Atheist philosopher follows the evidence where it leads … to God!
Why did the world’s most important atheist scholar, Antony Flew decide in his eighties that there is a God after all?
The New York Times was quick to suggest senility, but reading his book with Roy Varghese, I don’t think that will wash. Their slender hardcover, There IS a God (Harper One 2007) introduces us to a genteel world in which atheism did not mean “hassle Christians”, “ban Christmas,” “make religious education child abuse,” et cetera. In fact, Flew even reveals that he and his wife did not have sexual relations before their marriage out of moral conviction. I wonder how many avowed Christian couples can say that today?
Reading his book—which recants his earlier atheistic views—prompts me to ask, Why the recent popularity of anti-God books? And why now, after nearly six decades of celebrated atheism, does Flew dissent from these popular books? In answer to the first question, a literary agent in New York admitted to me recently that many current atheist books have been given a free ride in the system precisely because they promote a view of life that is fashionable among the Manhattan set – even if it is rejected everywhere else on the planet.
And the dissent? Well, Flew is a breath of fresh air by contrast. Trust me, he is nothing if not a methodical thinker. He is an example to us all in that regard. If I didn’t have any other reason for trusting his conclusions, his sheer sense of method would provide a reason to consider them carefully (within reason, as he would himself wish).
Here are two of Flew’s key points:
- We should follow the evidence where it leads. That was the point of C.S. Lewis’s Socratic Club at Oxford, in which Flew was active, and it will serve us well today. He waited till he felt he had enough evidence for God’s existence, and then acted on it, revising his previously held—and widely advertised—opinions.
- We should act on the evidence. In May 2004, he announced that he had accepted the existence of God, based on our DNA (the genetic code that specifies each person’s physical existence). He said, “It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.” (P. 75)
Flew remains to this day a deist—a person who concedes the existence of God. I have heard many Christians disparage him on that account (= he hasn’t been saved). But I believe that, in doing so, my Christian brothers and sisters miss the central point. Flew is a deist on the evidence. He concedes Paul’s key point in Romans 1:20, that God may be known, at least in part, by his creation.
In other words, Flew is not trying to get away from God, so as to do whatever he pleases. He is trying to determine what the evidence suggests. In an age when this or that atheist author is trotted out, destined for stardom—even though he has contributed absolutely nothing to the advance of thought on religion or spirituality and is merely rehashing his own angst—it is refreshing indeed to hear from someone who has been keeping up with the evidence from the world around and within us.
Robb Mann, chair of physics at the University of Waterloo and member of the elite Perimeter Institute, told my adult night school class in the intelligent design controversy at the University of Toronto a few weeks ago that the evidence for the fine tuning of the universe has become more and more clear in recent years, including the last decade. I suppose that fact naturally causes a sort of existential panic in those who are committed to the idea that the universe is without purpose or meaning. Some are seeking legislation against discussing the idea of intelligent design in school settings. The Council of Europe considers it a threat to human rights. But their panic isn’t my panic or yours. Or Antony Flew’s, either, it turns out. I guess we choose our panics.
Also: The “Copernican” myth, and other science myths – the undead still walk!
The myth that Copernicus’s model of the universe “dethroned” humans is a vampire that refuses to die. In Physics Today, Mano Singham tries yet again! to drive a nail through the monster’s heart. Singham writes (December 2007, page 48) about the promoters of the myth …
This bilge grows up like weeds in the interlocking bricks. Are YOUR kids learning the bilge in school – at your tax expense?
In case you are wondering: Who am I? Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O’Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada’s Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the just published The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist’s case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).
My name is Denyse O'Leary, born 1950, in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. I have been a journalist all my life. I began to publish books in 2001. I live in Toronto, and I have two daughters and two granddaughters, as of 2008. You can reach me at oleary@sympatico.ca | More from Denyse O'Leary
Stumble It!
December 19th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
I don’t see see how any of this points to the existence of a God … from a scientific perspective.
“Everything is so complicated and unexplainable … therefore, it must be the magic man.”
That’s not science … that’s the same ‘ol, same ‘ol … going back millenia.
I think intelligent design is a worthy theory, and I believe the ‘evidence’ does support a belief in a ‘higher power’ … but it’s not hard science … in a space where hard science applies.
Perhaps, someone can explain to me how the existence of God is scientifically derived from the ‘evidence’. I don’t see it.
Is it merely the return to explaining the unexplainable by attributing phenomena to the Gods … we know for certain that thunder is not the voice of angry Gods.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Actually, I think we’ve hit a wall scientifically … in our ability to explain and describe our universe. As a result, sundry theories of the month get advanced that receive waaay too much credibility.
String theory anyone?
The universe is made up of jillions of silly strings all set in a 12 dimensional universe where only three of the dimensions are cognizable, and the other nine are wrapped up in tiny little balls.
Oh, wait! The math doesn’t work out … OK, how about 15 dimensions, 20, 26?
Let’s massage our equations until they seem to be OK. That’s ludicrous.
Great, some physicists get an actual job in their field (supposedly) as opposed to driving a cab … but the theory is totally unsubstantiated, has zero predictive value, and adds nothing to our conceptual understanding of the world around us. It’s nice to talk about … but not a scientific or conceptual breakthrough.
How about Quantum Mechanics:
Schroedinger’s cat anyone … even Old Irwin didn’t buy that one. But, someone has to reconcile the macro from the micro … I’m waiting.
Wormholes — travel to a new universe with Jodie Foster:
Nice scientific fiction, but not science.
I believe we’ve strayed too far from the scientific method and labeled fanciful ideas as science. I guess this is what happens when a wall is hit … and modern society demands constant advances … and PHd’s need a semblance of a job.
Hint: Get a real job … in a patent office preferably.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:58 am
I tend to agree with spectre that throwing oneself to the floor in awe isn’t a sound proof.
Denyse, you don’t have to stray far to find a first class argument for the existence of God. Bernard J. F. Lonergan, SJ, Prof of Philosophy, Gregorian University, Rome, 1957. “Insight: a Study of Human Understanding” (Longmans)
December 20th, 2007 at 6:59 am
Spectre:
You’re onto something … and I say that a member of that scary army of “Born Agains” (you know, the spectres haunting post-modernity and inhibiting the advance of mankind into the sunlit uplands of political and moral achievement that’s just around the next switchback if only we can eliminate superstition).
If I have understood your (very sensible) objection, I believe the answer turns on deciding what constitutes “knowledge” and “evidence” and what standard of proof we use. In my view there’s at least a successfully made Preponderance of the Evidence case available … which is to say that without reference to any individual’s claimed experience of the divine, weighing the evidence for and against the proposition “God exists” yields a scientific (i.e., falsifiable) conclusion that He exists is a more believable proposition than that He doesn’t exist.
Naturally, you don’t want to get frustrated that people lack the disclipline to think through these things carefully. A very careful observer, Nietzsche, pointed out that the severe atheism he had adopted against the tide of his time would, in our era (”the day after tomorrow” he called it), be taken for granted — not because its adherents understand it but because it is merely the popular hue of the time and ol’ time religion is but a dull brown. Give me that kind of honesty over that silly Dawkins and current celebutantes any day!
All the best,
EPK
December 20th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Actually most people who believe in a deity/prime mover do so w/ the humility that they are not so arrogant (in this universe as large as it is) as to believe that every single question about our existence in a minor arm of a common galaxy can be answered via our current limited understanding of “physical laws.”
In contrast many “Secular Progressive” leftists seek to employ the ubiquitous, infallible “State” as a crutch for their existence. It’s just as ridiculous to worship the “collective” as a tool for good as it is to worship some ubiquitous, disembodied spirit. These are also same enlightened people who choose to dispense w/ scientific fact when it conflicts with their leftist ideology. Some examples: the left apparently believes in the validity of “science by consensus of opinion” as replacement for the scientific method. The “scientific method” is apparently invalid because of its hierarchical, patriarchal nature & its reliance on “fact’, e.g, the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) debate. The left fervently believes in AGW which is caused by man -generated “greenhouse gases” while ignoring fluctuations in “solar luminosity” in the UV spectrum band associated w/ “black spot” activity. Currently, the Martian ice caps are also receding. Apparently those evil Republicans have secretly found an inexpensive way of transporting their SUVs to Mars. The left believes global warming contributed to the creation of Hurricane Katrina, yet the 2006 Hurricane season was the tamest in the last 40 plus years. The left believes that homosexuality has a genetic basis w/o scientific evidence (apparently Darwin was wrong) ,despite the fact that the phenomenon could be explained via the concept of “Congenital Sexual Dyslexia.” The left believes that “gender is a social construct” in direct contradiction of scientific evidence. Lastly, the left’s fundamental anti-intellectualism can be summed up by the following: Marxism as an economic model is an abject failure, yet the modern left actively employs Marxism as a tool of social engineering. Yet, there is nothing nuanced, revolutionary or evolutionary about the continued employment of the same old “victim/oppressor” Marxist canard as replacement for rational thought.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Flew is a Jeffersonian deist, not a believer in Yahweh / Jehovah / Allah. Why this provides such comfort to right-wing fundamentalists remains a mystery.
And it is incontrovertible fact that Flew is deeply into senile decline, and the probability is very great that Roy Varghese wrote the book, not Flew.