Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Antony Flew, God and the Evidence: A review of There Is a God

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

On December 9, 2004, an Associated Press story story went out on the wires, “Famous Atheist Now Believes in God: One of World’s Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence.”

More? Or less? As it turns out, neither. He believes in God simply on the scientific evidence. Many might consider that thin gruel, but he is entitled to cite the evidence in his defense. And there is a lot of it.

Go here for more:

Introduction: Antony Flew, God, and the Evidence: A review of There IS a God
Part One: Antony Flew sought to make the best case for atheism

There were, of course, many other 20th century atheist thinkers. But Varghese argues that thinkers like Ayer, Sartre, Camus, Heidegger, Rorty, and Derrida differed from Flew in that they offered systems of thought, one of whose byproducts was atheism.

Essentially, they were saying, my system is right – oh, and by the way, there’s no God. But that means that you must buy into the system to get the atheism. And if you come to doubt the system, why believe the atheism?

Part Two: Following the argument wherever it leads

Recounting his adventures in philosophy, Flew provides an answer to a question that had long puzzled me: Where did the intelligent design theorists get their slogan, “Follow the evidence wherever it leads!” It seems to have originated in Plato’s account of Socrates’ command in The Republic, to “Follow the argument wherever it leads.” (p. 22) This exhortation formed the basis of the Oxford Socratic Club, of which Christian apologist C.S. Lewis was president (1942-1954) and of which Flew was a member – and a leading exponent of the principle. Somehow (at least by p. 42), this transmutes to “following the evidence wherever it may lead.”

Part Three: Rediscovering the God of the Philosophers

Flew, one begins to realize, is an old-fashioned thinker who assumes at the outset the possibility of the moral life as a distinct human quality. He is not seeking to ground it in the squabbles of ancestral primates or the mindless hum of genes – let alone demonstrate that it doesn’t exist. In other words, an old-fashioned atheist like Flew thought that you could be moral without God. Many new atheists think that there is no “you” and there is no “moral”, never mind that there is no “God.”

Part Four: Einstein’s God and Antony Flew

While Einstein is often associated with the philosopher Spinoza, for whom God and nature were synonymous, Flew points out that Einstein knew little of Spinoza’s work and admitted as much (p. 98). True, he did not believe in a personal God and displayed little interest in organized religion, but he did think that the pursuit of science leads to the recognition of a “superior mind”, and “illimitable superior spirit”, or “superior reasoning force” (p. 101). And that is certainly enough to remove Einstein from the catalogue of celebrated materialist atheists.

Comments
I read Flew’s book and was intrigued and enjoyed every moment of it—so I’m rather taken aback by the somewhat negative reception we see here. I guess there is, isn’t there? a stream in Christendom that sees unbelievers as lost souls with the real world situation suggesting that the vast majority of humankind is headed straight toward eternal damnation and terrifying torment. This traditional view is not very popular in today’s secular, democratic West—for obvious reasons. But then maybe it’s not all secular left materialism that revolts against this view of the Deity. When some years back I read Sheldon Glashow’s The Charm of Physics, where he repeatedly asserts that no scientist ever discovered anything who did not somehow just know deep in his bones, all evidence to the contrary, that things are good, I wondered whether this might also apply to religion—even world history and current events. Things can be pretty awful, evil might predominate on a grand scale, but nevertheless maybe the Creator was clever enough to have set things up such that free wills will learn some bitter lessons such that in the end things will be good in the overall. Seven times in Genesis 1 God declares that things are good—the seventh time that they are very good. And just about all the ancients—Christian and Jewish—believed Genesis not just history but also prophecy. The New Testament too, as in John 6:44, indicates that ignorance may not always be the individual’s fault, and that the future looks better than the past (Rev 7:17; 21:4, thus reflecting Isaiah 25:8). Anthony Flew’s is an inspiring story. He has survived into old age, emerged from the utterly dominant materialism of his age having learned something. The world is full of deception, but people as a whole are not incorrigibly evil. I know there a doctrine of original sin that might dispute what I say, but in contrast to those who really are incorribly evil—and there are some—most folks just don’t fit into that category—even those who disagree with me on most everything! Having an optimistic, upbeat approach should not detract from the consternation and sorrow we should feel in the face the evil that predominates, for if we all hide our heads in the sand then the evil has served no purpose. On the other hand, a good understanding of the grand teleology of it all may be available only to those of a positive heart. Why not rejoice in the story of one Anthony Flew?Rude
January 2, 2008
January
01
Jan
2
02
2008
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Pascal again: "The heart has reasons that reason does not know."BarryA
January 2, 2008
January
01
Jan
2
02
2008
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
ari-freedom said: Flew cannot have faith in any religion. Those are the rules. If he had faith in anything that would imply that his conversion to theism was not totally due to reason. This is an arbitrary rule. Faith (Trust, more appropriately used) is exercised always, even in "reason." This is a metaphysical presupposition that reason is reliable. I am not disagreeing with your statement. But to clarify, religious faith is not necessarily blind. Evidence exists to move beyond evidences. Empiricism can never be fully realized because phenomenon can never be exhaustively observed. There exists a stopping point, where "belief" is reasonable.toc
January 2, 2008
January
01
Jan
2
02
2008
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
I don't think it fair to call St. Thomas an agnostic but there was a period of a week or so that he distinctly did not believe in the Resurrection -- despite the witnessing of Peter and Mary. Some people just need a higher standard to accept something. The thing is when the standard one demands is fulfilled is the truth accepted with joy or denied due to the cost it imposes -- which then reveals the seeker to be a hypocrite and fraud.tribune7
January 2, 2008
January
01
Jan
2
02
2008
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
Flew cannot have faith in any religion. Those are the rules. If he had faith in anything that would imply that his conversion to theism was not totally due to reason.
So then, he has faith in reason, rather than faith in revelation. Didn't C.S. Lewis apply reason to what he read in revelation to come to God? I don't know much about philosophy, (wish I did) but it would seem to me that you have to apply reason to a set of facts in order for it to be of any value. So what will Flew let in as fact? Scientific discoveries? Human experience? Historical documents?russ
January 2, 2008
January
01
Jan
2
02
2008
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
Denyse,
He belongs to an older, more rigorous tradition that did not look to settle these matters through an ecstatic experience, but through reason and evidence alone.
All I can say is that my own experience wasn't ecstatic, either before or after. It was reason and evidence that took me to the point of submission. Maybe not reason and evidence that would suit a person like Flew but reason and evidence nonetheless. What happened after I submitted was simply more evidence. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "ecstatic". I can assure you that I saw no angels or visions, nor heard heavenly choirs. I didn't start yammering in unknown tongues - not then or since. It was just that the lights went on - afterwards, not before. I don't have any animosity towards Flew and I'd also be surprised to learn that he, all by himself, led many others astray. It's not as though millions of people all over the world have been hanging on his every word. But it's not just up to him, is it? He taught the people who taught the others who taught the hundreds and thousands and millions. Whether he survives death is not up to me and I don't have the capacity to judge that. But there is this: Proverbs 9:10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." God does what He does. He owns everything and will do with what He owns whatever He wishes. Good! He knows far better than I do what is the proper thing to do. I can see His profligacy in my own life. He is not concerned about what it cost, in worldly terms, either to bring me to Him or to use me now. A man died and left a widow and an orphaned baby. He owns all their lives and can do with them what He will. I have spent nearly a decade studying at university but my only job is voluntary and very part-time. I teach Scripture to kids aged about 10 or 11. He can do with me what He will. That Flew is ready now to say that he believes in an, "illimitable superior spirit," is good. But sixty five years of messing about with philosphical reasons and evidences are what in the face of eternity? Flew can say what he wants. God will say what He wants and He will use Flew for His purposes. That is fine by me. He will do with Flew what He wants to do. Thank goodness those decisions are not up to me.Janice
