Betting on the Existence of God

The British are betting on the existence of God. Odds for the existence of God have dropped from 33-1 to a mere 4-1.

The Reason for the drop? Atheist Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion.

Richard Dawkins is now proclaiming that “probably” there is no God.

According to Ruth Gledhill, the Religion Correspondent for the Times Online, “The ‘probably’ confirms belief that Dawkins’ atheism contains a kernel of doubt that could in itself be proof of the existence of God.”

Atheist Richard Dawkins seems to be moving toward God. It is possible that one of these days Richard Dawkins may become the new Antony Flew.

To read about Antony Flew’s journey from atheism to theism read the following posts:

Antony Flew: There Is A God

An Interview with Antony Flew

From Atheism to Theism: A Journey Toward God

The Big Bang Theory and the Existence of God

The Origin of Life and the Existence of God

The Laws of Nature and the Existence of God

I wonder what would take to drop the odds from 4-1 to 2-1.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Antony Flew, Atheism, God, Theism, Richard Dawkins

An Interview with Antony Flew

In his comment on my post on There Is a God, John left a link to an interview with Antony Flew conducted by Benjamin Wiker on October 30, 2007.

Wiker is a Senior Fellow at the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology and the author of four books. The following is an excerpt from the interview:

Benjamin Wiker: You say in There is a God, that "it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from denial.to discovery." Everyone else was certainly very surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden. But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual process-a "two decade migration," as you call it. God was the conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn't there a point in the "argument" where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that "There is a God" after all? So that, in some sense, you really did "hear a Voice that says" in the evidence itself " `Can you hear me now?'"

Anthony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself - which is far more complex than the physical Universe - can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.

Wiker: You are famous for arguing for a presumption of atheism, i.e., as far as arguments for and against the existence of God, the burden of proof lies with the theist. Given that you believe that you only followed the evidence where it led, and it led to theism, it would seem that things have now gone the other way, so that the burden of proof lies with the atheist. He must prove that God doesn't exist. What are your thoughts on that?

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.

*******

Wiker: You are obviously aware of the spate of recent books by such atheists as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. They think that those who believe in God are behind the times. But you seem to be politely asserting that they are ones who are behind the times, insofar as the latest scientific evidence tends strongly toward—or perhaps even demonstrates—a theistic conclusion. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

Flew: Yes indeed. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data.

Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny) and the other an atheist (Nagel), recently pointed out that Dawkins has failed to address three major issues that ground the rational case for God. As it happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me to accept the existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization and the existence of the Universe.

*******

Wiker: Do you plan to write a follow-up book to There is a God?

Flew: As I said in opening the book, this is my last will and testament.

Read the complete interview with Flew here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tag: Antony Flew, Benjamin Wiker

There Is a God: A Postscript

Several days ago, when I first began publishing a review of Antony Flew’s book, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, both Charles Halton and Mark Goodacre called my attention to an article written by Mark Oppenheimer, “The Turning of an Atheist,” published in the New York Times Magazine on November 4, 2007 (read the comments to my post). Oppenheimer’s article was a criticism of how Flew’s book was written. The information contained in that article was very disturbing. I will say more about it below.

After I read Flew’s book, I was very impressed by the simple way Flew explained how he turned from atheism and embarked on a journey that led him back to theism. In his book, Flew mentioned how the complexity of the chromosome sequence required more than randomness to produce life. Flew said that this complexity required an intelligent designer to produce life.

Flew said that the cosmology that came out of the Big Bang Theory convinced him that the universe had a beginning. He also reflected on the constancy and reliability of the laws of nature and concluded that these laws were created by an intelligent being. All this, he said, led him to believe that behind the creation of the universe and the constancy of the laws of nature was, what he called, “the mind of God.”

The book was co-written with Roy Abraham Varghese, whom Oppenheimer called in his article a “Christian apologist.” According to Oppenheimer, Varghese is “a tireless crusader for those who believe that scientific research helps verify the existence of God.” Varghese leads the Institute for MetaScience Research and sponsors conferences and debates at colleges and universities between Christians and atheists.

When Oppenheimer interviewed Varghese, Varghese admitted that he wrote most of the book. As Oppenheimer wrote:

When I asked Varghese, he freely admitted that the book was his idea and that he had done all the original writing for it. But he made the book sound like more of a joint effort - slightly more, anyway. "There was stuff he had written before, and some of that was adapted to this," Varghese said. "There is stuff he'd written to me in correspondence, and I organized a lot of it. And I had interviews with him. So those three elements went into it. Oh, and I exposed him to certain authors and got his views on them. We pulled it together. And then to make it more reader-friendly, HarperCollins had a more popular author go through it."

So even the ghostwriter had a ghostwriter: Bob Hostetler, an evangelical pastor and author from Ohio, rewrote many passages, especially in the section that narrates Flew's childhood. With three authors, how much Flew was left in the book? "He went through everything, was happy with everything," Varghese said.

In retrospect, after I finished reading the book, I realized that an eighty-four years old British scholar, long retired from academic life, whose memory is failing, and who lives without an Internet connection, would probably be unfamiliar with the intricacies of the rules of baseball and not conversant with the “purpose-driven” language that appears in the book.

If Varghese wrote the book and used apologetic language to express Flew’s views, is the book without merit? According to Varghese, he consulted with Flew and used his material in the preparation of the book and then discussed the final product with Flew. Thus, it seems that the final draft of the book actually reflects Flew’s views and beliefs about science and God.

So, when I wrote my review of Flew’s book, I knew about Oppenheimer’s criticism and that Varghese was the primary writer for the book. If I knew all these things, why did I write my four posts on Flew’s book? The answer is that I agree with the arguments for the existence of God and they are presented in the book

I believe that There Is a God, whether written by Flew, Varghese, or both, presents a clear argument for the existence of God. Although the cosmological and the teleological arguments for the existence of God have been highly criticized, Flew (or Varghese) wrote that when rightly expressed, these arguments still provide strong evidence for the existence of God.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Antony Flew, Mark Oppenheimer, Roy Varghese

The Laws of Nature and the Existence of God

This is the fourth post evaluating Antony Flew’s journey toward God. I recommend that you read my first post, "From Atheism to Theism: A Journey Toward God," before you read this post. The second post was titled “The Origin of Life and the Existence of God.” The third post was titled “The Big Bang Theory and the Existence of God.” I will conclude my review of Antony Flew’s book There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007) with a postscript in which I will address the issues raised by an article published in the New York Times Magazine in which the author is critical of the way Flew's book was written.

In my last two posts I presented the reasons Antony Flew changed his mind and came to accept that there is a God.

The first reason Flew presented for changing his mind came out of a question that became the basis for his journey back to God. Flew asked: “How did life as a phenomenon originate from nonlife?” That question led him to evaluate recent works on the origin of life and to his amazement, he discovered that the evidence “pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence” (p. 74).

The second reason that made Flew embark on his pilgrimage toward theism was the issue “that philosophers handed over to cosmologists: How did the universe, by which we mean all that is physical, come into existence?” This issue led Flew to a reformulation of the old cosmological argument for the existence of God.

The third reason that led Flew to re-evaluate his views on atheism was the constancy of the laws of nature. Flew asked: “How did the laws of nature come to be?” By laws of nature Flew means the regularity and symmetry that exist in the universe. He wrote: “The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature, but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal and ‘tied together.’” This, according to Flew (p. 96), is the question scientists from Newton to Einstein have been asking and their answer was one and the same: it was “the Mind of God.” Or, as Stephen Hawkins said in his book, A Brief History of Time, the day human beings discover the reason the universe exists that will be their greatest accomplishment, for then they will know “the mind of God.”

This question is in a sense, a reformulation of the classical argument from design for the existence of God. The argument from design states that the apparent order in nature requires the existence of a Designer. Although Hume, Kant, and Flew himself have done much to discredit the argument from design, Flew said (p. 95) that “when correctly formulated, this argument constitutes a persuasive case for the existence of God.”

Summing up his views about God and his creation, Flew summarized his views as follows (p. 88):

“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originated in a divine Source.”

Flew said that his acknowledgment of the existence of God was not a paradigm shift but of his acceptance of the Socratic principle that “we must follow the argument wherever it leads.”

Several developments in modern science have contributed to Flew’s reversal of attitude toward God. According to Flew (p. 88-89), science makes three important contributions to the declarations of the existence of God. The first declaration is “the fact that nature obeys laws.” The second is the origin of life and the existence of “intelligently organized and purpose driven beings.” Third, Flew wrote, is “the very existence of nature.”

Flew argues with Dawkins about whether Einstein believed in God. Flew quotes Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world . . . I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”

Flew states that scientists use the laws of nature without ever asking where these laws come from. In fact, they accept as an act of faith that the laws of nature will be consistent and that they are able to understand them.

These laws are not made by the scientists but are present in the universe. According to Flew (p. 108), these laws “are written in a cosmic code that scientists must crack in order to reveal the message.” This message is nature’s message or God’s message but it is not a message created by human beings.

Thus, according to Flew, the regularity of the laws of the universe demands the existence of God for it is God who created these laws and imposed symmetry and regularity in the universe.

Flew concludes (p. 112) that those scientist who point to God in order to explain the regularity of the laws of nature “propound a vision of reality that emerges from the conceptual heart of modern science and imposes itself on the rational mind. It is a vision that I personally find compelling and irrefutable.”

The book contains two appendices. The first appendix, “‘The New Atheism’: A Critical Appraisal of Dawkins, Dennett, Wolpert, Harris, and Stenger,” was written by Roy Abraham Varghese, the co-author of the book. This appendix is a critical assessment of the arguments presented in recent books in defense of atheism.

The second appendix is titled “The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright.” In this appendix Flew and Wright have a dialogue about Jesus, his existence, his incarnation, and his resurrection. Wright’s presentation is a clear and forceful exposition of the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

I enjoyed reading the book. Those who read it will understand how a famous atheist changed his mind.

Reference:

Antony Flew, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Tags: Antony Flew, Atheism, God, Theism

The Big Bang Theory and the Existence of God

This is the third post evaluating Antony Flew's journey toward God. I recommend that you read my first post, "From Atheism to Theism: A Journey Toward God," before you read this post. The second post was titled “The Origin of Life and the Existence of God.”

Antony Flew was known as one of the most articulate atheists of the twentieth century. His books and articles influenced a generation of atheists who today still use the argument he developed in his book The Presumption of Atheism. That argument states that, in a discussion between a believer and an atheist, atheism should be the default position and that the burden of proof rests with those who believe in God.

In May 2004, Flew made a public announcement that he had changed his mind and had come to the conclusion that he was no longer an atheist. The reason Flew changed his mind was because recent scientific discoveries made in the latter part of the twentieth century tend to affirm the existence of God.

In my last post I presented the first reason Antony Flew changed his mind and came to accept that there is a God.

The first reason Flew presented for changing his mind came out of a question that became the basis for his journey back to God. Flew asked: “How did life as a phenomenon originate from nonlife?” That question led him to evaluate recent works on the origin of life and to his amazement, he discovered that the evidence “pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence” (p. 74).

Another question that made him embark on his pilgrimage toward theism was the issue “that philosophers handed over to cosmologists: How did the universe, by which we mean all that is physical, come into existence?”

The answer that Flew provides is a reformulation of the old cosmological argument for the existence of God.

Those who deny the cosmological argument affirm that anything than can be known about the origin of life, the nature of the universe, and the laws of nature can be known without admitting the possibility of the existence of a transcendent reality beyond human understanding.

Flew himself was highly involved in attacking the cosmological argument. He even agreed and supported David Hume’s critique of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. However, Flew said (p. 135) that “most of my discussions were carried on independent of developments in modern cosmology. In fact, my two main antitheological books were written long before either the development of the big-bang cosmology or the introduction of the fine-tuning argument from physical constants.”


The cosmology that came out of the big bang theory made an impact on Flew’s understanding of the creation of the universe. With the development of the big bang cosmology in the early 1980s, Flew realized that cosmologists were providing “a scientific proof of what St. Thomas Aquinas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning” (p. 135).

The more Flew thought about the implications of the big bang the more he began to realize that the words of Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” were true (by the way, this is the only biblical text quoted in Flew’s book). As an atheist, Flew believed the universe did not have a beginning and as long as he believed that, there was no reason to ask what caused the universe to come into being.

However, the development of the big bang cosmology changed the situation. Flew wrote: “If the universe had a beginning [with the big bang], it became entirely sensible, almost inevitable, to ask what produced this beginning.”

Flew’s discovery of God has come through an understanding of the structure of the universe. This structure, according to Flew, is a map that leads to the discovery of the Divine. He wrote (p. 155): “I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being.”

