A review of "There is a God" by Antony Flew

Here's a commentary by Richard Carrier on this book. Carrier engaged in a discussion with Flew for a while, and so he is pretty familiar with Flew's point of view, his points in the arguement, and his style. Carrier points out that Flew actually had nothing to do with the book, and that this book, in fact, does not represent Flew's views at all.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

The title of this thread makes it appear that you think you are posting a review of this book. Yet, HarperOne, who you reference for your OP, is the website of HarperCollins, the publisher of the book. Are you confusing an advertising blurb by the people promoting the book as an impartial "review"?

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

According to Carrier, that's because the book was actually written by a fundy Christian apologist who just put Flew's name on the cover.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

You seem to be missing the point. The post to which you are replying is pointing out that you are referencing the publisher of the book for a description of how important this book is.The other point, in the other posts which I wrote, describes how nothing in this book matches Flew's style, so that he couldn't have possibly written it himself (and, in fact, it's clear that he didn't), and that none of the arguments in the book bear any resemblence to any of the arguments used by Flew, so Flew's ideas clearly weren't even used by this book.Whether or not Flew is going senile is not quite relevant to my point that the book is basically a fraud. Although, now that you bring it up, if Flew isn't going senile, then one has to wonder why he signed his name to a book that he didn't write, didn't contribute to, nor even read, nor why he doesn't seem to know anything about it. What's your guess?

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Heh. Would anyone even have heard of Anthony Flew if it weren't for the evangelical propaganda machine?

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

As I stated a couple of weeks ago, the last time Flew's book was mentioned, this doesn't seem terribly rational to me. It's certainly not logically valid -- there seems to be a few lines missing from the syllogisms.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Maybe we're using different senses for the word rational.If I said, "It is raining outside. My cookie tastes good," then that is certainly not irrational, but it is a non-sequitur. If I were trying to convince you that I was eating a delicious cookie, and I tried to use the fact that it is raining outside as proof, then you would rightly consider the argument illogical.In the same way, "the fact that nature obeys rational and ordered laws, the fact that we are intelligently organised and purpose-driven beings, and the very existence of nature itself," (ignoring that the first two are open to subjective interpretation) and "the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence" are non-sequiturs. It isn't necessarily irrational to put them together in the same paragraph, but to imply that the first three somehow imply the last is illogical. The last is a statement that is logically independent of the first three.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This is saying that the conclusion is not rational. Rational does not mean "the two statements are not contradictory and seem agreeable to me." Rational means that the conclusion follows from the premises. If no one else should come to a particular conclusion, then the conclusion is not rational. It is a simple matter of what rational means.And, anyway, this isn't what the OP states. The OP states quite unequivocably

quote:

---

The atheist world was rocked by the news of one of the most important defections from its ranks in recent times....
In this hugely important book Antony Flew challenges all of us - atheists especially - to honestly and sincerely examine the evidence, without preconceived biases and agendas. Genuine intellectual honesty demands that we indeed follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

---

These statements make no sense if there is no reason why any of us should come to the same conclusions that Flew did.When you say you are saying that Flew came to an idiosyncratic position that has little to do with reason. You are also undercutting the importance of the book by admitting that it is about the idiosyncratic arational musings of one particular person.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

But I don't have to read the book. You just claimed that Flew doesn't have any reasoning that anyone else should find compelling. (Besides the fact, of course, that Flew himself had nothing to do with the book.)- Is this thread supposed to be conducted in GDRese? In English, "irrational" means that it goes against reason; that is, it is contradicted by logic or evidence. That you cannot prove it means that it is not, in fact, irrational.You are using the words "rational" and "irrational" in ways that are going to cause confusion (and have caused confusion so far) to people who are reading your posts. Even in colloquial English, "rational" and "irrational" refer to whether or not conclusions can be logically inferred from the premises and whether the conclusions are contradicted by evidence respectively. You appear to be using the words to mean, "makes sense to me" and "doesn't make sense to me".If you're trying to say that the existence of a deity makes sense to Flew, just say so -- don't use the word rational since it isn't appropriate in the context in which you are using it. If you are saying that the existence of the universe without a creator doesn't make sense to you, just say that; the use of irrational in the way you are using it is inappropriate.Rational and irrational refer to whether a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises of the argument or can be logically inferred from the evidence available. Creating non-sequiturs, like this alleged argument from Flew, are not rational in the usual meaning of the word.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein