Antony Flew

Antony Garrard Newton Flew (/fluː/; 11 February 1923 – 8 April 2010)[1][2] was an English[3] philosopher. Belonging to the analytic and evidentialist schools of thought, Flew was most notable for his work related to the philosophy of religion. During the course of his career he taught at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, and at York University in Toronto.

For much of his career Flew was known as a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces.[4] He also criticised the idea of life after death,[5][4] the free will defence to the problem of evil,[4] and the meaningfulness of the concept of God.[6][4] In 2003 he was one of the signatories of the Humanist Manifesto III.[7]

However, in 2004 he changed his position, and stated that he now believed in the existence of an Intelligent Creator of the universe,[8] shocking his fellow colleagues and atheists.[8] In order to further clarify his personal concept of God, Flew openly made an allegiance to Deism,[8][9] more specifically a belief in the Aristotelian God,[8][9] and dismissed on many occasions a hypothetical conversion to Christianity, Islam or any other religion.[8][9] He stated that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believed in the existence of a God.[9][10]

In 2007 a book outlining his reasons for changing his position, There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind was written by Flew in collaboration with Roy Abraham Varghese. The book (and Flew's conversion to Deism) has been the subject of controversy, following an article in The New York Times Magazine alleging that Flew's intellect had declined due to senility, and that the book was primarily the work of Varghese;[4][11] Flew himself specifically denied this, stating that the book represented his views, and he acknowledged that due to his age Varghese had done most of the actual work of writing the book.[12]

He was also known for the development of the no true Scotsman fallacy, and his debate on retrocausality with Michael Dummett.

Antony Garrard Newton Flew
Antony flew
Born11 February 1923
London, England
Died8 April 2010 (aged 87)
Berkshire, England, United Kingdom
Alma materSOAS, University of London
St John's College, Oxford
Era20th-century philosophy
RegionWestern philosophy
Main interests
Philosophy of religion
Notable ideas
No true Scotsman
The presumption of atheism
Negative and positive atheism
Subject/motive shift

Life and career

Flew, the son of Methodist minister/theologian Robert Newton Flew (1886–1962) and his wife Winifred née Garrard (1887–1982), was born in London. He was educated at St Faith's School, Cambridge followed by Kingswood School, Bath. He is said to have concluded by the age of 15 that there was no God.[13] During the Second World War he studied Japanese at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and was a Royal Air Force intelligence officer. After a period with the Inter-Services Topographical Department in Oxford, he was posted to Bletchley Park in June 1944.[14]

After the war, Flew achieved a first class degree in Literae Humaniores at St John's College, Oxford (1947). He also won the John Locke Scholarship in Mental Philosophy in the following year.[15] Flew was a graduate student of Gilbert Ryle, prominent in ordinary language philosophy. Both Flew and Ryle were among many Oxford philosophers fiercely criticised in Ernest Gellner's book Words and Things (1959). A 1954 debate with Michael Dummett over backward causation was an early highlight in Flew's career.[16]

For a year, 1949–50, Flew was a lecturer in philosophy at Christ Church, Oxford.[17] From 1950 to 1954 he was a lecturer at the University of Aberdeen, and from 1954 to 1971 he was a professor of philosophy at the University of Keele.[17] He held a professorship at the University of Calgary, 1972–73.[17] Between 1973 and 1983 he was professor of philosophy at the University of Reading. At this time, he developed one of his most famous arguments, the No true Scotsman fallacy in his 1975 book, Thinking About Thinking. Upon his retirement, Flew took up a half-time post for a few years at York University, Toronto.

Politically Flew was a libertarian-leaning conservative and wrote articles for The Journal of Libertarian Studies. His name appears on letterheads into 1992 as a Vice-President of the Conservative Monday Club, and he held the same position in the Western Goals Institute.[18] He was one of the signatories to a letter in The Times along with Lord Sudeley, Sir Alfred Sherman, and Dr. Harvey Ward, on behalf of the Institute, "applauding Alfredo Cristiani's statesmanship" and calling for his government's success in defeating the Cuban and Nicaraguan-backed communist FMLN terrorists in El Salvador.[19]

Flew married on 28 June 1952. He had two daughters.[20] Flew died on 8 April 2010, while nursed in an Extended Care Facility in Reading, England, suffering from dementia.[21][22]

While an undergraduate, Flew attended the weekly meetings of C. S. Lewis's Socratic Club fairly regularly. Although he found Lewis to be "an eminently reasonable man" and "by far the most powerful of Christian apologists for the sixty or more years following his founding of that club", he was not persuaded by Lewis's argument from morality as found in Mere Christianity. Flew also criticised several of the other philosophical proofs for God's existence. He concluded that the ontological argument in particular failed because it is based on the premise that the concept of Being can be derived from the concept of Goodness. Only the scientific forms of the teleological argument ultimately impressed Flew as decisive.[23]

During the time of his involvement in the Socratic Club, Flew also wrote the article "Theology and Falsification", which argued that claims about God were merely vacuous where they could not be tested for truth or falsehood. Though initially published in an undergraduate journal, the article came to be widely reprinted and discussed.

Flew was also critical of the idea of life after death and the free will defence to the problem of evil. In 1998, he debated Christian philosopher William Lane Craig over the existence of God.[24]

Atheism and deism

The Presumption of Atheism

One of Antony Flew's most influential professional works was his 1976 The Presumption of Atheism[25] in which Flew forwarded the proposition that the question of God's existence should begin with the presumption of atheism:

"What I want to examine is the contention that the debate about the existence of God should properly begin from the presumption of atheism, that the onus of proof must lie upon the theist. The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God, I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively... in this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist.

