There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind by Anthony Flew
Although, I wouldn’t consider Anthony Flew to be an extremely well-known atheist. He does appear to have been defending atheism academically and honing the arguments in favor of atheism for half-a-century. He has read papers in the presence of C.S. Lewis and debated William Lane Craig in the early 21st century.
I think this book provides an excellent overview of the arguments that is tied together with how Flew made the journey from being an atheist to a deist. Also, N.T. Wright has an excellent appendix at the end discussing the evidence for Christ and the resurrection. In contrast to many strictly philosophical works, this book is very readable while still maintaining much of the depth and respect for the arguments that one would expect in a philosophical work.
“World’s Most Notorious Atheist”
According to who?
It’s the title of the book. And read the book or go to the Amazon webpage():
From Publishers Weekly
British philosopher Flew has long been something of an evangelist for atheism, debating theologians and pastors in front of enormous crowds. In 2004, breathless news reports announced that the nonagenarian had changed his mind. This book tells why. Ironically, his arguments about the absurdity of God-talk launched a revival of philosophical theists, some of whom, like Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne, were important in Flew’s recent conversion to theism. Breakthroughs in science, especially cosmology, also played a part: if the speed or mass of the electron were off just a little, no life could have evolved on this planet. Perhaps the arrogance of the New Atheists also emboldened him, as Flew taunts them for failing to live up to the greatness of atheists of yore. The book concludes with an appendix by New Testament scholar and Anglican bishop N.T. Wright, arguing for the coherence of Christian belief in the resurrection. Flew praises Wright, though he maintains some distance still from orthodox Christianity. The book will be most avidly embraced by traditional theists seeking argumentative ammunition. It sometimes disappoints: quoting other authorities at length, citing religion-friendly scientists for pages at a time and belaboring side issues, like the claim that Einstein was really a religious believer of sorts. (Nov.)