The post that was quoted here has been removed
Originally posted by Duchess64
While Antony Flew's name appears as an author (he was much more
famous than his co-author), the 2007 book _There is a God_ evidently
was written by Roy Abraham Varghese. Its style is quite different from
the style of books written by Antony Flew when he was much younger.
Antony Flew (born in 1923) was 84 years old when this book was published.
Some people claim to have observed significant evidence that Antony
Flew's mind had seriously declined, with him having great difficulty in
remembering things that he supposedly had written or discussed.
So there remains some controversy about the extent to which Antony
Flew understood--or could have understood--what Roy Abraham Varghese
was writing in his name.
Originally posted by Duchess64
I did not imagine that you (GrampyBobby) suspected that I was copying
someone else's words. If I quote anyone, I put those words within
quotation marks and name the person quoted, usually citing a source.
Mark Oppenheimer interviewed Antony Flew about the book:
'New York Times Magazine' (4 November 2007):
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.hmtl?_r=0
Mark Oppenheimer found that Antony Flew could not remember much of
what he supposedly 'thought' in the book that he officially had written.
Antony Flew released this statement through his publisher:
"...I needed someone to do the actual writing because I'm 84 and that
was Roy Varghese's role. This is my book and it represents my thinking."
Did anyone expect his publisher to admit that a book with Antony Flew's
name (most famously--its selling point) on it did *not* represent him?
In my experience with elderly people suffering from dementia, they tend
to claim to understand many things that obviously don't really understand.
Given that he admitted that he lacked the capacity to write the book, one
wonders to what extent Antony Flew could read and comprehend the book.
Duchess64, please note the absence of the vertical 1st person pronoun in the first reply as contrasted with its presence in the second. This fact alongside an unusual reportorial tone of meaning in this conversational online forum caused me to wonder if "quotation" was inadvertently omitted. How could I possibly have "suspected... copying someone else's words" when we've never even become acquainted? If you know me at all, you know I instinctively give the benefit of doubt. I've learned that you never go too far wrong in this life by treating others better than they deserve and by being quick to forgive and forget. Last, please also note the acid brevity of my "Source link? Thanks." initial reply; hardly an accusatory tone.