Many Christians reject the big bang theory. For instance, Jason Lisle, writing in Answers Magazine said that the big bang theory is based on naturalism. He wrote:

Since the philosophy of naturalism does not allow for anything beyond nature, a naturalist would insist that the universe was created by the kinds of processes currently operating within it. The big bang is based on this critical assumption; that is, the big bang model attempts to describe the formation of the entire universe by processes currently operating within the universe. Stars, planets, and galaxies are all said to have formed "naturalistically"-by the laws of nature currently in operation today.

The big bang theory, however, had a different impact on Flew because the theory suggested that the universe had a beginning and if the universe had a beginning then the next question was what or who produced the big bang.

Flew predicted that in trying to explain the big bang, atheists would say that what produced the big bang was beyond human understanding. On the other hand, Flew said that believers would “welcome the big-bang cosmology as tending to confirm their prior belief that ‘in the beginning’ the universe was created by God” (p. 136).

The big bang theory shows that the universe had a beginning. A universe without a beginning is a universe without God. Those who affirm that the universe was eternal do not need a God to create it. But, since the universe began with the big bang 14 billion years ago, then what produced the big bang that caused the universe to come into existence? Since space, matter, and time are part of the created order, then the cause for the big bang must be immaterial, it must not be limited by space, and it must not be bound in time.

Because Flew was faithful to the Socratic principle of following the evidence wherever it may lead, it is clear that the cosmology that came out of the big bang theory and the existence of a fine tuned universe set him on a journey that eventually led him to accept the existence of God.

Reference:

Antony Flew, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Antony Flew, Atheism,

The Origin of Life and the Existence of God

This is the second post evaluating Antony Flew’s journey toward God. I recommend that you read my first post, “From Atheism to Theism: A Journey Toward God,” before you read this post. The first post has been updated in light of Charles Halton’s comment. In his comment, Charles included a link to an article published in the New York Times Magazine in which the author is critical of the way Flew’s book was written. Visit my post and read Charles’ comment. I will address the charges made by the author of that article in a postscript after I finish my review of Flew’s book.

When Antony Flew changed his mind and declared that he now accepted the existence of God, the atheist world reacted with anger and disdain. As one of the endorsers of his book wrote: “When Antony Flew, in the spirit of free-thinking, followed the evidence where he thought it led, namely, to theism, he was roundly denounced by supposed free-thinkers in the severest of terms. He had, it seemed, committed the unpardonable sin.”

Now, Flew has written a book, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007), in which he recounts his journey from atheism to theism. However, the negative reaction to his book is expected to be fierce, primarily by those who deny the existence of God. As another endorser of the book wrote: “His colleagues in the church of fundamentalist atheism will be scandalized by his story, but believers will be greatly encouraged, and earnest seekers will find much in Flew’s journey to illuminate their own path toward the truth.”

Before he turned to theism, Flew wrote many books and articles that reflected his anti-theism belief, including God and Philosophy and The Presumption of Atheism. One of his most influential works was his lecture “Theology and Falsification” in which he said that any religious statement can be made significant by the many qualifications made concerning that statement.

In The Presumption of Atheism, Flew established a principle that is still used by atheists today. This principle states that in any discussion about the existence of God, the burden of proof rests on those who are defending the reality of God and that atheism should be the default position in the discussion.

Flew gives three reasons he abandoned atheism and accepted the reality of the existence of God. The most amazing thing is that Flew became aware of the existence of God not because he read the Bible or he went to church. According to Flew, he became convinced of the existence of God because of the implications of recent scientific discoveries.

His statement contradicts what atheists proclaim with vigor, that is, that science proves conclusively that God does not exist. Flew’s statement also goes contrary to the popular view among some Christians that science and faith are mutually exclusive.

The first reason Flew presented for changing his mind was that “recent work on the origin of life pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence” (p. 74). One question that became the basis for his journey back to God was “How did life as a phenomenon originate from nonlife?” According to Flew (pp. 90-91), “the origin of life cannot be explained if you start with matter alone.” This declaration was made at a symposium in May 2004 in New York. In that symposium Flew declared that he believed in the existence of God because recent studies reveal that the complex DNA arrangements required to produce life demand that a creative Intelligence be involved.

When Flew was asked if studies on the origin of life pointed to a creative Intelligence, he answered (p. 75):

Yes, I now think it does . . . almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. 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.

