Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Look Park Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Enter for the chance to win front row seats to Barbra Streisand Water Sports

Customer Reviews

4.1 out of 5 stars
7
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on May 1, 2004
Does God Exist? is based on the 1998 public debate between Christian philosopher William Craig and atheist philosopher Anthony Flew. The debate itself was held on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of a similarly titled debate between Russell and Copleston in 1948.
The layout follows a common format for debate-type books. First, a transcript of the debate is provided, followed by comments from subject matter experts representing both sides of the argument. Finally, the debaters are given an opportunity to make closing comments and respond to points raised by the other contributors.
The debate itself was quite good with the discussion covering all the major arguments, cosmological, teleological, existence of evil, etc. In fact, the 1998 debate was superior to the Russell-Copeston debate wherein Russell was largely evasive and did not actively engaged in debate (still an interesting read though). For those new to this area William Craig is the preeminent contemporary Christian apologist (arguably also one of the finest current day philosophers). In addition to his impressive intellectual abilities Craig is a brilliant debater and excellent communicator. Anthony Flew is also a well-known philosopher who has written and debated on the existence of God and other related philosophical questions. Although I respect Flew as a philosopher, he was overmatched by Craig both intellectually and rhetorically.
In my opinion the weakest part of the book was the commentary by the subject matter experts. This is unfortunate, because quite often it is one of the more enjoyable aspects of this format. Michael Martin's comments were interesting, however, the others particularly David and Keith Yandell were weak and added little.
In summary, good book that provides a strong overview of contemporary arguments for and against the existence of God. If someone were to read just one book of this type, however, I would recommend God? God? is a debate on the same issue between Craig and Walter-Sinnott-Armstrong. Craig is outstanding in both these efforts, but Sinnott -Armstrong presents a stronger case than Flew for atheism.
0Comment| 30 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 9, 2006
William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist, debated Antony Flew, a former* atheist philosopher, on the 50th anniversary of the famous Russell-Copelston debate. This book is the product of that.

Craig's arguments are standard and predictable from anyone familiar with Criag, and Flew fizzles, as even atheists William Rowe and Michael Martin admit. Why is the debate so good then? The commentary on the debate by such HUGE names in the field of philosophy of religion as William Rowe, Keith Parsons, Michael Martin, Paul Draper, Douglas Geivett, Keith Yandell, William Wainwright, etc. is what makes the book so great. Representing a varitey of traditions, from militant atheist (Martin and Parsons), Agnosticism (Draper), to theism, these respondents comment on the debate and press the issues deeper than an oral, short, debate allows.

The best part of the book is that Craig and Flew each get a chance to respond to what the other scholars said. Craig's response to objections chapter is worth the entire price of the book. Craig defends his arguments against heavy criticisms from some of the most prolific atheist currently writing. Anyone who wants to read a very good debate (though admittedly tilted for theism) needs to pick this up.
11 comment| 23 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 21, 2005
Does God Exist? is based on the 1998 public debate between Christian philosopher William Craig and atheist philosopher Anthony Flew (Flew has recently had a highly publicized albeit somewhat tenuous move into theism). The debate itself was held on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of a similarly titled debate between Russell and Copleston in 1948.

The layout follows a common format for debate-type books. First, a transcript of the debate is provided, followed by comments from subject matter experts representing both sides of the argument. Finally, the debaters are given an opportunity to make closing comments and respond to points raised by the other contributors.

The debate itself was quite good with the discussion covering all the major arguments, cosmological, teleological, existence of evil, etc. In fact, the 1998 debate was superior to the Russell-Copeston debate wherein Russell was largely evasive and did not actively engaged in debate (still an interesting read though). For those new to this area William Craig is the preeminent contemporary Christian apologist (arguably also one of the finest current day philosophers). In addition to his impressive intellectual abilities Craig is a seasoned debater and excellent communicator. Anthony Flew is also a well-known philosopher who has written and debated on the existence of God and other related philosophical questions. Although I respect Flew as a philosopher, he was overmatched by Craig both intellectually and rhetorically in this encounter.

In my opinion the weakest part of the book was the commentary by the subject matter experts. This is unfortunate, because quite often it is one of the more enjoyable aspects of this format. Michael Martin's comments were interesting, however, the others particularly David and Keith Yandell were weak and added little.

