who was -supposedly- brought up
in a religious family but then converted to atheism in his teens and never revealed his reality
at that time. in his book, flew outlines the reasons behind his atheism and his contributions in the field of theology and philosophy then his gradual change towards deism. Flew died in 2010 s ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Feb 15, 2013 Vam_xxx1 rated it it was amazing

actually one of the best books i have ever read, the brilliance of it, that antony flew represents a truth seeker, who is following the argument wherever it leads him, which is i believe, the most important concept that this books displays, how to be able to change ur ideas , ur beliefs , if u were able to find that they were not right, i think its an absolute joy to seek for the truth with this spirit, and this books travels along that journey of flew.

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jun 24, 2015 يوسف بوحايك rated it really liked it

It was a clear book and a brave one from one of the most notorious atheist, he has tried to answer the atheism and the existence's questions and gaps, his answers was a bit superficial and not very deep, I liked his objectivity and his credibility, but the subject still complicated and need more details and more scientific facts.. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Aug 12, 2011 Bryant Rudisill rated it really liked it

Atheist-turned-Deist, Antony Flew, provides us with an excellent overview of his life and work and "conversion" to Deism. Much can be appreciated about this work:

(1) Readability is key and those interested will find Flew accessible. He presents a clear synopsis of his present beliefs without becoming bogged down in details or linguistic precision that would not have fit well with the scope of the book.

(2) Part 1, comprising three chapters, expound Flew's life and early belief. In many popular re Atheist-turned-Deist, Antony Flew, provides us with an excellent overview of his life and work and "conversion" to Deism. Much can be appreciated about this work:

(1) Readability is key and those interested will find Flew accessible. He presents a clear synopsis of his present beliefs without becoming bogged down in details or linguistic precision that would not have fit well with the scope of the book.

(2) Part 1, comprising three chapters, expound Flew's life and early belief. In many popular religious (or anti-religious) books it is something of a fad to note one's life influences and reasons for maintaining (or revising) the position one has. While this is fine and dandy (especially for pop-literature of this nature) a tendency has occurred in this area where emotional argumentation has taken prime of place. Flew, however, restrains from proliferating ad hominem non-sense of this sort--you will find no hasty generalizations of Atheism, no assaults on the conceptio-historical reasons for why non-Theists believe what they believe, or any implementation of Pascalian-esque wagers on Atheistic thinkers the likes of Loftus' methodological skepticism on believers in his OTF. Rather you find an honest ex-Atheist evaluating certain of his beliefs that he found to be faulty and hasty, without extending his own failures to every Atheist.

(3) After leaving breezing through his reasons for rejecting the divine (part 1), Flew transitions into his account of accepting a rational divine mind (part 2). Here he begins by identifying the scientific facade many non-Theists have placed over what is really their philosophic conclusions. He identifies many of the contemporary claims in science, cosmology and fundamental physics, and pin-points where in their discussion they left their respective realms and began wearing the philosophers hat.

(4) While showing regard for the teleological argument, Flew doesn't leave us without the much need cosmological grounding.

(5) What is refreshing in Flew's work is his dealing with issues relevant to the nature of God's existence and distinguishing those issues from one's that are not relevant. With Flew you will find no non-sequitur argumentation for the existence of God based on such things as the context one was raised in, the malleability of the human mind, Atheistic immorality--focuses in much pop-anti-Theistic and Theistic writings alike.

(6) Flew's openness to further investigation of Christian religion is commendable and exudes the type of philosophic scholarship that many young readers and professionals alike can admire and learn from.

Next I will pin-point some faults and/or restrictions in the work:

(1) While not a fault so much as a restriction, the reader must keep in mind this is Flew's "conversion" story more than it is an apology for God's existence.

(2) Because of (1) we are not here presented with detailed argumentation or rebuttals of complex issues therein delineated, but quick overviews of certain "Flewian" problem areas--especially in relation to field equivocation.