One idea that has been presented to defend the possibility that life can arise by change is what is called “the monkey theorem.” This view says if a large number of monkeys are put together in front a computer keyboard and type randomly, given enough time, the monkeys eventually will compose a Shakespearean sonnet. Or, as the Wikipedia puts it:

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a particular chosen text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

Flew wrote in his book (pp. 75-78) that Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli scientist and the author of The Science of God, has presented a point-by-point refutation of the “monkey theorem.”



According to Schroeder, an experiment was conducted by the British National Council of Arts in which six monkeys were placed in front of a computer and allowed to type randomly. After one month the monkeys typed fifty pages but did not produce a single word.

Schroeder observed that in English there are two one-letter words: “I” and “a.” An “I” or an “a” is a word if there is a space before and after the word. After calculating the number of letters and characters in the keyboard, Schroeder concluded that the likelihood for a monkey to write a one-letter word is 1 chance out of 27,000.

Schroeder then applied the same principle to a Shakespearean sonnet. The sonnet “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” has 488 letters in the sonnet. Since there are 26 letters in the alphabet, then the likelihood of writing the 488 letters of the sonnet in its proper order is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times. The result would be the number 10 to the 690th power. The number is so immensely large that it could never be reached.

When this number is compared with the millions of arrangements that are needed to produce life, the possibility that life arose by chance is minimal. Flew then concluded (p. 78): “If the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance.”

Of course, Flew was highly criticized for his views. Richard Dawkins said that Flew was appealing to a “god of the gaps.” Flew, however, presents a good defense of his position (pp. 123-132). In defending his view, Flew quotes physiologist George Wald who said that “we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance” (p. 131). And then Flew concludes:

The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such “end-directed, self-replicating” life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind.

To that I say: Amen!

Reference:

Antony Flew, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Antony Flew, Atheism, God, Theism

From Atheism to Theism: A Journey Toward God

While I was away relaxing in my “traveler’s lodging place,” I had the opportunity to read Antony Flew’s latest book, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007). The book is a personal account of how Flew, an atheist for more than fifty years, came to accept the fact that God exists.

On May 2004, at a symposium at New York University, Antony Flew, one of the better known atheists of the twentieth century, surprised the atheist world by announcing that, after much study and reflection, he has now come to accept the existence of God.

The news of Flew’s change of mind caught many people by surprise since he had spent most of his life defending atheism and writing books and articles debunking the religious arguments for the existence of God. As a philosopher, Flew had accepted the Socratic principle of following the evidence wherever it may lead. Faithful to this principle, Flew announced that recent developments in science has led him to the conclusion that the evidence affirms the existence of God.

Antony Flew was born into a Christian family. His father was a minister in the Wesleyan Methodist Church and taught New Testament at the Methodist theological college in Cambridge. Flew attended Kingswood School, a school founded by John Wesley dedicated to the education of the sons of Methodist pastors. Flew began his studies at Kingswood as a believer and by the time he graduated, he was an atheist.

Many factors contributed to Flew’s journey toward atheism. In his book, There Is a God, Flew wrote (p. 13):

“I have said in some of my later atheist writings that I reached the conclusion about the nonexistence of God much too quickly, much too easily, and for what later seemed to me wrong reasons.”

One of the reasons that led Flew to embrace atheism at the age of fifteen was the problem of evil. Flew gave two reasons why the problem of evil affirms the nonexistence of God:

1. The problem of evil was a decisive disproof of the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God.

2. The “free will defense” did not relieve the Creator of responsibility for the manifest ills of creation.

Later on in his academic life, Flew called these two reasons “juvenile insistencies.”

Many atheists point to the problem of evil in the world as one evidence to deny the existence of God. Flew is aware that evil and suffering are real. Flew deals with both. He wrote (p. 156):

“Certainly, the existence of evil and suffering must be faced. However, philosophically speaking, that is a separate issue from the question of God’s existence. From the existence of nature, we arrive at the ground of its existence. Nature may have its imperfections, but this says nothing as to whether it had an ultimate Source. Thus, the existence of God does not depend on the existence of warranted or unwarranted evil.”

Three scientific issues contributed to Flew’s pilgrimage back to theism. Flew formulates these three issues in the form of questions (p. 91):

1. How did the laws of nature come to be?
2. How did life as a phenomenon originate from nonlife?
3. How did the universe, by which we mean all that is physical, come into existence?

