For the past half century, the leading atheist in the world was philosopher Anthony Flew. He wrote over 30 philosophical works laying the intellectual groundwork for nonbelief. He debated Christian apologists. He was widely cited in atheist literature and at atheist conventions. What distinguished Flew was how comprehensive and fully-developed his atheist philosophy was. Other philosophers, such as Bertrand Russell and Martin Heidegger, espoused atheist beliefs but those beliefs were incidental to their philosophy. Atheism was Flew's philosophy. HIs works such as Theology and Falsification and The Presumption of Atheism were considered classics of theist thought.
Then Anthony Flew became a believer, and his book There Is A God describes his intellectual journey. Go ahead and order this book, along with my new book, What's So Great About Christianity. Together the two books represent what atheism has always dreaded: historically based, philosophically rich, scientifically fluent, logically reasoned refutations of atheism.
Flew says he has a lifelong commitment to going "where the evidence leads." And now, he calmly says, the evidence leads to theism. His own past writings have been exposed as a "relic." Flew writes, "My discovery of the divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena...It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor do I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. My discovery of the divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith."
Flew's argument for God combines science and philosophy, and I'll let you discover it for yourself in his book. What I enjoyed was the way he uses simple analogies to expose atheist illogic. For instance, leading atheists seek to prove that the mind is no more than the brain. If the brain is destroyed, they say, we can't use our minds. Therefore there is nothing to minds excerpt circuits and neurons. Flew gives the example of a child raised on a remote island who finds a satellite phone. Voices come out of the machine. The child recognizes these voices as human and is thrilled by the discovery that she has found a way to interact with other humans. Perhaps there is life outside the island! Then the elders of the tribe (if I may embellish Flew's account, let's call them Big Chief Dawkins, Grand Pooh Bah Dennett, and Witch Doctor Pinker) scorn the child and say, "Look, when we damage the instrument, the voices stop. So they're obviously nothing more than sounds produced by the unique combination of metals and circuit boards. Forget about learning about other humans. From all the evidence we have, we are the only living creatures on earth. So go back to making sandcastles." Who are the real dummies here?
Anthony Flew has been banished from the atheist community. Anthologies have been reprinted removing his essays. Atheist websites condemn him as an apostate. (Atheist toleration does not extend to former atheists.) He doesn't even make the case for Christianity, as I do. But Anthony flew out of the atheist cuckoo's nest, leaving anger and confusion among the unbelievers. And now Flew tells us why he rejects atheism. The atheist monopoly on public debate is over: the theists are striking back.
Reader Comments ( Page 6 of 23)
76. there seem to be alot of people who don't believe in G-d posting here. so, my question is, if you don't believe G-d exists, why would you spend time debating the right of others to believe he does?
sounds like a control and censorship issue to me.
mf at 6:27PM on Oct 10th 2007
77. Michelle
My sarcasm regarding "fundy atheist" stems from the sheer hatred for Christians that most atheist have. This is what we read day after day. Christians are dogmatic, knuckle draggers, the unevolved reptilian brain of humanity, religion is evil, blah, blah, blah. I do not come to blogs to proselytize. I am not here to debate. I am here to defend Christianity. Too many Christians will not and cannot defend Christianity
I can tell you were raised in Church. Your tone is much different. Interesting, I come from a skeptical background. Life is a long interesting journey.
JSM at 6:27PM on Oct 10th 2007
78. Shouldn't the Dalai Lama be considered the worlds most famous Atheist?
Chris at 6:56PM on Oct 10th 2007
79. Just who decided that Antony Flew was, not just ONE of the world's leading atheists, but "THE world's leading atheist?" I would think that honor ought to go to Richard Dawkins or, perhaps, Christopher Hitchens both of whom have recently written huge best sellers on the topic. Perhaps atheist's should return the favor by crowning Dan Barker, co-chair of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, as "formerly the world's leading Christian."
Dinesh says that "Anthony(sic)Flew has been banished from the atheist community" which seems appropriate since he is no longer an atheist(don't Christians have something called excommunication for those who abandon Christianity?)and, further,that "anthologies have been reprinted removing his essays." Which anthologies were these? Who edited them? And has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the theist Flew no longer wants his atheist-era essays republished? Or have you merely assumed on the basis of psychological projection that atheists are as vicious as CHRISTIANS WHO WHEN THEY HAD THE POWER BURNED BOOKS AND PEOPLE AS WELL.
And, finally, Flew's first name is ANTONY, not ANTHONY. The fact the Dinesh can't even get the man's name straight once again demonstrates, for all the world to see, the shoddiness of his so-called "research".
emelpe at 6:31PM on Oct 10th 2007
80. I hate that you athiests are so oblivious to all the supernatural things that happen. How DO you guys explain that? No, you wont tell me because you think God is some spoilsport that only wants weak people and losers who are no fun. I really dont think He's like that.