(3) I would take fault with Flew's increased faith in the teleological argument. An effect only needs a cause sufficient to its production, and so a "god" that looks much like the variety and materiality in this world is sufficient to answer the Theistic argument in this regard. However, flew accompanies his teleological argument with a cosmological one (borrowed mostly from Swinburne), and it is here in the cosmological argument that the argument from design can find its needed basis. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Oct 10, 2009 Al Bità rated it did not like it

This book is presented as a triumph against atheists and atheism. The main thrust of (apparently) prominent ex-atheist Flew for his argument is to re-present old 'proofs' for the existence of god which have not really sustained criticism over the years, together with a more recent attempt deriving from the field of quantum mechanics — a stance enamoured by those scientists who want to believe at least in some 'mind' to explain their mathematically defined quantum universe. Such a 'mind', of cour This book is presented as a triumph against atheists and atheism. The main thrust of (apparently) prominent ex-atheist Flew for his argument is to re-present old 'proofs' for the existence of god which have not really sustained criticism over the years, together with a more recent attempt deriving from the field of quantum mechanics — a stance enamoured by those scientists who want to believe at least in some 'mind' to explain their mathematically defined quantum universe. Such a 'mind', of course, is nowhere near the concept of a god spoken of in religion, but that apparently does not stop them letting people think that there might be such a mind. Thus, to them, it appears 'reasonable' that such a mind should exist.

Unfortunately, reasonableness in itself is no proof of the truth of an argument. I'm sure, taking just one example, that for many centuries the Ptolemaic system with the earth as the stable centre of the universe was also considered to be 'reasonable'. The argument of this book then makes a series of unwarranted existential and ontological leaps: since it is 'reasonable' for there to be a god, therefore god exists; and therefore it is also reasonable that such a god could 'reveal' himself to mankind; and that of the possible revelations made to mankind, then the Judaeo-Christian one is the most appropriate... Apart from the fact that there would be numerous religious organisations that would beg to differ with the final conclusion, none of the arguments presented constitute anything like proof.

Flew can certainly change his mind about what he believes: he is quite free to do as he wishes. What I find unconscionable, however, is that the main text is preceded by an Introduction and followed by two Appendices, all written by Christians with an agenda. These extra 'comments' have the effect of ensconcing Flew's text within a Christian context as if his stance required some special protection. All they are protecting, in any case, are 'arguments' which do not prove anything; so the book is a sham.

The text is easy enough to read; but the claim made by the book is an empty one. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Sep 28, 2015 Tyler Clark rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Overall, a rather passé re-hashing of the God of the gaps argument. Flew has written some notable anti-theist works in the past, including "God and Philosophy" and "An Introduction to Western Philosophy." This book is on par with those works: intensely, uncommonly and exceptionally mediocre.

Flew demonstrates a profound mischaracterisation of Darwin, and is way out of his league discussing biology. The book has a delightful and scandalous treatment of some of Richard Dawkins's work, which I susp ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jul 06, 2012 Clark Goble rated it really liked it

The subtitle of this book bills author Antony Flew as the “World’s Most Notorious Atheist.” I wondered as I stumbled upon this title at my local library if this was an overstatement designed to sell books or if Mr. Flew was indeed well known amongst atheists. I will admit that I had never heard of him prior to this reading. A quick google search managed to convince me that the author was, in fact, well known.

Flew certainly has good academic credentials. He has taught Philosophy at several univer The subtitle of this book bills author Antony Flew as the “World’s Most Notorious Atheist.” I wondered as I stumbled upon this title at my local library if this was an overstatement designed to sell books or if Mr. Flew was indeed well known amongst atheists. I will admit that I had never heard of him prior to this reading. A quick google search managed to convince me that the author was, in fact, well known.

Flew certainly has good academic credentials. He has taught Philosophy at several universities throughout England, Canada, and the US for decades. I was most impressed that Flew actually attended C.S. Lewis’ Socrates Club and debated (as an atheist) with Lewis’ students. In fact, it is the Socratic dictum that one should, “follow the argument wherever it should lead” that led Flew to his current belief in deism.

