Research On a Conversion

After reading the book written in his name, I have been investigating the conversion and writings of this once philosophical mind, Antony Flew. The first thing a reading of the book made very clear was that it totally lacked a counter argument for Flew's own views. Considering the history and bibliography of this man, I would think that this alone represents a ridiculous circumstance of the book's writing. A circumstance that has an obvious explanation; it was not written by the man named on its cover, nor could he have had any input into its authoring. An idea shared by many other reviewers of this work. Which is why I originally opted to not blog the results of my research. There were many other blogs on the topic appearing on the web at that time. I only proffer this minor blog on the topic as a listing of some of the points I found on the net over the years.

     Now, after being put in the position of reading an argument that begins as a misrepresentation (Isn't it funny how so many religious apologetics begin life this way?), I thought I would consider the presented arguments on their own merit—just for giggles and grins.

     First, I'll say that the book, There Is No A God  qualifies, and Richard Carrier concurs, as the weakest argument put forward that I have ever read. Ok, I must admit that I have actually been reading on this conversion of an "atheist" for many years and trying as much as possible to understand Antony's motivation, reasoning, or lack thereof. As such, I come across many opinions on this subject but, none are as coherent as Richard Carrier's Blog and Richard brings up many points due to his correspondence with Flew since 2000. There are many links to insightful writings by Flew and others on one of Richard's other postings at Infidels not to mention the most complete history of this whole sorted story. Also, the New York Times cover by Mark Oppenheimer is a good piece on the unfolding of this book's back story. The story actually starts in 1950 with the publication of Flew's Theology and Falsification and ends with the publication of this junk. In the words of Richard Dawkins, "it's sad." Some examples of the writings on the subject, from Open Society Journals between Antony Flew and Raymond Bradley even the hard to find replies from both gentlemen.

Of course, there are a plethora varying opinions on the book's authorship, veracity, and strength of argument, but that is all they are—opinions. Let the facts—and only the facts—speak for themselves.

Personally I feel Antony Flew is owed an apology, but it is not mine to offer.