Book Review: "There is a God", by Antony Flew.

With Roy A. Varghese; HarperOne, 2007.

As one of the foremost philosophic proponents of atheism in the 20th century, Antony Flew wrote, debated, and held lengthy ongoing conversations with many of the best philosophers of the day. His 1950 paper presented to the Socratic Society, chaired by C.S. Lewis, came to be the classic atheist “manifesto” of the second half of the century. He was formidable in debate and unshakable in opinion, always on the side of skepticism and atheism. And always on the side of evidence. He reigned in atheist circles for “6 decades”.

In his 1950 paper, Flew asked Christians just what evidence would it take to convince them that there is, in fact, no deity. “We must go where the evidence takes us” was almost a battle cry for Flew. Flew made atheism a central part of his intellectual activity. He wrote celebrated books on Atheism, including "God and Philosophy" and "Presumption of Atheism".

In 2004, Flew announced – just before a debate – that he had followed the evidence, and it had led him to the conclusion that life bespoke of intelligent design. This was big enough news that even the secular, mainstream media carried it. The response from Flew’s old fans and compatriot unbelievers was quick and cruel. Now one might think that following evidence would be of interest to the community that declares itself “rationalist”. Not in real life. Flew was declared incompetent and mentally deranged; an Alzheimer’s victim. Every possible epithet was hurled at Flew in the attempt to reduce his credibility and impact on the atheist community.

Just what evidence had convicted Flew of intelligent design, even deism? It was far more than the incredible complexity of DNA, as was reported in the media stories about Flew’s change of mind.

In his book, “There is a God”, Flew recounts not just his change of mind, he begins by detailing what he thought as an atheist, and why he thought it. And he skips none of the issues of which he was previously convicted, then covers how and why his conviction changed. Flew most strikingly takes on the current batch of atheist apologists, and he takes Dawkins, in particular, to the ground in the fashion of the late philosopher David Stove’s evisceration of same. These are not the demented ramblings of a deranged Nietzsche, these are the rational cause and effect, logical determinations of an honest and clear mind.

This book is a clear and present danger to the atheist community. Not just their behavior toward a “heretic”, but their entire anti-logical structure is under attack. This time many will probably choose to ignore it; will it go away? Not likely. So, many atheists attack, not the arguments, but the arguer.

Some reviewers have attacked Flew’s connection with Varghese; they have attacked the form of positing; they question the authorship; they decry the “Americanizations” of terms in the text; and they claim that the intellectual level is far below that of Flew’s earlier, British works.

P Z Meyers, atheist apologist and vitriolic blogger exclaimed,

"...it turns out that Varghese is also a contemptible manipulator."

"It is not a story of an intellectual decision, but a sad tale of an aging, fading scholar who has lost almost all of his acuity and is severely memory-impaired, who is being manipulated and used as a pawn by a team of frauds and apologists for religion and creationism: Varghese, Gerald Schroeder, and John Haldane, Liberty University, and Biola University."

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/roy_varghese_and_the_exploitat.php

So for Meyers, who recently posited that "Ridicule Works", a conspiracy theory neatly covers the issue. Is there a need for rational argument against someone without acuity? Meyers, it seems, is more comfortable attacking the arguer, than the argument. And in the wake, creating a conspiracy which is out to delude the unbelievers.

One reviewer, Mark Oppenheimer for the New York Times, claimed the book was a fraud and that Flew is senile. Flew’s publisher responds:

"We were pretty upset and frustrated by the piece," [Oppenheimer’s review] HarperOne publisher Mark Tauber told RBL. "It's one thing to review, question and debate the arguments of a book, but Oppenheimer didn't do that—he went after the integrity of our author and our integrity. It seems like he just saw this as an opportunity to make a name for himself, and it was out of line." The 84-year-old Flew has nominal aphasia—a condition that affects his ability to remember names—said Tauber, "but Oppenheimer made the leap from that to senility and then implied that Flew didn't write the book." Tauber pointed out that ghost-writing is a ubiquitous practice in publishing, and said that Flew had thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and signed off on it as accurately representing his views.

HarperOne released a statement from Flew: "My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 percent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I'm 84 and that was Roy Varghese's role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I'm old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. This is my book and it represents my thinking."
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6501078.html

Dinesh D’Souza points out that atheist ethics prove to be just as malleable as ever:

“When a major figure like Flew switches sides, the New York TImes goes into mafia-style intellectual hit mode. They selected Mark Oppenheimer of Yale, who visited Flew in England and wrote a long article in the November 4, 2007 New York Times Magazine suggesting that Flew converted because he is, well, senile. The basic idea is that Flew has lost his mind and can't remember anything, and when Christian apologists like Varghese were nice to him Flew basically surrendered to them and let them write his book.

“The only evidence that Flew has lost his mind is that he's 84 years old. A man of 84 naturally loses some of his memory, especially for names, but this does not mean he has lost his marbles. Flew's own writings of the past few years are all entirely coherent and employ sophisticated philosophical vocabulary. While Flew seems to have asked his collaborator Varghese to write a draft of his life story, it was Flew who reviewed and approved the final contents. There is nothing in the Times' article that shows Flew to be incapable of a reasoned change of mind and heart.

“I realize that atheists--including those at the New York Times--are embarrassed at having to surrender one of their most stalwart champions to theism. Maybe they too should consider following the evidence where it leads? Too closed-minded to consider Flew's arguments, these fellows would much rather belittle the intellectual capacity of the man they once revered. Hell hath no fury like an atheist scorned.”

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/11/19/the_atheists_who_came_in_from_the_cold