There is a God: Notorious Atheist Changed Mind

[Mr. P]

http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorio ... 847&sr=8-4

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.

Uhm...WHO is ANthony Flew? "The world's leading atheist"? Who here thinks that this guy is "the world's leading atheist" (if that term even really means anything)?

I found this book while looking at that new Dinesh D'souza piece of crap. It is amazing how hard they are trying...and sad...

Mr. P.

[George Ricker]

I think Flew became the "world's leading atheist" for religionists when he announced, about two years ago, that he had reached the conclusion a god was needed to explain the fact of the universe. He is a philosopher of some distinction, but I doubt his is a name that is familiar to many people outside of academia.

It should be noted the god Flew now believes in corresponds to the god of Deism and not the god of any religion. He rejects the idea of a personal god and says so to this day. The believers who are shouting his conversion to all who will listen would probably be much less noisy about it if they actually read what he has to say.

For those who are interested, the Secular Web has a couple of articles that provide some background about Flew's "conversion."

Clearly, Richard Dawkins is probably the "world's most notorious atheist" these days. Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens probably would rank second and third, although Dan Dennett might fit in there somewhere.

George

[LanDroid]

The label "the World's Most Notorious Atheist" is part of the title of Flew's own book, not a claim from right wing world. In the big picture, it's probably accurate. Obviously in the last few years others have become much more well known and notorious as Garicker points out, but before then and over the long haul Flew was the most well known intellectual on such questions. I'm sure this comes with a British perspective - in America before the last few years Madeleine Murray O'Hair would clearly be the most notorious. Carl Sagan may have vied for that role, but I'm not sure how many folks know he was an atheist plus he was just too darned lovable to be considered notorious.


Anyway, I suggest this book as a future "free thought" selection in the sense that Mad Architect intended: one that challenges basic assumptions instead of validating them... (Well except that Mad would rather get away from religion for a while. )
http://www.booktalk.org/the-state-of-fr ... -t388.html

[George Ricker]

The label "the World's Most Notorious Atheist" is part of the title of Flew's own book, not a claim from right wing world. In the big picture, it's probably accurate.

It's true the label is part of the title of Flew's new book. However, it's one that was attached to him by the religionists who wanted to glom onto his "conversion" for their purposes, before this book was started. Besides I was referring to the characterization of him as the "world's leading atheist," not his notoriety or its lack.

For some interesting background on the story of Flew's conversion to belief in a (kind of) god, Richard Carrier's article (with updates to the present) on the Secular Web offers a view from someone who has actually discussed these matters with Flew. You'll find it at:

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action ... set&id=369

My point was not to take issue with Flew's prominence as a philosopher and/or atheist (on the other side of the pond, at least), but simply to note that most of the people in the U.S. Christian community who are trying to capitalize on his change of mind probably had never heard of Flew and know little or nothing about his actual opinions on the subject.

It appears, at least from Carrier's piece, that Flew (who is now 84) may be suffering from the diminished mental capacities that sometimes accompany aging. If that's true, the new book is unlikely to represent Flew at his best.

George

[LanDroid]

That is rather sad. Looking at these two brief video interviews it does seem that the questions are more detailed than the answers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNkxpTIbCIw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ2VuQyAeRM

Since the article Garicker linked indicates Flew didn't write this latest book and doesn't seem too aware of the contents, I guess it's not worth our time...

[MadArchitect]

Incidentally, in response to Mr. P's original question, Flew may not be "the world's leading atheist" -- what would that mean, anyway? Is it anything like being the world's leading producer of plantains? -- but he probably is one of the most influential atheists of the twentieth century. That's because he authored a very short paper called "Theology and Falsification", the central argument of which has been continually paraphrased and adapted by atheists ever since. Versions of the argument crop up on BookTalk with some frequency, though the contributors espousing those versions were probably influenced through indirect channels, if at all.

To that end, Flew's apparent conversion is a little surprising, but then, part of the surprise is probably due to the fact that a great many people who admired Flew for his atheism assumed more than was warranted -- just as a great many theists seem to be assuming more about his conversion than is warranted.

[Chris OConnor]

This book might make for some quality discussion.

[MadArchitect]

Eh, it's certainly a controversial book, but more because there's some dispute over how involved Flew actually was in writing in, rather than because there's anything worth talking about in the book itself.