The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. 'Whyever', it could be asked, don't you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?[26]

Flew's proposal to change his profession's use of the term atheism saw limited acceptance in the 20th century, but in the early 21st century Flew's negative sense of 'atheism' came to be forwarded more commonly.[27][28] The impact of Flew's proposed negative atheism, which is often referred to today as 'weak atheism' or 'soft atheism', is illustrated by analytic Philosopher William Lane Craig's 2007 assessment that the presumption of atheism had become "one of the most commonly proffered justifications of atheism."[29] And BBC journalist William Crawley 2010 analysis: "The Presumption of Atheism (1976) made the case, now followed by today's new atheism, that atheism should be the ... default position".[30][31] In recent debates, atheists often forward the Presumption of Atheism referring to atheism as the "default position"[32][33][34][35] or has "no burden of proof"[36][37] or asserting that the burden of proof rests solely on the theist.[26][38][39]

Revised views

Conversion to deism

On several occasions, starting in 2001, rumors circulated claiming that Flew had converted from atheism to deism. Flew denied these rumours on the Secular Web website.[40]

In January 2004 Flew and Gary Habermas, his friend and philosophical adversary, took part in and conducted a dialogue on the resurrection at California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo. During a couple of telephone discussions shortly after that dialogue, Flew explained to Habermas that he was considering becoming a theist. While Flew did not change his position at that time, he concluded that certain philosophical and scientific considerations were causing him to do some serious rethinking. He characterized his position as that of atheism standing in tension with several huge question marks.[41]

In a 2004 interview (published 9 December), Flew, then 81 years old, said that he had become a deist.[42] In the article Flew states that he has renounced his long-standing espousal of atheism by endorsing a deism of the sort that Thomas Jefferson advocated ("While reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings"). Flew stated that "the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries" and that "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it". The argument of ID is that evidenced objects and physical concepts are either too simple or too complex to be simply natural, whichever of the two extremes one chooses to be the hallmark of design by an outside intelligence. He also answered in the affirmative to Habermas's question, "So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?". He supported the idea of an Aristotelian God with "the characteristics of power and also intelligence", stating that the evidence for it was stronger than ever before. He rejected the idea of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (he explicitly states that God has created "a lot of" evil), and of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact, although he has allowed a short chapter arguing in favor of Joshua's/Jesus' resurrection to be added into his latest book.[42]

Flew was particularly hostile to Islam, and said it is "best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab imperialism."[42] In a December 2004 interview he said: "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins".[43]

Controversy over his position

In October 2004 (before the December publication of the Flew–Habermas interview), in a letter written to the historian and atheist Richard Carrier of the Secular Web Flew stated that he was a deist, and wrote "I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations."[44] Flew also said: "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."[44]

In the months following the Habermas interview, Flew contradicted some statements made in the interview and retracted others. When asked in December 2004 by Duncan Crary of Humanist Network News if he still stood by the argument presented in The Presumption of Atheism, Flew replied he did but he also restated his position as deist: "I'm quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god." When asked by Crary whether or not he has kept up with the most recent science and theology, he responded with "Certainly not," stating that there is simply too much to keep up with. Flew also denied that there was any truth to the rumours of 2001 and 2003 that he had converted to Christianity.[45]

In a letter to Carrier of 29 December 2004 Flew retracted his statement that a deity or a "super-intelligence" was the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature:

I now realise that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.

He blamed his error on being "misled" by the (supposed) fact that Richard Dawkins had "never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter.[44]

His 2007 book There is a God (see below) revisited the question, however, and questioned contemporary models: "the latest work I have seen shows that the present physical universe gives too little time for these theories of abiogenesis to get the job done."[46] He added: "The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and 'coded chemistry'? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem".[46]

The work of the Orthodox Jewish nuclear physicist Gerald Schroeder had been influential in Flew's new belief, but Flew told Carrier that he had not read any of the critiques of Schroeder that Carrier referred him to.

However, in spring 2005 when atheist Raymond Bradley, emeritus professor of philosophy at Simon Fraser University and a member of the editorial board of The Open Society journal, wrote an open letter to Flew accusing him of not "check[ing] the veracity of [Schroeder's] claims before swallowing them whole," Flew responded strongly to that charge in a letter published in the same journal in summer 2006, describing the content of Bradley's letter "extraordinarily offensive" and the accusation made by him as an "egregiously offensive charge"; he also implied that Bradley was a "secularist bigot," and suggested that he should follow Socrates's advice (as scripted in Plato's Republic) of "follow[ing] the argument wherever it leads."[47] Other prominent atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, suggested Flew's deism was a form of God of the gaps.[48]

Concerning other critics (both the Christians when he was an Atheist, and the Atheists when he decided to become an Aristotelian Deist) Flew said in December 2004:[49]

I have been denounced by my fellow unbelievers for stupidity, betrayal, senility and everything you can think of and none of them have read a word that I have ever written.

Restatement of position

A letter on evolution and theology which Flew published in the August/September 2004 issue of Philosophy Now magazine closed with, "Anyone who should happen to want to know what I myself now believe will have to wait until the publication, promised for early 2005, by Prometheus of Amherst, NY of the final edition of my God and Philosophy with a new introduction of it as ‘an historical relic’."[50]

The preface of God and Philosophy states that the publisher and Flew went through a total of four versions (each extensively peer-reviewed) before coming up with one that satisfied them both. The introduction raises ten matters that came about since the original 1966 edition. Flew states that any book to follow God and Philosophy will have to take into account these ideas when considering the philosophical case for the existence of God:[51]

  1. A novel definition of "God" by Richard Swinburne
  2. The case for the existence of the Christian God by Swinburne in the book Is There a God?
  3. The Church of England's change in doctrine on the eternal punishment of Hell
  4. The question of whether there was only one big bang and if time began with it
  5. The question of multiple universes
  6. The fine-tuning argument
  7. The question of whether there is a naturalistic account for the development of living matter from non-living matter
  8. The question of whether there is a naturalistic account for non-reproducing living matter developing into a living creature capable of reproduction
  9. The concept of an Intelligent Orderer as explained in the book The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God by Roy Abraham Varghese
  10. An extension of an Aristotelian/Deist concept of God that can be reached through natural theology, which was developed by David Conway.

In an interview with Joan Bakewell for BBC Radio 4 in March 2005, Flew rejected the fine-tuning argument as a conclusive proof: "I don't think it proves anything but that it is entirely reasonable for people who already have a belief in a creating God to regard this as confirming evidence. And it's a point of argument which I think is very important – to see that what is reasonable for people to do in the face of new evidence depends on what they previously had good reason to believe." He also said it appeared that there had been progress made regarding the naturalistic origins of DNA. However, he restated his deism, with the usual provisos that his God is not the God of any of the revealed religions.[52] In the same interview, Flew was asked whether he was retracting belief in an Aristotelian God, but answered no.

One month later, Flew told Christianity Today that although he was not on the road to becoming a Christian convert, he reaffirmed his deism: "Since the beginning of my philosophical life I have followed the policy of Plato's Socrates: We must follow the argument wherever it leads."[53]

In late 2006, Flew joined 11 other academics in urging the British government to teach intelligent design in the state schools.[54]

In 2007, in an interview with Benjamin Wiker, Flew said again that his deism was the result of his "growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe" and "my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source." He also restated that he was not a Christian theist.[55]

Book with Varghese and authorship controversy

In 2007, Flew published a book titled There is a God, which was listed as having Roy Abraham Varghese as its co-author. Shortly after the book was released, the New York Times published an article by historian of religion Mark Oppenheimer, who stated that Varghese had been almost entirely responsible for writing the book, and that Flew was in a serious state of mental decline,[11] having great difficulty remembering key figures, ideas, and events relating to the debate covered in the book.[11] His book praises several philosophers (like Brian Leftow, John Leslie and Paul Davies), but Flew failed to remember their work during Oppenheimer's interview.

A further article by Anthony Gottlieb noted a strong difference in style between the passages giving Flew's biography, and those laying out the case for a god, with the latter including Americanisms such as "beverages", "vacation" and "candy". He came to the same conclusion as Oppenheimer, and stated that "Far from strengthening the case for the existence of God, [the book] rather weakens the case for the existence of Antony Flew".[56] Varghese replied with a letter disputing this view.[57]

Flew later released a statement through his publisher stating:

I have rebutted these criticisms in the following statement: My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 percent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I’m 84 and that was Roy Varghese’s role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I'm old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. This is my book and it represents my thinking."[58]

An audio commentary by William Lane Craig[59] concurs with this position, but Richard Carrier disputed this view.[60] In June 2008, Flew stated his position once again, in a letter to a fellow of the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship.[12]

Christian writer Regis Nicoll claims that "Moreover, in a signed, handwritten letter (a copy of which I now have) sent to Roy Varghese, the legendary philosopher reaffirmed his conversion while criticising Oppenheimer for drawing attention away from the book’s central argument: the collapse of rationalism."[61] He argues that "Even Mark Oppenheimer described the ex-atheist 'flaunt[ing] his allegiance to deism' in May 2006 to a Christian audience at Biola University."

Perhaps most definitively, Christian apologist Anthony Horvath corresponded with Antony Flew before it was publicly known there would even be a book. In 2010, he published his letters. The letters contain Flew's description of the outline of the book, his Deism in the pattern of Einstein's, and his high praise of N.T. Wright's arguments for Christianity. All of these elements are present in the book.[62]

However, in 2014 the blog, following Oppenheimer's investigation on the authorship and content of the book,[4] concluded that Varghese and a few other "ghostwriters" (evangelical pastors)[11] psychologically manipulated Flew quite easily due to his vulnerability, old age and their persistent love-bombing,[4] exploiting him, and presenting typical rough creationist arguments in favor of the Intelligent design theory and appraisal of Christianity that Flew would have never agreed upon:

If you read the book itself, you will find some rather crass creationist arguments that any half decent philosopher would have seen through, so yes indeed, clearly it reeks of bovine waste and is not his work at all.

What should set alarm bells clanging in your head is that he does not give any rebuttals for the arguments he had for being an atheist, but instead simply leans upon a design argument, one that misrepresents much of what we actually know. Appendix A is supposedly a discussion of whether “God” has communicated anything to humankind, but is instead just an attack on Richard Dawkins, and also demolishes a few straw men.

Appendix B is billed as a “dialogue” between Flew and biblical scholar about the Resurrection, in which Flew supposedly asks just three one line questions and the rest (about 20 pages) is religious drivel. For example, Q: Do we have a proof that Jesus was real? A: Evidence is so vast that it is not worth mentioning … and so no actual evidence is cited at all, you are supposed to just “believe”.

Oh, and we also supposedly have an endorsement of Christianity by Flew, but there is nothing at all in the book to justify such a stance – clearly this book is simply PR, or to be a bit more blunt, it’s a con job.

[...] It may in fact be true that Flew did become a deist, but he never ever made the leap to theist, and even that deist step is perhaps explained by him being essentially love-bombed by some Christians in his old age and steered in that direction.[63]


Flew was awarded the Schlarbaum Prize by the Ludwig von Mises Institute for his "outstanding lifetime achievement in the cause of liberty."[64] Upon acceptance of the award in Auburn, Alabama, in September 2001, Flew delivered an address entitled "Locke versus Rawls on Equality." Of his choice of topics, he stated "I am the first Englishman and the first professional philosopher to receive the Schlarbaum Prize. So it seems appropriate to begin by talking about the greatest English philosopher, John Locke."[65]

On 11 May 2006, Antony Flew accepted the second "Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth" from Biola University. The award, named for its first recipient, was given to Flew "for his lifelong commitment to free and open inquiry and to standing fast against intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression". When informed of his award, Flew remarked, "In light of my work and publications in this area and the criticism I’ve received for changing my position, I appreciate receiving this award".[66]

He was an honorary associate of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists[67] and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.[68] In 1985, Flew was awarded the In Praise of Reason Award the highest honor the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry awards. The award was presented by Chairman Paul Kurtz in London "'[I]n recognition of his long-standing contributions to the use of methods of critical inquiry, scientific evidence, and reason in evaluating claims to knowledge and solving social problems."[69]


  • A New Approach to Psychical Research (1953)
  • New Essays in Philosophical Theology (1955) editor with Alasdair MacIntyre
  • Essays in Conceptual Analysis (1956)
  • Hume's Philosophy of Belief (1961)
  • Logic And Language (1961) editor
  • Flew, Antony (1966), God and Philosophy.
  • Flew, Antony, ed. (1966), Logic & Language, Second.
  • Evolutionary Ethics (1967)
  • An Introduction to Western Philosophy: Ideas and Argument from Plato to Sartre (1971)
  • Body, Mind and Death (1973)
  • Crime or Disease (1973)
  • Thinking About Thinking (1975)
  • Sociology, Equality and Education: Philosophical Essays In Defence of A Variety of Differences (1976)
  • Flew, Antony (1977), Thinking Straight, ISBN 978-0-87975-088-6
  • A Dictionary of Philosophy (1979) editor, later edition with Stephen Priest
  • Philosophy, an Introduction (1979)
  • Libertarians versus Egalitarians (c. 1980) pamphlet
  • The Politics of Procrustes: contradictions of enforced equality (1981)
  • Darwinian Evolution (1984)
  • Flew, Antony (1984) [The Presumption of Atheism, 1976], God, Freedom and Immortality: A Critical Analysis (reprint ed.), archived from the original on 12 October 2005.
  • Examination not Attempted in Right Ahead, newspaper of the Conservative Monday Club, Conservative Party Conference edition, October 1985.
  • God: A Critical Inquiry (1986) – reprint of God and Philosophy (1966) with new introduction
  • David Hume: Philosopher of Moral Science (1986) Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  • Flew, Antony; Vesey, Godfrey Norman Agmondis (1987), Agency and Necessity, Great Debates in Philosophy.
  • Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? The Resurrection Debate (1987) with Gary Habermas
  • Power to the Parents: Reversing Educational Decline (1987)
  • The Logic of Mortality (1987)
  • Duncan, Ronald; Wilson, Colin, eds. (1987), "Prophesy or Philosophy? Historicism or History?", Marx Refuted, Bath, UK, ISBN 978-0-906798-71-3.
  • Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Parapsychology (1987) editor
  • God, A Critical Inquiry (1988)
  • Does God Exist?: A Believer and an Atheist Debate (1991) with Terry L. Miethe
  • A Future for Anti-Racism? (Social Affairs Unit 1992) pamphlet
  • Flew, Antony (1993), Atheistic Humanism, ISBN 978-0-87975-847-9.
  • Thinking About Social Thinking, 1995.
  • Philosophical Essays (1998) edited by John Shosky
  • Education for Citizenship, Studies in Education (10), Institute of Economic Affairs, 2000.
  • Merely Mortal? (2000)
  • Equality in Liberty and Justice (2001) Transaction Publishers.
  • Does God Exist: The Craig-Flew Debate (2003) with William Lane Craig (ISBN 978-0-7546-3190-3)
  • Social Life and Moral Judgment (2003)
  • God and Philosophy (2005) – another reprint of God and Philosophy (1966) with another new introduction
  • There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007) with Roy Abraham Varghese (ISBN 978-0-06-133529-7)
  • Encyclopedia article (2008). "Humanism". In Hamowy, Ronald. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 228–29. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n140. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.


  1. ^ "Antony Flew", The Times (obituary), UK: Legacy.
  2. ^ "Professor Antony Flew", The Daily Telegraph (obituary), UK: Legacy, 14 Apr 2010.
  3. ^ Antony Flew self identified as English not British: "I am the first Englishman and the first professional philosopher to receive the Schlarbaum Prize. So it seems appropriate to begin by talking about the greatest English philosopher, John Locke." Flew, Antony. "Locke versus Rawls on Equality" Mises. 24 October 2001.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g "Antony Flew – did he really change his mind?". Skeptical Science. 25 May 2014. Retrieved 23 February 2018.
  5. ^ Flew, Anthony (1998), Could We Survive Our Own Deaths?, Internet Infidels.
  6. ^ Flew, Anthony (2000), Theology & Falsification: A Golden Jubilee Celebration, Internet Infidels.
  7. ^ "Notable Signers". Humanism and Its Aspirations. American Humanist Association. Archived from the original on 5 October 2012. Retrieved 28 September 2012.
  8. ^ a b c d e Grimes, William (2010-04-16). "Antony Flew, Philosopher and Ex-Atheist, Dies at 87". The New York Times. Retrieved 2018-02-21. In “There Is a God” he explained that he now believed in a supreme intelligence, removed from human affairs but responsible for the intricate workings of the universe. In other words, the Divine Watchmaker imagined by deists like Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.
    In a letter to The Sunday Telegraph of London in 2004, he described “the God in whose existence I have belatedly come to believe” as “most emphatically not the eternally rewarding and eternally torturing God of either Christianity or Islam but the God of Aristotle that he would have defined — had Aristotle actually produced a definition of his (and my) God — as the first initiating and sustaining cause of the universe.”
  9. ^ a b c d Crawley, William (2010-04-16). "Antony Flew: the atheist who changed his mind". BBC. Retrieved 2018-02-20. In some interviews, and in subsequent publications, Flew made it clear that he had not become a Christian; he had moved from atheism to a form of deism. This is important: it is a mistake to claim that Flew embraced classical theism in any substantial form; rather, he came to believe merely that an intelligent orderer of the universe existed. He did not believe that this "being" had any further agency in the universe, and he maintained his opposition to the vast majority of doctrinal positions adopted by the global faiths, such as belief in the after-life, or a divine being who actively cares for or loves the universe, or the resurrection of Christ, and argued for the idea of an "Aristotelian God". He explained that he, like Socrates, had simply followed the evidence, and the new evidence from science and natural theology made it possible to rationally advance belief in an intelligent being who ordered the universe. In 2006, he even added his name to a petition calling for the inclusion of intelligent design theory on the UK science curriculum.
  10. ^ Habermas 2004.
  11. ^ a b c d Oppenheimer, Mark (11 April 2007), "The Turning of an Atheist", The New York Times Magazine, retrieved 23 February 2018, As he himself conceded, he had not written his book.
    “This is really Roy’s doing,” he said, before I had even figured out a polite way to ask. “He showed it to me, and I said O.K. I’m too old for this kind of work!”
    When I asked Varghese, he freely admitted that the book was his idea and that he had done all the original writing for it. But he made the book sound like more of a joint effort — slightly more, anyway. “There was stuff he had written before, and some of that was adapted to this,” Varghese said. “There is stuff he’d written to me in correspondence, and I organized a lot of it. And I had interviews with him. So those three elements went into it. Oh, and I exposed him to certain authors and got his views on them. We pulled it together. And then to make it more reader-friendly, HarperCollins had a more popular author go through it.”
    So even the ghostwriter had a ghostwriter: Bob Hostetler, an evangelical pastor and author from Ohio, rewrote many passages, especially in the section that narrates Flew’s childhood. With three authors, how much Flew was left in the book?
  12. ^ a b Flew 2007.
  13. ^
  14. ^ Smith, Michael (2000), The Emperor's Codes, Bantam, p. 246
  15. ^ "Brief Biography of Antony G.N. Flew".
  16. ^ Faye, Jan (29 August 2005). "Backward Causation". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  17. ^ a b c Who's Who, 1974, London : A. & C. Black, 1974, p. 1118
  18. ^ Labour Research, November 1988, p. 2.
  19. ^ The Times, 29 September 1989.
  20. ^ "Flew's biography". Wisconsin University. 10 December 2003. Archived from the original on 10 December 2003. Retrieved 10 March 2012.
  21. ^ Grubbs, Kenneth (21 April 2010), "Antony Flew, 1923–2010 – Following the Argument Wherever it Leads", eSkeptic, Skeptic.
  22. ^ Grimes, William (16 April 2010). "Antony Flew, Philosopher and Ex-Atheist, Dies at 87". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 July 2011.
  23. ^ Habermas 2004, p. 2.
  24. ^ Flew, Antony; Craig, William Lane (28 January 1998), Does God Exist? (Google You tube video) (debate), University of Wisconsin.
  25. ^ Flew 1984.
  26. ^ a b Flew, Anthony (1976). The Presumption of Atheism (PDF). Common Sense Atheism.
  27. ^ "Atheists, agnostics and theists". Is there a God?. Retrieved 28 September 2016. But it is common these days to find atheists who define the term to mean “without theism”... Many of them then go on to argue that this means that the “burden of proof” is on the theist...
  28. ^ Day, Donn. "Atheism – Etymology". The Divine Conspiracy. Retrieved 28 September 2016. In the last twenty years or so atheists and theists have taken to debating on college campuses, and in town halls, all across this country. By using the above definition, atheists have attempted to shift the burden of proof.
  29. ^ Craig, William Lane (2007). Martin, Michael, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, pp. 69–85. Ed. M. Martin. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. pp. 69–85. ISBN 9780521842709. [The Presumption of atheism is] One of the most commonly proffered justifications of atheism has been the so-called presumption of atheism.
  30. ^ Crawly, William (16 April 2010). "Antony Flew: the atheist who changed his mind". British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 28 September 2016. His books God and Philosophy (1966) and The Presumption of Atheism (1976) [Flew] made the case, now followed by today's new atheists, that atheism should be the intelligent person's default until well-established evidence to the contrary arises
  31. ^ "Atheism; Atheistic Naturalism". Internet Encyclopedia of Atheism. Retrieved 26 September 2016. A notable modern view is Antony Flew’s Presumption of Atheism (1984).
  32. ^ "Atheism Isn't Simply a Lack of Belief". Stand to Reason. Retrieved 28 September 2016. Many atheists ... take atheism to be just the default position...Given this redefinition, most atheists are taken aback when theists demand they provide evidence for their atheism.
  33. ^ Rauser, Randall (1 October 2012). "Atheist, meet Burden of Proof. Burden of Proof, meet Atheist". The Tentative Apologist. Retrieved 27 September 2016. There are very many atheists who think they have no worldview to defend.
  34. ^ Parsons, Keith M. (14 December 1997). "Do Atheists Bear a Burden of Proof?". The Secular Web. Retrieved 27 September 2016. The 'evidentialist challenge' is the gauntlet thrown down by atheist writers such as Antony Flew, Norwood Russell Hanson, and Michael Scriven. They argue that in debates over the existence of God, the burden of proof should fall on the theist. They contend that if theists are unable to provide cogent arguments for theism, i.e. arguments showing that it is at least more probable than not that God exists, then atheism wins by default.
  35. ^ "The burden of truth". Rational Razor. 20 July 2014. Retrieved 27 September 2016. The default position is neutral on the position of God’s existence. The burden of proof is on the claim maker to justify his claim by evidence. At the least, negative atheism does not bear a burden of proof
  36. ^ Antony, Michael. "The New Atheism, Where's The Evidence?". Philosophy Now. Retrieved 27 September 2016. Another familiar strategy of atheists is to insist that the burden of proof falls on the believer.
  37. ^ Samples, Kenneth (Fall 1991). "Putting the Atheist on the Defensive". Christian Research Institute Journal. Retrieved 28 September 2016. When Christians and atheists engage in debate concerning the question, Does God exist? atheists frequently assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian.
  38. ^ "The burden of truth". Rational Razor. 20 July 2014. Retrieved 27 September 2016. Atheists tend to claim that the theist bears the burden of proof to justify the existence of God, whereas the theist tends to claim that both parties have an equal burden of proof.
  39. ^ Playford, Richard (9 June 2013). "Atheism and the burden of proof". The Christian Apologetics Alliance. Retrieved 2 October 2016. In this article I will show that atheism is a belief about the world and that it does require a justification in the same way that theism does.
  40. ^ Flew, Antony (31 August 2001), "Sorry to Disappoint, but I'm Still an Atheist!", Internet Infidels, Sec Web, archived from the original on 30 August 2005.
  41. ^ "Atheist Becomes Theist". Biola University. Retrieved 10 March 2012.
  42. ^ a b c Habermas 2004, p. 6.
  43. ^ Ostling, Richard N. (10 December 2004), "Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God", Associated Press, Mail archive.
  44. ^ a b c Richard Carrier. "Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of". The Secular Web. Archived from the original on 21 May 2014.
  45. ^ Duncan Crary. "No longer atheist, Flew stands by "Presumption of Atheism"". Humanist Studies.
  46. ^ a b Antony Flew; Roy Abraham Varghese (2007), There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, New York: Harper One, p. 124, ASIN B0076O7KX8.
  47. ^ Flew, Antony (Spring 2006), "A response to Raymond Bradley" (PDF), The Open Society, 79 (4).
  48. ^ Evans, Robert. "Humanists, Atheists Look to Higher Global Profile". Mukto-mona. Retrieved 10 March 2012.
  49. ^ Wavell, Stuard (19 December 2004), "In the beginning there was something", The Sunday Times (article).
  50. ^ Flew, Antony, "Darwinism and Theology", Philosophy Now (letter) (47).
  51. ^ Flew 1966.
  52. ^ "Professor Antony Flew", Belief (interview), UK: BBC, 22 March 2005.
  53. ^ Beverley, James A (29 April 2005), "Thinking Straighter", Christianity Today.
  54. ^ "Creationism gains foothold in schools", The Times, UK: Times Online.
  55. ^ Wiker, Dr. Benjamin (30 October 2007), Exclusive Flew Interview, To the source.
  56. ^ Gottlieb, Anthony (23 December 2007), "I'm a Believer", The New York Times.
  57. ^ Varghese, Roy (13 January 2008), "Letter to the Editor", The New York Times.
  58. ^ "Times Magazine Piece on Former Atheist Kicks Up Controversy", Publishers’ weekly
  59. ^ "Dr. Craig's Current Events Audio Blog". RF Media. 11 November 2007. Archived from the original on 11 February 2012. Retrieved 10 March 2012.
  60. ^ Carrier, Richard (27 December 2007). "Craig the Annoyed" (Blogger) (World wide web log). Retrieved 10 March 2012.
  61. ^ "From UnChristian to Christian". Crosswalk. Retrieved 10 March 2012.
  62. ^ "The Flew-Horvath Correspondence". Retrieved 7 July 2014.
  63. ^ "Antony Flew – did he really change his mind?",, 25 May 2014
  64. ^ "Antony G.N. Flew", Schlarbaum Laureate, Mises, 2001.
  65. ^ Flew, Antony. "Locke versus Rawls on Equality" Mises. 24 October 2001.
  66. ^ "Former Atheist to Receive Award at Biola". Biola News. 27 March 2006. Archived from the original on 22 May 2006.
  67. ^ Honorary Associates, NZ: NAZRH.
  68. ^ "CSI Fellows and Staff". About. Center for Inquiry. Retrieved 20 June 2012.
  69. ^ "'In Praise of Reason' Award Goes to Antony Flew". The Skeptical Inquirer. 10 (2): 102, 104. 1985.


External links

1971 in philosophy

1971 in philosophy

Agnostic existentialism

Agnostic existentialism is a type of existentialism which makes no claim to know whether there is a "greater picture"; rather, it simply asserts that the greatest truth is that which the individual chooses to act upon. It feels that to know the greater picture, whether there is one or not, is impossible, or impossible so far, or of little value. Like the Christian existentialist, the agnostic existentialist believes existence is subjective.


An assertoric proposition in Aristotelian logic merely asserts that something is (or is not) the case, in contrast to problematic propositions which assert the possibility of something being true, or apodeictic propositions which assert things which are necessarily or self-evidently true or false. For instance, "Chicago is larger than Omaha" is assertoric. "A corporation could be wealthier than a country" is problematic. "Two plus two equals four" is apodeictic.

Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion

The Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER) was based at the Center for Inquiry in Amherst, New York. According to its mission statement, CSER was a research consultation devoted "to the study of religion and ethics from the standpoint of philosophical naturalism and to the critical, nonparochial, and humanistic study of religious truth claims." The Committee professed to serve both a "watchdog" function in relation to church-state and educational issues, and the academic community through generating original research and promoting religious literacy. The CSER was disbanded in 2010.

CSER was described as a nonprofit educational organization which "locates its values in the humanistic principles of the American and European Enlightenment and the liberal critical traditions of post-Enlightenment culture." The Committee consisted of approximately one hundred elected fellows chosen from academe and the professions. Past fellows included Van Harvey, Joseph L. Blau, Carol Meyers, Morton Smith, Karen Armstrong, Vern Bullough, Joseph Fletcher, Lewis Feuer, Theodor Gaster, Gerd Luedemann, Antony Flew, John Hick, David Noel Freedman, John Dominic Crossan, Alan Ryan, Don Cupitt, Margaret Chatterjee, Richard Taylor, Susan Blackmore, Robert Carroll, Arthur Peacocke, Clinton Bennett and Peter Atkins.

List of philosophers of religion

This is a list of philosophers of religion.


Peter Abelard

Jacob Abendana

Joseph ben Abraham

Isaac Alfasi

Babasaheb Ambedkar

Jacob Anatoli

Anselm of Canterbury

St. Thomas Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo


AJ Ayer


Jedaiah ben Abraham Bedersi

Walter Benjamin


Sergei Bulgakov

Isaac Canpanton

Isaac Cardoso

Isaac Orobio de Castro

G. K. Chesterton

Stephen R.L. Clark


William Lane Craig

Brian Davies

Joseph Solomon Delmedigo

Jacques Derrida

Mircea Eliade

Aaron ben Elijah


Shem-Tov ibn Falaquera

José Faur

Antony Flew


Pavel Florensky

Solomon ibn Gabirol

Hai Gaon

Saadia Gaon



Fethullah Gulen

Eugene Halliday

Johann Georg Hamann

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

John Hick

David Hume

William James

Jeshua ben Judah

Isaac Nathan ben Kalonymus

Immanuel Kant

Søren Kierkegaard

David Kimhi

Isaac ibn Latif

Yeshayahu Leibowitz

Leon of Modena

Aleksei Losev

Salomon Maimon


Guru Nanak

Elia del Medigo

Dmitry Merezhkovsky

J.P. Moreland

David ibn Merwan al-Mukkamas

Moses Narboni

Robert Cummings Neville

David Nieto

Friedrich Nietzsche


William Paley

Bahya ibn Paquda

Whitall Perry

Alvin Plantinga

Robert M. Price

Yiḥyah Qafiḥ

Vasily Rozanov

Friedrich Schleiermacher

Frithjof Schuon

John Duns Scotus

Adi Shankara

Isaac ben Sheshet

Hoter ben Shlomo

Huston Smith


Vladimir Solovyov

Baruch Spinoza

Walter Terence Stace

Melville Y. Stewart

Emanuel Swedenborg

Richard Swinburne

Samuel ibn Tibbon

Paul Tillich

Lao Tzu

Joseph ibn Tzaddik

Said Nursi




Muhammad Alief Roslan


Natural-law argument

Natural-law argument for the existence of God was especially popular in the eighteenth century as a result of the influence of Sir Isaac Newton. As Bertrand Russell pointed out much later, many of the things we consider to be laws of nature, in fact, are human conventions. Indeed, Albert Einstein has shown that Newton's law of universal gravitation was such a convention, and though elegant and useful, one that did not describe the universe precisely. Most true laws are rather trivial, such as mathematical laws, laws of probability, and so forth, and much less impressive than those that were envisioned by Newton and his followers. Russell wrote:

"If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there was a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate law-giver. In short, this whole argument from natural law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have."The argument of natural laws as a basis for God was changed by Christian figures such as Thomas Aquinas, in order to fit biblical scripture and establish a Judeo-Christian teleological law.

Negative and positive atheism

Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.The terms "negative atheism" and "positive atheism" were used by Antony Flew in 1976 and have appeared in George H. Smith's and Michael Martin's writings since 1990.

No true Scotsman

No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample. Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).

Of Miracles

"Of Miracles" is the title of Section X of David Hume's An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding (1748).

Parable of the Invisible Gardener

The Parable of the Invisible Gardener is a tale originally told by John Wisdom. It was later developed in the university debate by Antony Flew, who made several important changes such as changing the gardeners to explorers and making original "long neglected garden" a clearing in the jungle. It is often used to illustrate the perceived differences between assertions based on faith and assertions based on scientific evidence, and the problems associated with unfalsifiable beliefs. Flew's main claim in using the parable is that religious believers do not allow anybody to "falsify" their assertions, instead they simply change their beliefs to suit the questioner. Thus Flew concludes that religious believers cause God to "die the death of a thousand qualifications". In Flew's version, the tale runs as follows:

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves. At last the Skeptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

Philosophy For All

Philosophy For All (PFA) is a London-based association of people interested in philosophy. It was founded in 1998. It aims to bridge the gap between professional and amateur philosophers, by holding talks, lectures and debates. Many of its events are held in pubs; and others in adult education colleges.

According to its website, its aims are: "to encourage philosophical debate between professional and non-professional philosophers in a non-technical way; to provide a forum for an active exchange of ideas and information; to give guidance and information concerning courses as well as relevant literature in philosophy; to inspire those interested in philosophy to develop their interest further."

It is believed to be the largest philosophy organisation in London in terms of membership. Its bi-annual Public Lecture is often attended by more than 100 people and its monthly Kant's Cave talks, which are often given by notable academics, regularly draw 70 or so people to a room above a pub in Euston.

During the early years of the new millennium it organised a series of Round Table debates in which four leading philosophers and an audience of around 150 people would debate issues such as the relationship between science and philosophy.

The PFA Public Lectures are a series of lectures held every six months or so (from around 2003 onwards) in which a well-known thinker gives a lecture and then holds a lengthy discussion session with the audience. The lectures give members of the public the opportunity to question and discuss with internationally-known philosophers who have included as Simon Blackburn, Antony Flew, Piers Benn, Jonathan Glover, Anthony Grayling, Ted Honderich, Moshe Machover, Nicholas Maxwell, Mary Margaret McCabe, Mary Midgley, David Papineau, Janet Radcliffe Richards, Barry C. Smith, Jonathan Wolff, Raymond Tallis, and Colin Wilson.

Other regular monthly Philosophy For All events include a philosophy film club, seminars on important philosophical texts and regular Philosophical Walks in the countryside around London.

Philosophy Now

Philosophy Now is a bimonthly philosophy magazine sold from news-stands and book stores in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada; it is also available on digital devices, and online. It aims to appeal to the wider public, as well as to students and philosophy teachers. It was established in 1991 and was the first general philosophy magazine.

Problem of religious language

The problem of religious language considers whether it is possible to talk about God meaningfully if the traditional conceptions of God as being incorporeal, infinite, and timeless, are accepted. Because these traditional conceptions of God make it difficult to describe God, religious language has the potential to be meaningless. Theories of religious language either attempt to demonstrate that such language is meaningless, or attempt to show how religious language can still be meaningful.

Traditionally, religious language has been explained as via negativa, analogy, symbolism, or myth, each of which describes a way of talking about God in human terms. The via negativa is a way of referring to God according to what God is not; analogy uses human qualities as standards against which to compare divine qualities; symbolism is used non-literally to describe otherwise ineffable experiences; and a mythological interpretation of religion attempts to reveal fundamental truths behind religious stories. Alternative explanations of religious language cast it as having political, performative, or imperative functions.

Empiricist David Hume's requirement that claims about reality must be verified by evidence influenced the logical positivist movement, particularly the philosopher A. J. Ayer. The movement proposed that, for a statement to hold meaning, it must be possible to verify its truthfulness empirically – with evidence from the senses. Consequently, the logical positivists argued that religious language must be meaningless because the propositions it makes are impossible to verify. Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein has been regarded as a logical positivist by some academics because he distinguished between things that can and cannot be spoken about; others have argued that he could not have been a logical positivist because he emphasised the importance of mysticism. British philosopher Antony Flew proposed a similar challenge based on the principle that, in so far as assertions of religious belief cannot be empirically falsified, religious statements are rendered meaningless.

The analogy of games – most commonly associated with Ludwig Wittgenstein – has been proposed as a way of establishing meaning in religious language. The theory asserts that language must be understood in terms of a game: just as each game has its own rules determining what can and cannot be done, so each context of language has its own rules determining what is and is not meaningful. Religion is classified as a possible and legitimate language game which is meaningful within its own context. Various parables have also been proposed to solve the problem of meaning in religious language. R. M. Hare used his parable of a lunatic to introduce the concept of "bliks" – unfalsifiable beliefs according to which a worldview is established – which are not necessarily meaningless. Basil Mitchell used a parable to show that faith can be logical, even if it seems unverifiable. John Hick used his parable of the Celestial City to propose his theory of eschatological verification, the view that if there is an afterlife, then religious statements will be verifiable after death.

Prometheus Books

Prometheus Books is a publishing company founded in August 1969 by the philosopher Paul Kurtz (who was also the founder of the Council for Secular Humanism, Center for Inquiry, and co-founder of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry). Prometheus Books publishes a range of books, focusing on topics such as science, freethought, secularism, humanism, and skepticism. Their headquarters is located in Amherst, New York, and they publish worldwide. The publisher's name was derived from Prometheus, the Titan from Greek mythology who stole fire from Zeus and gave it to man. This act is often used as a metaphor for bringing knowledge or enlightenment.

Authors published by Prometheus include Steve Allen, Molefi Asante, Isaac Asimov, Jeremy Bentham, Rob Boston, Ludwig Feuerbach, Antony Flew, R. Barri Flowers, Martin Gardner, Guy P. Harrison, Sidney Hook, Julian Huxley, S. T. Joshi, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, John Maynard Keynes, Philip J. Klass, Leon Lederman, John W. Loftus, Joe Nickell, Friedrich Nietzsche, Mario Perniola, Robert M. Price, James Randi, David Ricardo, Nathan Salmon, George H. Smith, John Steinbeck IV, Victor Stenger, Tom Toles and Ibn Warraq.

Prometheus Books obtained the bulk of the books and manuscripts of Humanities Press International. It has been building and expanding this into a scholarly imprint named Humanity Books. This imprint publishes academic works across a wide spectrum of the humanities.

In 1992 Uri Geller sued Victor J. Stenger and Prometheus Books for libel. The suit was dismissed and Geller was required to pay more than $20,000 in costs to the defendant.In March 2005, Prometheus Books launched the science fiction and fantasy imprint Pyr. In October 2012 it launched the crime fiction imprint Seventh Street Books.

As of 2006, the company and its various imprints have approximately 1,600 books in print and publish approximately 95–100 books per year. Since its founding, Prometheus Books has published more than 2,500 books.

In 2013 Prometheus Books partnered with Random House in an effort to increase sales and distribution.

Right Now! (magazine)

Right Now! was a right-wing British political magazine, which ran from 1993 to 2006. The magazine also featured arts coverage and cultural criticism. It proclaimed itself a magazine of "politics, ideas and culture".

It was initially edited by Michael Harrison (an associate of Lady Birdwood), and then from 1995 until closure by Derek Turner. Contributing editors included Allan Robertson and Christopher Luke of the London Swinton Circle and Stuart Millson of the Conservative Democratic Alliance. Its origins lay in the Revolutionary Conservative Caucus and with right-wing members of the Monday Club.The magazine featured interviews with and articles by many politicians, thinkers and writers. These include Antony Flew, Roger Scruton, Pat Buchanan, Peter Brimelow, Frederick Forsyth, Charles Moore, Garry Bushell, Nick Griffin, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Alain de Benoist, Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, Thomas Fleming, Samuel T. Francis and C. B. Liddell.Prominent Conservative politicians who contributed to, or were interviewed by, Right Now! include Norman Tebbit, Ann Widdecombe, John Redwood, Teddy Taylor, Teresa Gorman and Bill Cash.The magazine was mentioned by then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in 2000 in an attack on then Conservative Party leader William Hague's inability to contain "extremists" within the party; Cook criticised Hague for not shutting the magazine down.Andrew Hunter, a former Conservative MP who defected to Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party, was a long-time patron of the magazine. Hunter ceased links with the magazine in 2002, following pressure from Iain Duncan Smith, stating disagreement with an advert in the magazine for the Conservative Democratic Alliance which was critical of the Conservative Party.

The Salisbury Review

The Salisbury Review is a British conservative magazine, published quarterly and founded in 1982. Roger Scruton was its chief editor for eighteen years and published it through his Claridge Press. It was named after Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, the British prime minister at the end of the nineteenth century. From 2000 the editor was the historian A. D. Harvey. The managing editor from 2006 to 2012 was Merrie Cave. The Editor as of 2012 is Myles Harris.

Contributors have included Antony Flew, Christie Davies, Enoch Powell, Margaret Thatcher, Václav Havel, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Norman Stone, Theodore Dalrymple, Peter Mullen, and Benedict Beckeld.

Veritas Forum

The Veritas Forum is a non-profit organization which works with Christian students on college campuses to host forums centered on the exploration of truth and its relevancy in human life, through the questions of philosophy, religion, science, and other disciplines. The organization, named after the Latin word for truth, aims to "create university events engaging students and faculty in exploring life's hardest questions and the relevance of Jesus Christ to all of life." The first Veritas Forum was held at Harvard University in 1986. By 2008, 300,000 students had attended over 300 forums at 100 campuses across the United States, Canada, France, England, and the Netherlands. In the 2010–2011 academic year, Veritas Forums were held at over 50 institutions of higher education. Veritas Forums are available for viewing online, and the organization has published several books with InterVarsity Press.

Western Goals Institute

The Western Goals Institute (WGI) was a far-right, conservative pressure group in Britain, re-formed in 1989 from Western Goals UK, which was founded in 1985 as an offshoot of the U.S. Western Goals Foundation. Its stated intent was anti-communism, although the group was also known for its opposition to non-white immigration into mainland Europe and Britain.

Why I Am Not a Muslim

Why I Am Not a Muslim, a book written by Ibn Warraq, is a critique of Islam and the Qur'an. It was first published by Prometheus Books in the United States in 1995. The title of the book is a homage to Bertrand Russell's essay, Why I Am Not a Christian, in which Russell criticizes the religion in which he was raised.

Outraged over the fatwa and death threats against Salman Rushdie, Ibn Warraq assumes a pseudonym to pen what one critic calls "serious and thought-provoking book" using a "sledge-hammer" approach to "demolish" Islam. The author's "polemic" criticizes Islam's mythology, theology, historic achievements, and current cultural influence. Warraq, drawing largely on previous research, provides an "invaluable compilation" of Islam's shortcomings. He "makes a compelling case" that Islam is "flatly incompatible" with "individual rights and liberties of a liberal, democratic, secular state".

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.