Apparently, although it was lost on me, Flew was criticized harshly in the blog-world when he renounced his atheistic views. Well-known atheists such as Richard Dawkins pronounced that Flew’s change of opinion was a “death-bed” conversion. The eighty year-old Flew refutes that suggestion emphatically and relates that he has never felt the presence of God, witnessed a miracle, or felt the need to have a personal relationship with a God. Flew insists that that his conversion was one of reason. Flew’s suggestion that his decision was based on his mind rather than his heart really appeals to me. It is hard to explain to a non-believer matters of the heart … so Flew’s assertion that he can explain to them matters of his mind could quite possible sway non-believers in a way other arguments couldn’t.

Flew’s position is that modern science points to the existence of God. He cites the following reasons; nature obeys laws, that life is intelligently organized and purpose-driven (and arose from matter), and the very existence of the universe (nature). Flew continues to expound upon his arguments and explains that his opinions are derived from both science and philosophy.

The question that floated around in my mind as I read Flew’s book was, “What God does he believe in?” My first thought was that it did him no good to believe in God if he believed in the wrong one! Flew explains that the God he believes in is the God of Aristotle. One that possesses the following attributes; “immutability, immateriality, omnipotence, omniscience, oneness or indivisibility, perfect goodness and necessary existence.” While not quite a Christian, Flew does explain that in his opinion the God who best fits this description of “Aristotle’s God” is the Judeo-Christian God.

I have softened my first thoughts (that is did him no good to believe in the wrong God) concerning Flew. Perhaps some people need to believe in stages. In retrospect, I think that’s how I did it. First, I decided there was a God. Later on I came to realize the God I believed in was the Judeo-Christian one and more specifically that I believed in Christ. Flew is taking his steps much in the same way as I did.

This book includes an impressive appendix written by Bishop N.T. Wright
in response to two questions asked by Flew. Wright defends the historical evidence for Jesus and defends the accuracy of the resurrection. I really enjoyed Wright’s comments.

I would highly recommend this book for all atheists or agnostics. I think they would respect Flew’s opinion and the fact that his arguments are based in reason not faith. At no point during this book will the reader have Scripture thrown at them. Flew’s arguments are all based in logic and science. I would also recommend this book for a Christian who is wanting to strengthen is faith intellectually. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend It | Stats | Recent Status Updates

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Philosophy

120 users

Religion

107 users

Nonfiction

54 users

Religion > Theology

35 users

Religion > Atheism

29 users

Biography

16 users

Religion > Christianity

14 users

Christian

14 users

Science

13 users

Religion > Faith

11 users

See top shelves…

About Antony Flew

Antony Flew

94 followers

Antony Garrard Newton Flew (11 February 1923 – 8 April 2010) was a British philosopher. Belonging to the analytic and evidentialist schools of thought, he was notable for his works on the philosophy of religion.

Flew was a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces. He also criticised the idea of life after death, the free will ...more

Books by Antony Flew

How to Think Straight: An Introduction to Critical Reasoning

More…

Readers' Most Anticipated Books of January

New year! New books! New this month: Scandal rocks an elite British boarding school in The Divines. A dark secret spans several...

Trivia About There Is a God: H...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from There Is a God: H...

“Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature. But it is not science alone that guided me. I have also been helped by a renewed study of the classical philosophical arguments.” — 21 likes

“If you had an equation detailing the probability of something emerging from a vacuum, you would still have to ask why that equation applies. Hawking had, in fact, noted the need for a creative factor to breathe fire into the equations.” — 10 likes

More quotes…

See a Problem?

Preview — There Is a God by Antony Flew

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

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Antony Flew

Books by Antony Flew

Related Articles

Trivia About There Is a God: H...

Quotes from There Is a God: H...

See a Problem?

Preview — There Is a God by Antony Flew

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

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Antony Flew

Books by Antony Flew

Related Articles

Trivia About There Is a God: H...

Quotes from There Is a God: H...

new topic
Discuss This Book