In summary, good book that provides a strong overview of contemporary arguments for and against the existence of God. If someone were to read just one book of this type, however, I would recommend God? God? is a debate on the same issue between Craig and Walter-Sinnott-Armstrong. Craig is outstanding in both these efforts, but Sinnott -Armstrong presents a stronger case than Flew for atheism.
22 comments| 13 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
Antony Garrard Newton Flew (1923-2010) was a British philosopher, and formerly a noteworthy advocate of atheism, until his 2004 change of mind (see There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind). He wrote such influential books as God & Philosophy; he also participated in debates/dialogues such as The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God,Does God Exist?: The Great Debate,Did the Resurrection Happen?: A Conversation with Gary Habermas and Antony Flew (Veritas Forum Books),Resurrected?: An Atheist and Theist Dialogue,Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate, etc.

William Lane Craig (born 1949) is a Christian apologist formerly associated with Campus Crusade for Christ; he currently holds the position of research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. He has written many books, such as God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist (Point/Counterpoint (Oxford Paperback)),Hard Questions, Real Answers, etc. This book contains the transcript of the debate between Flew and Craig on Febuary 18, 1998 at the University of Wisconsin---the 50th anniversary of the famous BBC debate between Bertrand Russell and Fr. Fredrick Copleston (reprinted in The Existence of God). Then follows written comments on the debate by eight philosophers, and a final response by Flew and Craig.

Craig argues, "if a person committed an infinite number of sins, then he would deserve eternal punishment... Insofar as the damned in hell continue to hate and reject God, they continue to sin, and thus they incur further punishment. And thus, in a real sense, hell is self-perpetuating: because the sinning goes on forever, the punishment goes on forever." (Pg. 28)

Craig said in his summing-up, "In the original Copleston-Russell debate, Russell got away with sitting back, folding his arms, and playing the sceptic, thereby giving the impression that Copleston alone had to bear the burden of proof. I was determined that Flew should not escape so easily... If Flew was prepared to answer [the debate proposition] negatively, as opposed to confessing, 'I don't know,' he had to justify his answer." (Pg. 155)

Craig also concludes, "My final reason for theistic belief is that belief in (Christian) theism is properly basic... for a person who has experienced the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit and so come into personal relationship with God... My main differences with [Alvin] Plantinga are that I ... [am] in favour of reliance solely on the inner witness of the Holy Spirit..." (Pg. 179)

Flew, surprisingly, even has nice things to say about "the rank-and-file Jehovah's Witnesses coming to my door," who illustrate "the realized possibility of a dynamic and dedicated Christian faith ... rejecting traditional teaching about hell and promising salvation not from an eternity of torture but from an eternity of death," and praises their organization's "courage and committment" during WWII persecution by the Nazis. (Pg. 214-215)

Flew's performance was quite disappointing for skeptics and atheists; but the commentaries on the debate (including one by Michael Martin) help make this a very interesting book for anyone interested in Christian apologetics or the philosophy of religion.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 20, 2010
This book consists of a transcript of a 90-minute (plus Q&A) debate William Lane Craig and Antony Flew, followed eight essays by professional philosophers commenting on the debate, followed by Craig and Flew's responses to the comments. Like most of Craig's live debates, this was ridiculously one-sided, Craig being essentially a professional debater against an opponent with no idea of how to do a live debate. Pretty pointless, really.

The quality of the post-debate comments, though, was extremely high. Craig was pushed to try to clarify his arguments in ways that he often fails to do, and a couple of the commentators did a nice job of pointing out the sillier rhetorical tricks Craig uses on a regular basis. Definitely something to read if you have a serious interest in debates about the existence of God.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 11, 2015
Excellent
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 17, 2005
An intellectual bombshell dropped last week when British professor Antony Flew, for decades one of the world's leading philosophers of atheism, publicly announced that he now affirms the existence of a deity.

To be sure, Mr. Flew has not become an adherent of any creed. He simply believes that science points to the existence of some sort of intelligent designer of the universe. He says evidence from DNA research convinces him that the genetic structure of biological life is too complex to have evolved entirely on its own. Though the 81-year-old philosopher believes Darwinian theory explains a lot, he contends that it cannot account for how life initially began.

We (the Editorial Board of the Dallas Morning News) found this conversion interesting in light of last year's controversy regarding proposed revisions to the state's (Texas) high school biology textbooks. Our view then was that while religion must be kept out of science classes, intellectual honesty demands that when science produces reliable data challenging the prevailing orthodoxies, students should be taught them.

We were bothered by Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin's statement that for scientists, materialism must be "absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." That's called stacking the deck.

Mr. Flew may be dead wrong, but it's refreshing to see that an academic of his stature is unafraid to let new facts change his mind. The philosopher told The Associated Press that if admirers are upset with his about-face, then "that's too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

If the scientific data are compelling enough to cause an atheist academic of Antony Flew's reputation to recant much of his life's work, why shouldn't Texas schoolchildren be taught the controversy?
1010 comments| 21 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse