Select language, opens an overlay

Comment

There Is a God

How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
Jul 04, 2017AaronAardvark1940 rated this title 4 out of 5 stars
Upon entering Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” into my In Progress shelf, I noticed a raft of comments on it, some rather heated. Several mentioned Flew’s “There Is a God,” so I borrowed it. It’s a very short book, well put together, and fairly succinct. The first part of the book covers his approximately six decades as an atheist, while the second describes the reason for his conversion to deism. Appendix A, a thesis by R. A. Varghese, presents a critique of various atheist writings, and is very helpful in understanding Flew’s reasoning. Richard Dawkins has attacked the principal argument of the book, and its author and his friends have struck back. My reaction is that Dawkins is not a philosopher and that Flew seems disdainful of Dawkin’s scientific efforts. For instance, Flew argues that genes don’t have characteristics such as emotions, a reference to “The Selfish Gene.” He spends several pages discussing what he calls the monkey theorem (with reference to origin of life), as if it were part of a mathematical proof. Does he really believe that “selfish” is meant literally, or that the monkey theorem is anything other than a metaphor? But the most credible part of his argument has to do with an aspect of the concept currently called Intelligent Design. In this instance, he argues that the fact that there are laws of nature, without which we and the universe would not exist, lead inexorably to belief in some designer, creator, or god. Flew speaks to Dawkins’ rejection of this based on what Dawkins likens to nested Russian dolls; namely, that if there is a creator, where did it come from, and what caused that, et cetera to an infinite regression. Flew’s statement is that the laws are the “Mind of God,” which feels like a copout to me. Appendix A expands on the Mind of God argument, and is definitely worth reading. Personally, I take it to be circular in nature, almost inventing God in human image. Or maybe it’s some teleological thing that I just can’t understand, not being a philosopher myself. No matter what, Flew’s omnipotent, omniscient God is not a personal god, and is of no consequence in our daily lives, nor does Flew make any claim to the contrary. If you are a “fundamentalist atheist” (whatever that is supposed to mean), and feel that you are under attack for your position, read this book so that you can “know thy enemy.”