World renowned Atheist Accepts Possible Existence of God

solas

http://www.thewonderoftheworld.com/newsrelease-flew.php
saw a documentary about this a while ago, thought it was interesting.

DALLAS, TX (PRWEB) December 9, 2004 -- The Institute for Metascientific Research (IMR) announced today that one of the best-known atheists in the academic world, Professor Antony Flew of the University of Reading, United Kingdom, has accepted the existence of God. In a symposium sponsored by the IMR at New York University earlier this year, Professor Flew stated that developments in modern science had led him to accept the action of an Intelligent Mind in the creation of the world. In "Has Science Discovered God?", the recording of the symposium released today, Flew said his conclusion was influenced by developments in DNA research.

"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together," he said. "The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."

more excerpts and interview here:
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/

The following interview took place in early 2004 and was subsequently modified by both participants throughout the year. This nontechnical discussion sought to engage Flew over the course of several topics that reflect his move from atheism to theism.

HABERMAS: Tony, you recently told me that you have come to believe in the existence of God. Would you comment on that?

FLEW: Well, I don’t believe in the God of any revelatory system, although I am open to that. But it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before. And it was from Aristotle that Aquinas drew the materials for producing his five ways of, hopefully, proving the existence of his God. Aquinas took them, reasonably enough, to prove, if they proved anything, the existence of the God of the Christian revelation. But Aristotle himself never produced a definition of the word “God,” which is a curious fact. But this concept still led to the basic outline of the five ways. It seems to me, that from the existence of Aristotle’s God, you can’t infer anything about human behaviour. So what Aristotle had to say about justice (justice, of course, as conceived by the Founding Fathers of the American republic as opposed to the “social” justice of John Rawls (9)) was very much a human idea, and he thought that this idea of justice was what ought to govern the behaviour of individual human beings in their relations with others.
HABERMAS: Once you mentioned to me that your view might be called Deism. Do you think that would be a fair designation?

FLEW: Yes, absolutely right. What Deists, such as the Mr. Jefferson who drafted the American Declaration of Independence, believed was that, 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.

HABERMAS: Then, would you comment on your “openness” to the notion of theistic revelation?

FLEW: Yes. I am open to it, but not enthusiastic about potential revelation from God. On the positive side, for example, I am very much impressed with physicist Gerald Schroeder’s comments on Genesis 1. (10) That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate raises the possibility that it is revelation.

more reading here: http://www.livescience.com/othernews/atheist_philosopher_041210.html

robindch

> saw a documentary about this a while ago, thought it was interesting.

Very old news indeed and much whoopeed-about by many, mostly christians. Flew himself seemed somewhat surprised by the spin put on his views, and he was in touch with Rationalist International a few days after the first interview:

http://www.rationalistinternational.net/archive/en/rationalist_2004/138.html

Today, 16th December 2004, Professor Antony Flew, British philosopher, well known rationalist, atheist and an Honorary Associate of Rationalist International, telephoned me and informed that the wild rumours about his changed views are baseless. He expressed surprise over the confusion some people have spread and asserted that his position about the belief in god remains unchanged and is the same as it was expressed in his famous speech "Theology and Falsification". "I find no new reason to change my views", Professor Flew said.

Professor Antony Flew discusses the atheism of a rationalist, based on the impossibility to verify or falsify the religious claims about a god, in his short paper "Theology and Falsification", first published in 1950. Since then this paper was reprinted more than forty times in different places, including translations into German, Italian, Spanish, Danish, Welsh, Finnish and Slovak. During the conversation with me, Professor Antony Flew expressed desire to publicise this paper as it represented his views till this moment. "There is no change", Professor Antony Flew asserted. "Some people argue that I changed my views. It is simply not correct."

Regardless of whatever Flew's views are, many from authoritarian religions seem to forget that atheism is not an authoritarian religion itself. So it's really not hugely important which way Flew flew, even if he did change direction, which he seems not to have (according to himself).

solas

rbn wrote:

Regardless of whatever Flew's views are, many from authoritarian religions seem to forget that atheism is not an authoritarian religion itself. So it's really not hugely important which way Flew flew, even if he did change direction, which he seems not to have (according to himself).

actually I think its fairly relevant. The man has wirtten ten books promoting atheism.
I saw the documentary, what I'm referencing isn't merely something stated in an interview, its based on the information released in a video where he produced of his findings, aptly titled "Has science discovered God?"
In that video he categorically states

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

Thats quite a leap.
this information is derived from a scientific based website not a christian one. http://www.livescience.com/othernews/atheist_philosopher_041210.html

No doubt, the skeptics feel the need to protect their saviour considering his findings

Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.

I suppose a "minimal" God is better than non at all.

solas

from flews own mouth

Dear Editor,

The publication of ‘The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory’ by Massimo Pigliucci and others in Issue 46 of Philosophy Now provides a convenient occasion for pointing out the limits of the negative theological implications of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. In the fourteenth and final chapter of The Origin of Species Darwin himself – apart from noticing certain short (a mere handful of million years long) geological periods in which the fossil record reveals the occurrence of inexplicably rapid evolution – wrote:

“Analogy would lead me one step further, namely to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from one prototype.... Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings that have lived on the earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.”

Probably Darwin himself believed that life was miraculously breathed into that primordial form of not always consistently reproducing life by God, though not the revealed God of then contemporary Christianity, who had predestined so many of Darwin’s friends and family to an eternity of extreme torture.

But the evidential situation of natural (as opposed to revealed) theology has been transformed in the more than fifty years since Watson and Crick won the Nobel Prize for their discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.

I will here confine myself to recommending two books by individuals who started as believers in two different revealed religions. The author of the first started as, and remains, a Protestant Christian. The author of the second started as, and remains, an Orthodox Jew. The first book is Roy Abraham Varghese’s The Wonderful World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God (Fountain Hills, Arizona;Tyr Publishing 2003). The second book is Gerald L Schroeder’s The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth (Touchstone; New York 2001)

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’. That book was a study of the arguments for Christian theism, first published in 1966 in various editions in both hardcover andpaperback in both the USA and the UK. My own commitment then as a philosopher who was also areligious unbeliever was and remains that of Plato’s Socrates: “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.”

Yours,

Antony Flew

I tried to find a review of the updated version of the book re published this year "God and Philosophy" but as you can see at amazon, no one seems to want to review it
but here's some I found at a philosophy site.

I was pretty shocked to read this. I'm glad he is still only acknowledging his possible existence in the form of a designer rather than the God of classical theism.

I must be years behind because so far i'm still unsatisfyed with any argument from design

What do you expect, he is British, he is old -- like one of his countries aristocratic spies who embraced Communism in the last century what better way to deny who you are -- and were for a lifetime of intllectual work than to become a turncoat.
The "Design" theory is old aand refuted Flew himself in more than one book.

Dr. Flew, Understanding that there is an Intelligent Design, both in creation and in the process of Philosophy is crucial to a balanced viw of history and the universe. Being willing to credit the Intelligent Designer with the creation and development of the individaul's [yours, mine] mind and personality is crucial to a balanced view of oneself. Many realms of awe flow from that step.

Looks to me like he did make quite a significant change.

robindch

> No doubt, the skeptics feel the need to protect their
> saviour considering his findings

Um, does anybody here feel that Flew is their "saviour"? Personally, I'd never even heard of him up until all of this hoohah blew up over a year ago!

> Looks to me like he did make quite a significant change.

Not really. In fact, if you define "god" as the "laws of physics" as he seems to be doing (except when 'god' is prefixed by 'christian', when he's referring to the 'oriental despot'), then what he seems to be saying is quite reasonable and in line with what he's said before.

Anyhow, as I said above, atheism isn't an authoritarian religion and I simply can't get myself worked up when one atheist is interpreted (by others) to be having doubts.

pH

There's a couple of interesting points to be made here, firstly truth (well rational scientific truth anway) does not depend on who or how many believe or disbelieve it.

Put another way Einstein's (or Flew's) beliefs are no more relevant than your's or mine.

Secondly he may well believe now that a God exists but it certainly is not a God that Christians believe in

"The fact of the matter is: Flew hasn't really decided what to believe. He affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by everything he argued in his 2001 book Merely Mortal: Can You Survive Your Own Death?). But he is increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs, nor does it provide any postmortem salvation."

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

solas

rbn wrote:

Um, does anybody here feel that Flew is their "saviour"? Personally, I'd never even heard of him up until all of this hoohah blew up over a year ago!

Professor flews academic record. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/flew-bio.html
He is credited with the rise of atheism over the last fifty years.

Not really. In fact, if you define "god" as the "laws of physics" as he seems to be doing (except when 'god' is prefixed by 'christian', when he's referring to the 'oriental despot'), then what he seems to be saying is quite reasonable and in line with what he's said before.

he himself considers his previous book on the subject "an historial relic". It seems to say something about how his own views have changed.
Without reading the latest edition I can't comment persoanlly but the reviews seem to concur.

Anyhow, as I said above, atheism isn't an authoritarian religion and I simply can't get myself worked up when one atheist is interpreted (by others) to be having doubts.

When one athiest changes his view on theism.
makes this forum very questionable. I can't say if you are blind or just entirely stubborn, but it seems to me as though you do not want to recognise the fact of the matter. An athiest has changed his views on theism.
As a scientist, his views are based on his scientific findings with regard to the complexity of DNA.
If all scientists proclaimed tomorrow the validity of "intelligent design" the issue would no longer be a question of belief or religion. It would become a process of scientific discovery.

ph wrote:

Secondly he may well believe now that a God exists but it certainly is not a God that Christians believe in

thats irrelevant. I'm not here to promote the concept of classical theism.

robindch

> An athiest has changed his views on theism.

So what?

> As a scientist, his views are based on his scientific
> findings with regard to DNA.

He's not a scientist, he's a philosopher.

And he's admitted that he's wrong about the "scientific findings" behind his own specific version of intelligent design:

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

I now realize 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.

pH

If all scientists proclaimed tomorrow the validity of "intelligent design" the issue would no longer be a question of belief or religion. It would become a process of scientific discovery.

No it wouldn't!
as an example in the Soviet Union many scientists proclaimed (or were forced to proclaim) the validity of Lamarckian evolution, and many fields of grain were planted in the frost to 'evolve' characteristics better suited to grain production in the USSR. It almost ruined soviet agriculture. What scientists believe is irrelevent, falsifiable and sound theories backed by peer review and experimental evidence are what counts.

http://evonet.sdsc.edu/evoscisociety/lesson_from_history.htm

thats irrelevant. I'm not here to promote the concept of classical theism.

So then this must be a game - a bit like Top Trumps is it?

I'll play:
E.O. Wilson (1929 – )
E.O. Wilson is an entomologist and biologist at Harvard University who is famous, among other things, for his work on sociobiology. Wilson was a born-again Christian in the Southern Baptist Church. His study of evolution changed that view, and in his 1978 book, On Human Nature, he wrote: “If humankind evolved by Darwinian natural selection, genetic chance and environmental necessity, not God, made the species.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4137503,00.html

1-1

Your turn to play ....

solas

So what?

I'm not here to satisfy you Robin, considering the title of the thread and the forum its in, others might find it interesting reading.

And he's admitted that he's wrong about the "scientific findings" behind his own specific version of intelligent design:

and if you continued reading the entire article, post publication of the 2005 edition it concludes:

Despite all this, Flew has not retracted his belief in God, as far as I can tell. He only writes that "if any unbelievers choose to make a fuss about my recent very modest defection from my previous unbelief in any journal to which I subscribe, then I intend to point out in a letter to the editor that" his new preface to God and Philosophy "points the road to a more radical form of unbelief than" he held originally, which "was a belief that there was no sufficient evidencing reason to believe in the existence of the Gods of either Christianity or Islam," but now "surely there is material here for a new and more fundamental challenge to the very conception of God as an omnipotent spirit," it's just that "I am just too old at the age of nearly 82 to initiate and conduct a major and super-radical controversy about the conceivability of the concept of God as a spirit." This would appear to be his excuse for everything: he won't investigate the evidence because it's too hard. Yet he will declare beliefs in the absence of proper inquiry. Theists would do well to drop the example of Flew. Because his willfully sloppy scholarship can only help to make belief look ridiculous.

ph wrote:

What scientists believe is irrelevent, falsifiable and sound theories backed by peer review and experimental evidence are what counts.

I'll surely remember that for future reference.

So then this must be a game - a bit like Top Trumps is it?

I'm not here to promote the concept of classical theism. I've provided information on a subject thats relevant to the forum.
If you don't want to agree with the facts as they are being stated, thats your business. An athiest changes his views on theism. Simple as that really.
This is the athiesm/agnostic forum right?
Does that mean you don't believe in anything or just God?

Your turn to play ....

you can be sure I have better things to do.

pH

you can be sure I have better things to do.

I'll take that to mean you can't find another!

Michael Shermer (1954 – )
Michael Shermer is executive director of the Skeptics Society, founding publisher of its magazine, Skeptic, and a columnist for Scientific American.

Early in life he experienced his first conversion. “In my senior year of high school I accepted Jesus as my Savior and became a born-again Christian,” he wrote in The Science of Good and Evil. “I had found the One True Religion, and it was my duty — indeed it was my pleasure — to tell others about it, including my parents, brothers and sisters, friends and even total strangers.”

Less than a decade later, however, he had become an atheist after studying evolutionary biology in graduate school.

1-2

robindch

> > > An athiest has changed his views on theism.
> > So what?
> [...] others might find it interesting reading.

Most people would agree, I think, that your second post shows that you expect atheists to be shocked over this. I'm interested in finding out why you seem to beleive this? Personally, I couldn't really care one way or the other what an elderly philosopher says about his own peculiar conception of 'god' and I'm not altogether sure that pH does either.

> and if you continued reading the entire article [...]

I did read it all -- I was just extracting the bit (on the 'evidence') most relevant to your posting. Anyhow, have a look at the last four sentences you kindly quoted me and which I resisted including in the earlier quote, but won't resist now:

This would appear to be his excuse for everything: he won't investigate the evidence because it's too hard. Yet he will declare beliefs in the absence of proper inquiry. Theists would do well to drop the example of Flew. Because his willfully sloppy scholarship can only help to make belief look ridiculous.

Says it all

solas

rbn wrote:

Most people would agree, I think, that your second post shows that you expect atheists to be shocked over this.

I don't expect very much from skeptics. What is interesting is the door Flew has opened with regard to the "challenge to the very conception of God as an omnipotent spirit", particularly with regard to atheistic understanding and philosophy.

Personally, I couldn't really care one way or the other what an elderly philosopher says about his own peculiar conception of 'god' and I'm not altogether sure that pH does either.

I don't find that suprising at all. Its very typical of Skeptics (I think its important to discern at this point the difference between a skeptic and an athiest) to ignore any discerning material for consideration.

ph wrote:

Michael Shermer is executive director of the Skeptics Society, founding publisher of its magazine, Skeptic, and a columnist for Scientific American.

Perhaps you should figure out the difference between a skeptic and an athiest.

rbn wrote:

Says it all

it sure does.

pH

Perhaps you should figure out the difference between a skeptic and an athiest.

I'm sure one can be both! or are you claiming that Michael Shermer is *not* an atheist, merely a skeptic?

Less than a decade later, however, he had become an atheist after...

robindch

> Its very typical of Skeptics to ignore any discerning material
> for consideration.

Rather than slagging us off with a handwave, why not pin us down and actually tell us what "discerning material" we've ignored?

coffee_cake

Am I the only one reading "accepts existence of god" as "of course god exists, and atheist has finally come to accept the truth"?

pH

Am I the only one reading "accepts existence of god" as "of course god exists, and atheist has finally come to accept the truth"?

Yes you probably could read that into the original post

"Hey this guy copped himself on, so should the rest of ye" or something like that.

Anyway he's almost missed his chance to play his C.S. Lewis card and tie the match 2-2!!


[edited to add]
And solas, much as I disagree I with the post, the *LAST* thing I'd want to do is have it removed or have people posting such things BANNED. Healthy debate and all that ....

Zombrex

solas wrote:

The man has wirtten ten books promoting atheism

Solas you seem to not really crasp what athemism is .. it is not a belief system, it is not a religion. It is a personal belief, or more specifically, a personal lack of belief in a God(s)

I am an athethist and I have never heard of Prof Flew, and I care even less about his personal beliefs. I am sure his writings are very interesting, but they don't shape atheism as a movement, I doubt atheism could even be considered a movement.

Him changing his mind (which I don't think he actually did) has no bearing on my beliefs, any more than you believing in God (I assume you do) has a bearing on my beliefs.

If someone was only an atheist because Prof. Flew told them to be one then that person should really look at the reasons they claim to believe what they believe.

Zombrex

solas wrote:

I can't say if you are blind or just entirely stubborn, but it seems to me as though you do not want to recognise the fact of the matter. An athiest has changed his views on theism.

Most atheists (I would imagine) base their lack of belief in a god on the fact that there is no evidence or logical reason for the existance of a God, the fact that the universe works quite well without the concept of a God, and the fact that it is far more plausable that the human imagination invented the concept of God.

The logic behind these arguments has not changed, and none of these arguments are dependent on the personal beliefs of Prof Flew.

I fail to see how atheists in general would be disturbed by this man changing his beliefs. Most atheists I know are big believers in the right of a person to follow their own personal religious beliefs so long as they don't force those beliefs on others.

Dades

Solas,
You have to expect the knee jerk reation from people here to such a piece of media. If someone posted an article entitled "Vatican Cardinal turns Atheist" in the Christianity forum you'd get the same - "so what?" replies.

That said, the article, the way it was presented and the subsequent fallout are all good food for thought.

No "door" has been opened for atheists to believe in a god - as atheism by it's very nature does not suffer from the sheep mentality that comes with organised religion.

The wording of the headline is meant to imply that a former atheist is now embracing the theistic God that we have always believed in. A more apt headline would probably have been "Former Atheist turns Agnostic". Not quite so enticing but probably more accurate.

After a lifetime of contemplation, when I'm 83, there's a good chance I'll start embracing more comforting ideas about where we came from.

solas

Am I the only one reading "accepts existence of god" as "of course god exists, and atheist has finally come to accept the truth"?

I guess youcan read into it whatever you like. It seems like a very offensive idea to many of you. These are not my thoughts and reasonings. If you have issues with the man, why don't you discuss that instead of what you think I think.

Solas you seem to not really crasp what athemism is .. it is not a belief system, it is not a religion. It is a personal belief, or more specifically, a personal lack of belief in a God(s)

I'm am aware what atheism is. Maybe you should have admin relocate this forum to somewhere more appropriate. (soc with humanities might be more suitable)

I fail to see how atheists in general would be disturbed by this man changing his beliefs.

On the topic of conversation, a philosopher who has promoted his reasonings for his athiest understanding for the last fifty years, has now decided to up the challenge by stating the material for reasoning has changed. "surely there is material here for a new and more fundamental challenge to the very conception of God as an omnipotent spirit,"
Instead of discussing his reasoning, you all seem to want to dismiss the idea, without considering the substance of it.

Most atheists I know are big believers in the right of a person to follow their own personal religious beliefs so long as they don't force those beliefs on others.

Thats not very evident from my perspective, you only need to go into the chrisitianity forum or the paranormal forum and some skeptic or athiest is spouting off their "beliefs" and opinions, based on their reasoning.

ph wrote:

And solas, much as I disagree I with the post, the *LAST* thing I'd want to do is have it removed or have people posting such things BANNED. Healthy debate and all that ....

you're a muppet.

solas

the atheist wrote:

The wording of the headline is meant to imply that a former atheist is now embracing the theistic God that we have always believed in. A more apt headline would probably have been "Former Atheist turns Agnostic". Not quite so enticing but probably more accurate.

I did tone it down y'know, it was even more "astounding". There were exclamation marks and everything.
but the point remains. The guy is old, he seems to be leaving a challenge for those interested and I think its a reasonable one.

coffee_cake

Maybe I should clarify that I wasn't having a go at anyone about the title - it just read that way to me and I was curious. I'm not even an atheist =/
I also wasn't implying anything about what you think, solas, just the possible implications of the title. Which I thought was clear enough since I didn't refer to you once...

solas

the athiest wrote:

If someone posted an article entitled "Vatican Cardinal turns Atheist" in the Christianity forum you'd get the same - "so what?" replies.

it's been refreshing turning the tables.

robindch

> You have to expect the knee jerk reation from people
> here to such a piece of media.

Hmmm... were my "it's really not hugely important which way Flew flew" & "I simply can't get myself worked up" comments 'knee-jerk reactions'? Or have I mistakenly read more into the sentence than was meant

Zombrex

Ok ok, lets give Solas the benefit of the doubt and assume he just wanted to spark discussion on this specific topic of Prof Flew, that he did not post the original article in some form of "ha ha don't you guys feel stupid now" tact.

So lets discuss the article, instead of the issue of if atheists are supposed to have a crisis of faith (or lack of faith) by this guy changing his views (clearly they don't).

It seems to me that Prof Flew is now entertains the idea of a higher intelligence based on the complexities of the natural world and specifically of the process of life.

This is the same idea used to justify the argument of intelligent design, that it would be nearly impossible for life to develop from non-biological molecules into biological molecules.

Now, no offense to Prof Flew, but this belief shows more of a lack of understanding of biology and chemistry than evidence of an intelligent mind.

Chemistry shows us that, far from being special and rare, complex molecular structures are not only common but part of nature. Molecules naturally want to form complex bonds with each other.

Simply put, there is still no evidence that suggests that complex proteins (or what ever came before protiens 4 billion years ago) and other biological molecules could not have formed completely naturally.

Dades

solas wrote:

you're a muppet.

And you are contravening the charter. Interestingly from what I see of the paranormal charter, I don't think you'd tolerate personal insults there either, given the recent call to tighten what is allowed to be posted. At any rate consider yourself warned.

Robindch - never meant to imply your comments in particular were knee-jerk reactions. My badly made point was that when a quote is misrepresented in such a way as in that article there is only going to be one type of (justified) reaction. If you kick a dog it'll snap.

Wicknight wrote:

Ok ok, lets give Solas the benefit of the doubt and assume he just wanted to spark discussion on this specific topic of Prof Flew, that he did not post the original article in some form of "ha ha don't you guys feel stupid now" tact.

Probably the best plan.

Scofflaw

If I was affected by the conversion to Deism of a man I've never heard of, wouldn't I be affected by the very much larger number of people who never have been atheist?

Endurance Man

okay

Dades

Endurance Man wrote:

My sister bought me a bible and is nagging me to read it. Perhaps if any of you have read it you can give me a run down and save me the time!!

Hmmm probably not the best place to ask, unless you want a very bias (if not cynical) description. In short it's either:

1. The Book of Truth inspired by the Creator of all things, or
2. A book about the most successful of any number of gods invented by man.

robindch

> My sister bought me a bible and is nagging me to read it. Perhaps if any
> of you have read it you can give me a run down and save me the time!!

While it's not on-topic, and noting that my life is too short to read all of it, here's one possible summary:

Old Testament - God built the earth for purposes unknown, populated it, then wrote pages of sticky laws for inhabitants. Suggested smiting people who disagreed, had sex before marriage, was gay or was a witch. Brief entertaining erotic interlude with Song of Songs, then back to some more smiting.

New Testament - God realises he messed up earlier on and sends himself to apologise to himself, repeals most of his own previous laws, dies, undies, then flies to heaven saying he'll be back soon to continue work of spreading love and peace to all (gays not included). Extended trippy postlude in Revelation leaves believers with plenty to mull over and a busy eisegesis industry.