Michelle at 6:30PM on Oct 10th 2007
81. Please tell me why all y'all with your one- sided, incomplete argument are so smart?
Michelle at 6:34PM on Oct 10th 2007
82. You might be a fundy atheist if
• You think when atheist, left-wing journalist Christopher Hitchens slammed Mother Theresa, calling her a "ghoul”, he’s a genius, but when he slams Michael Moore's propagandizing pile of poo, "Fahrenheit 9/11",he's just a drunk.
• Your favorite words are "ad hominem", even if you can't spell them.
• You just can't see any difference between Pat Robertson Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc, and Osama bin Laden.
• You have never pondered the question: why does a smart guy like Richard Dawkins regularly give atheists a bad name by putting his foot in his mouth with his inane and ridiculous pronouncements about God and religion?
• You think that spamming Christian chat groups and discussion lists with expletives and insults demonstrates superior free-thinking, rational, atheistic logic.
• You call God "she" in the presence of Christians simply out of sheer spite.
JSM at 6:36PM on Oct 10th 2007
83. From: Sam at 4:52PM on Oct 10th 2007
In fact, it can be argued that it is more logical to believe in an omnipotent creator. What CAUSED (created) the mass that exploded in the Big Bang? What CAUSED (created) the supposed Creator? Logic demands an underlying, primary cause....an UNCAUSED cause.
V -A plausible hypothesis, Sam....
...but if you intend to argue for the existence of a "supernatural being/power/essence/God/whatever you want to call it" on the basis of the scientific method, you will have to provide empirical evidence to back it up.
Ventrue at 6:38PM on Oct 10th 2007
84. If Dinesh didn't want it for money, he would had simply published it somewhere free to read, perhaps even readily accessible, hmm... A blog, maybe.
I really want a down-to-earth debate about this stuff, you guys are getting all Star Warszy and rambling like fist-pumping elitists. Neither side honestly needs to be defended here, in this comment box. The rest of the world won't suddenly convert; there is enough Atheist/Theist smackdowns in the media on a massive scale anyways. I haven't been hearing a lot on how or why Dinesh is correct, and if anyone has actually read him book and could give a point with a backbone, we'd be making progress.
I certainly hope you people don't think you're making any progress bickering as you are, for all you know Dinesh is just doing this to turn you people against each other. He might just be ironically playing God in a massive sinister plan. Light-Hearts, people, keep light-hearts. Faith or no faith hot-bloodness is the mother of stupidity, regardless of what ten-dollar words you use.
Rory at 6:41PM on Oct 10th 2007
85. A very interesting turn of events.
I have a question for those athiests that have responded so passionately to this article:
"Why do you work so hard to prove that there is no God and that there is nothing for a person to expect beyond death?"
Also:
"Being that I believe in God (Allah, Yahweh, they are all the same) and an athiest were to, hypothetically, prove me wrong, what consequence do I face for my continued belief in the divine?"
By the way, though I may not agree with them, I respect any man's ideals enough to not ridicule him for his beliefs. Could atheists please do the same?
F. Van Buren II at 6:43PM on Oct 10th 2007
86. *Has anyone actually even read his book?
Like, really, people. Have any of you?
Rory at 6:46PM on Oct 10th 2007
87. Rory, have you read the book?
Michelle at 6:49PM on Oct 10th 2007
88. Christian Michelle,
I haven't heard of these floating people, but I do know that there are many, many things we (humans) can't explain (the origin of the universe, the pyramids, miracles, etc). However, I see no reason to believe in the Christian God as an answer. I can maybe understand a belief in a unknown and mysterious power for all of those unanswered questions.. but a story about a virgin birth, a crucification to save all of mankind*, and a resurrection from the dead are about as likely as zeus, allah, or harry potter being the answer to all of those unknowns.
*but really only the people who believe in a very, very specific mythology with no evidence...
Not Christian Michelle at 6:56PM on Oct 10th 2007
89. No, I have not read Dinesh's book; it was why I asked. There is no need to ask that question, so I will literally take your tact evasion of the question as a "No, I am just trying to express my identity on some dude's blog"
I hope that was a good enough answer, Michelle.
I really want to figre out just how much water this blog can hold, I understand and respect everyone's beliefs, but we must remember where we are posting and what the rational thing to do would be.
Rory at 6:55PM on Oct 10th 2007
90. Interesting quote by Dawkins in the Guardian the other day. Dawkins states:
“When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.”
The so called “New Atheism” is more political than anything else. They may state that they are for humanity and so on, but they are really aiming for political power. They truly believe they are doing humanity a favor by ridding it from monotheism. Polytheism, paganism, and Buddhism are all ok. The “New Atheism” religion is a form of scientism/environmentalism/paganism, mixed with a political agenda. If the “New Atheist” takes hold, watch for a return of a 20th century Soviet style society. From my experience of blogging with them, I could see a time where you are denied services (health care, food, etc) if you do not bow at there alter.
JSM at 6:55PM on Oct 10th 2007