January 2, 2008
January
01
Jan
2
02
2008
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
Flew cannot have faith in any religion. Those are the rules. If he had faith in anything that would imply that his conversion to theism was not totally due to reason.ari-freedom
January 2, 2008
January
01
Jan
2
02
2008
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT
Janice, my impression from reading Flew's work then and now is that he will not go anywhere that he is not led by what he takes to be the best arguments and evidence. He belongs to an older, more rigorous tradition that did not look to settle these matters through an ecstatic experience, but through reason and evidence alone. Hence, even now, he does not believe that he will survive death. If fear had led him to a conversion experience, I would hardly be surprised to learn that he had suddenly developed such a conviction ... but no. He believes, on the evidence, something that will shortly be of no personal use to him - that there is a mind behind the universe. In fairness to his earlier "teachings", I found them a great help in clarifying one's thoughts. I would be surprised to learn that he literally led many astray.O'Leary
January 2, 2008
January
01
Jan
2
02
2008
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT
Janice - Well said. I've read Flew's book and didn't seen any reason in it for a late rather than early conversion -- the essential facts were available to him all along. The explanation, as you suggest, is that these things involve the will more than the intellect. Not to forget an Act of God: even will can't make a blind man see. If Flew has truly experienced regeneration, he'll seek further (John 6:37). But spiritually, he's a baby -- in spite of his extensive education and experience. Don't expect too much too soon!Gerry Rzeppa
January 2, 2008
January
01
Jan
2
02
2008
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT
What I don't properly understand is how someone of Flew's intelligence can come to the conclusion that there exists an, "illimitable superior spirit," and then just leave the quest there. It just seems wilfully stupid. But maybe that's what the problem is; one of the will. He exercised it for 65 odd years in not believing in God and now, maybe, he's exercising it in not believing that God can be known. For his sake I hope not. My own discovery of the Divine also proceeded, initially, on a purely natural level. Learning that goo-to-you evolution is bunkum turned me from an agnostic to a deist. But I was quite young at the time (28) and wanted to know, it being the case that God exists, how I should live the rest of my life. That meant discovering who God is (in order to discover what His rules are) and that meant examining the various books in which God is supposed to have revealed Himself to us. After all, wouldn't an, "illimitable superior spirit," wish to be known by those who can, in some measure, know him? But maybe Flew is too old and too successful to be worried about how to live the rest of his life. Not being a clever philosopher I used the state of the world as my guide. Where in the world are most people best treated? What is the dominant religion there? And you can't get away from it. Christianity has done best. So I started off by reading the Bible and by the time I'd got to Revelation 3:20 ("Behold, I stand at the door and knock ...") I knew it was true. The big question was whether I could give up my own will and submit to His. I once told a pastor how hard it was to give up being the sovereign of my own life. It felt like jumping off a cliff into a bottomless abyss; completely out of control. He said, "Yes. It's hard to die." Anyway, I took the jump, and only because the alternative seemed insane. That's when the supernatural thing happened. After, not before. The lights went on. Once I was blind. Now I see. I know this is just my story and every other Christian has their own. Nevertheless, my story is true. Others' stories may be different but they're not inconsistent. Flew can have his 65 years of getting to be a famous philosopher. I've had nearly 30 years of getting to know and, finally, to love the Lord. If Flew will not go, however haltingly, over the last hurdle and submit to God, the great "I AM", rather than merely recognising His existence then I will feel sorry for him. But not more sorry than for all the people who, heeding his earlier teachings, have gone the same way.Janice
January 2, 2008
January
01
Jan
2
02
2008
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT
Sounds similar to my experience, except for the part about revealed religions. I think that may be a bitter pill for some to swallow - deism is a tough nut to crack, because it has all the particulars of specific faith removed. And as Flew points out, he can assert his belief without reference to the supernatural. I say this as a catholic, so obviously I have disagreements with Flew. But coming to know God through reason is possible, always has been. Glad to see such a prominent example of this.nullasalus
January 1, 2008
January
01
Jan
1
01
2008
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT
I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It has been an exercise in what is traditionally called natural theology. It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor did I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason not of faith. ~ Antony Flewbevets
January 1, 2008
January
01
Jan
1
01
2008
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply