Flew is certainly a Deist, but is closer to being a Theist than you think:

"Flew: I accept the God of Aristotle who shares all the attributes you cite. Like Lewis I believe that God is a person but not the sort of person with whom you can have a talk. It is the ultimate being, the Creator of the Universe."

Full interview here:

http://www.tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm

His recantation is certainly not half hearted...hence the book 'THERE IS A GOD' and his recent interviews that are unequivocal.

Talkorigins have cited 'private conversations'. But in fact there are three reasons that Flew has admitted the existence of God.

As for him being irrelevant. Of course you would say that. You would not, of course, have been saying that when for thirty years he was saying that science lead to atheism and the burden of proof was on the theists. Typical atheist ploy...he is irrelevant because he disagrees.


"Flew: I note in my book that some philosophers indeed have argued in the past that the burden of proof is on the atheist. I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary."

"Flew: It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence."

See what he says...it is not relevant that he is a philosopher because all inferences scientists make about the metaphysical are philosophical conclusions.

This is the crime of the materialistic scientist...he/she makes philosophical conclusions from the scientific evidence when they say there is no God. Dawkins and others clearly make this mistake. You apparently do not. Good for you.