Customer Reviews

God and Philosophy

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Lately, there has been quite a lot of commotion about the supposed 'conversion' of a well-known atheist, the analytical philosopher Antony Flew, to a moderate position about the existence of a divinity. Supposedly, his position would now be deism, the theory that reality was indeed created by a God, but that the creator would have withdrawn from this world right after his creative act, never to interfere again.
The publisher of Flew's treatise in favour of atheism, God & Philosophy, made a clever move by issuing a new version of the book with an updated introduction by the author himself. Anyone who was following the debate in the media, would have expected that the main text would also have been adapted to Flew's newest ideas, but in this respect the reader should be ready for a disappointment.
To be honest, my main conclusion about the supposed revolution in the philosopher's thought is that Flew does not succeed in presenting a clear formulation of his latest convictions.
He really seems to take the so called argument from order to design seriously, namely that there would be so much 'integrated complexity' in nature that we simply have to assume some kind of intelligence behind it. However, he still has great difficulty in accepting the notion of an non-physical, purely spiritual creator. His assumption that an entity could never be wholely spiritual is also the reason why Flew rejects the reality of an afterlife. He is even well known for this assumption within the philosophy of parapsychology.
What's outright bizarre about Flew's supposed new position is that in this very book he gives important reasons (especially in Chapter 3) why the Intelligent Design-argumentation so hotly debated today would be philosophically untenable. It is very odd that in this new edition, he does not explicitly reconsider his previous arguments so that the reader is left with a feeling of intellectual dissatisfaction.
For me, even in its original structure, God & Philosophy is not really the clearest philosophical book I've ever read. The way Flew treats arguments and counter-arguments concerning the existence of a theist creator could certainly have been a bit more systematic. Nonetheless, Flew is certainly an interesting and on the whole consistent thinker and he has produced a number of important arguments against traditional Christian doctrine. Thus, the notion of eternal damnation is characterised as disproportional, because no human crime, however abonimable, could ever legitimize endless suffering. Also, the macabre thought that God gets pleasure from the pain and despair of sinners in Hell is not easy to reconcile with the concept of a loving divinity.
In several respects, the treatise is also revelant for the implications of Near-Death Experiences. First, there is the question of theodicy: How can we harmonise the idea of a perfectly good divinity with the existence of pain and misery in reality? Also, Flew asks himself to what extent spiritual and religious experiences could contribute to the philosophical debate about the existence of a god.
Despite all the recent turmoil about the person of Antony Flew, God & Philosophy mainly remains an interesting book because of his concise discussion of theist proofs and arguments from the perspective of an erudite atheist.

Titus Rivas

To Dear GangstaLawya

Have you actually read the book or at least Flew's new introduction regarding his changed view on theism? He stated that there are number of new factors to consider before nailing down one's position on God's existence. Pray do not amplify what has been said and said soundly. Moreoever, whether Flew himself actually rejected his own argument or not, this book, even to Christians(incluidng I the writer of this review), furnishes a compelling and comprehensive reexamination of one's belief system. Descartes' meditation is still considered a work of great mind long after his arguments are proven defective or misleading. The fact that an author changed his view does not make his work less valuable.

Professor Flew is a wise man. I say this as a Catholic Theist (and he is no friend of Catholics, though he does respect them in their search for the truth). In this books Professor Flew presents his arguements against the existence (and even coherence) of the Monotheistic (read: "God of Abraham") deity.

Flew's biggest fault is that he is a radical empiricist (at least when he was writing the book), which is a poor place to start as it eventually turns on itself. However he does raise still a number of salient points which the average theist should know how to answer.

The average theist and/or upper level philosophy undergrads, may have a tough time reading and taking Professor Flew's meaning. The biggest qualm I have with the book is that it is a difficult read. Flew tends to digress, and then digress in his digresson, and 15 pages will have gone by before you get to what the chapter was supposed to deal with. His sentence structure is also a bit difficult at times to understand. That's not to say it's un-readable at all. Just that the average reader will need to understand that this book will need to be read and re-read most likely to fully take his meaning.

Flew was one of the first to attempt clearly and precisely explain how most supposed discussions of the existence of "God" are vacuous and irrelevant in that they illegimately presuppose that said discussions are clear (meaningful?) as to what it is that is supposedly under discussion.

Of course there also are issues involved in the by now the famous Flew arguments re theology and the possibility of falsification.

This little book is one of the better places to begin a "serious" reading of these and many other issues.

It has been said time and again that experience is the best teacher. Antony Flew, the world's number one atheist (at least with respect to the rare ability to argue his point without using ad hominem arguments) has recanted his atheism.

Philosophically, Flew was a rationalist. Having accepted the empirical evidence of intelligent design in nature, he was able to liberate himself from the tunnel vision of rationalism and hence from the shackles of irrational atheism.

Flew himself would give this book one star. So, I don't think it ungracious to do the same.