What do you guys think of the Anthony Flew "conversion"? I read his new book and I thought the title was a little deceptive...maybe for good reason, but deceptive just the same. For one, I would hardly say that Flew was one of the most notorious atheists. I've had conversations with a couple of theists about his "conversion" and, after reading the book, I'm not sure he's talking about the same God that Christians are talking about. It (the book) struck me as very reactionary to the perseption of "militant atheism". He flat out says, in his book, that he's not a Christian, but a deist. So, what's with all the media hype?
I was intrigued by the treatment of the unknown versus the known. For example, Flew spends a considerable amount of time adding up all of the unlikely events that have led to life on this planet. But, shockingly (for a former atheist) he slips very easily into the problematic area of assuming that the way we are now is the best and only outcome. He kind of forgets the "golden rule" of evolution --- that it's still occuring and the only reason things are as they are now is because of the specific environments and organisms at play. It seems lazy to, as he does, say that the answers would be too complicated to figure out scientifically and, therefore, we must default to some sort of divine causation. It's too huge a mistake for a former atheist to make without fully justifying the way he came to that conclusion. It almost reads like a poorly written science fair paper, wherein the experimenter gets to a point where he can't get beyond and, therefore, decides that it's insurmountable. That's frustrating. What is so damn hard about just saying, "You know what? I don't know what happens beyond that."?
He also makes the argument that empathy is a proof for some sort of deity. Yet, his justifications for that claim are flat. I don't know... it seems like, for someone who was such a "dogmatic atheist" (that he, personally, denies being, but is being sold as), he makes some really obvious logical errors.
ETA: PZ has an article up about Flew and this book. All I have to say is that I think this Varghese guys is a despicable opportunist who, it would appear, delights in profiting off of the decline of an elderly man. How the fuck is that "Christian"? If that's "Christian", then I'm so glad I don't use the Christian yardstick for moral behavior. *fuming angry* What pisses me off more is that I wasted two hours reading this fucking book. I'm glad I didn't pay for it. But, I'm sad that our library system did.