In the next few days, I will be examining how Flew deals with these three questions. His pilgrimage toward theism and his search of the evidence for God’s existence will become a challenge for those who still affirm that there is no God. I will be examining Flew’s quest with the following posts:

1. The Origin of Life and the Existence of God.

2. The Big Bang Theory and the Existence of God.

3. The Laws of Nature and the Existence of God.

The three posts will present a brief overview of how Flew tries to answer the three questions that lingered in his mind even when he was defending atheism. In the end, these posts will be an invitation to readers to read the book and join Flew in his journey toward God.

Reference:

Antony Flew, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007.

UPDATE

After you finish reading this post, read Charles Halton’s comment and follow the link he provides to an article published in the New York Times Magazine in which the author is critical of the way Flew’s book was written. In light of Charles’ comment and the charges made by the author of the article, I have decided to write a postscript after I finish my review of Flew’s book and address the charges made in the article.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Next Post: The Origin of Life and the Existence of God

Tags: Antony Flew, Atheism, God, Theism

Antony Flew: There Is A God

Antony Flew’s book, There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, has received the 2008 Christianity Today Book Award for the best book in the area of Apologetics/Evangelism.

This is how the blurb for the book reads:

In one of the biggest religion news stories of the new millennium, the Associated Press announced that Professor Antony Flew, the world's leading atheist, now believes in God.

Flew is a pioneer for modern atheism. His famous paper, Theology and Falsification, was first presented at a meeting of the Oxford Socratic Club chaired by C. S. Lewis and went on to become the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the last five decades. Flew earned his fame by arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. He now believes that such evidence exists, and There Is a God chronicles his journey from staunch atheism to believer.

For the first time, this book will present a detailed and fascinating account of Flew's riveting decision to revoke his previous beliefs and argue for the existence of God. Ever since Flew's announcement, there has been great debate among atheists and believers alike about what exactly this "conversion" means. There Is a God will finally put this debate to rest.

This is a story of a brilliant mind and reasoned thinker, and where his lifelong intellectual pursuit eventually led him: belief in God as designer.

Flew’s book is in my reading list. As soon as I finish reading the book, I will write a post on my reaction to Flew’s conversion experience.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Antony Flew, Atheism, Conversion

The God Delusion: A Preview

When my younger son James asked me what I wanted for Christmas, I had no hesitation. I told my son: “I want The God Delusion for Christmas.” So, since Christmas, I have been reading Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. Even though I do not agree with much of what Dawkins writes, his book is very provocative.

Now, if you are returning from the Moon or from Mars, you probably have never heard of The God Delusion. This is the most vitriolic and probably one of the most intellectual attacks on religion in general and Christianity in particular. The book is also an attack on the notion of God, the Bible, the supernatural, and anything and everything that has to do with matters of faith and religion.

Richard Dawkins is an apostle of atheism who despises the God of the Old Testament. In fact, in a lecture in Virginia, he said that his aim was to offend the God of the Bible. He is an evangelist for his cause, one who preaches a gospel devoid of God, and one who is unapologetic for his sustained criticism of Christianity.

The purpose of Dawkins’s book, in addition to prove that there is no God, is to make converts for atheism. The “Preface” of his book is an invitation for believers and doubters, for seekers and those in between to join the cause of atheism. An in-print prototype of the televangelist for atheism, Dawkins gives an altar call at the end of every sermon (or chapter, as he calls them). His message can be very convincing to people who are unable to argue with his evidence, as H. Allen Orr has convincingly demonstrated in a review of the book.

As I read Dawkins’ book, I was struck by his hatred of the God of Abraham. Over and over again he accuses the God of the Bible with words that clearly reflect his negative obsession with God. In a future post, I will return to Dawkins’ view of the God of the Old Testament.

I was also struck by Dawkins’ refusal to admit that theologians have anything to contribute to the discussion about the existence of God. His ridicule of faith, religion, God, and the supernatural precludes any possibility of dialogue, or intelligent discussion. In his mind, he knows he is right and it is up to theologians and others to prove he is wrong.

There are several issues raised by Dawkins that deserves the attention of people of faith. In a future post I will address Dawkins’ view of the God of the Old Testament. Now, however, I just want to mention two things that came to my mind as I read the book.

1. God’s Friends

A superficial reading of Dawkins’ book tends to confirm that old saying: “At times, God’s worst enemies are his friends.” To support his view that the church and religion cause evil, suffering, and oppression in the world, Dawkins uses the scandals, the fights, and the dirty laundry of Christianity, past and present. And he has plenty of ammunition to use against the church.

Dawkins mentions names, issues, fights, and divisions that have plagued the church throughout the ages. He lists the atrocities, the injustices, the oppressions, and the evils perpetrated by the church in the past. He talks about evangelists and televangelists and their call to give until it hurts. He discusses the church and its fights over doctrinal issues and the suppression of dissenting views. You name the problem, Dawkins talks about it.

It is at times like this that believers must be reminded once again that the world is watching their words and their works. Fair or not, believers’ lives and believers’ work can be used against God and his cause. As Paul wrote, the lives of Christians are open letters, read and known by all (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:1-2 NLT).

Jesus told his disciples: “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). When Christians fail to be the light of the world (Matthew 5:14), people cannot see God in them.

God himself had already warned Israel of the danger of not living by divine standards. The prophet Joel wrote that because of the people’s violation of the demands of the covenant, Israel would become an object of mockery and their name would become a proverb for unbelieving people who would mock God and say “Where is the God of Israel?” (Joel 2:17).

As long as Christians give ammunition to people like Dawkins, he will use it in order to shoot down and kill people of faith. Despite his arsenal, he will not be able to kill God and his church. Better people than Dawkins have tried and failed. I am sure that one hundred years from now very few people will know who Richard Dawkins was.

2. The Loophole

Reading The God Delusion reminded me of the writings of Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899). In his days, Ingersoll was called “The Great Agnostic,” and “The Great Atheist.” Ingersoll was a great orator and his speeches mesmerized many people. He was a prolific writer who specialized in proving that the Bible was wrong and that the church and religion were evil.

Ingersoll ridiculed the notion that there was a God or that there is life after death. He rejected the supernatural, the reality of faith, the possibility of prayer, and denied that the Bible is a record of God’s revelation to human beings.

Ingersoll used in his speeches some of the same tactics Dawkins uses in his book. While many of Dawkins’ attacks against Christianity are based on his scientific background, Ingersoll’s attacks were based on the discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible. Ingersoll also used church behavior and church fights over doctrinal matters as the basis for his attacks on Christianity.

One of his memorable speeches was the eulogy spoken at the time of the death of his brother, E. C. Ingersoll. It is here that we can see Robert Ingersoll’s wish for the existence of a God. His words are a request for someone who can answer prayer and provide hope after death. Speaking about the death of his brother, Ingersoll wrote:

Life is a narrow vale between the cold and barren peaks of two eternities. We strive in vain to look beyond the heights. We cry aloud, and the only answer is the echo of a wailing cry. From the voiceless lips of the unreplying dead there comes no word; but in the night of death hope sees a star and listening love can hear the rustle of a wing. He who sleeps here, when dying, mistaking the approach of death for the return of health, whispered with his latest breath, “I am better now.” Let us believe, in spite of doubts and dogmas and tears and fears, that these dear words are true of all the countless dead.

It is in those words, in the night of death hope sees a star that we see a crack in the wall of atheism, the faint light that begins to shine in the dark heart of an atheist, the evidence that an unspoken hope is present. The expression, the peaks of two eternities, may reflect the awareness that there is life here and life beyond. The expression We cry aloud, and the only answer is the echo of a wailing cry may reflect the struggle atheists encounter when confronted with the reality of death and the end of existence. But Ingersoll’s words, Let us believe, in spite of doubts and dogmas may be the loophole he was looking for to give him a ray of hope that he would see his brother again.

Ingersoll’s words remind me of the anecdote about the lawyer, a famous atheist, who was sick and about to die. On his death bed, the man asked for a Bible. When an acquaintance saw him reading the Bible, he asked: “Aren’t you an atheist?” “Yes”, the man replied, “but I am looking for a loophole.”

Even Dawkins may inadvertently have left a very small crack in the wall for himself, a very faint burning light that some day may be as bright as the midday sun. And that dimly lit light is found in his own words.

Dawkins develops a spectrum of probabilities about the existence of God. In this spectrum, there are seven levels of probability concerning the issue whether God exists. At one extreme is Level 1, where strong theists are. Those who are on Level 1 believe 100% that God exists. On the other extreme, Level 7 is where the strong atheists are. A strong atheist is the one who says for a fact that there is no God.

Dawkins places himself at Level 6. Those who are on Level 6 say that there is a very low probability that God exists. Those on Level 6 are the people who say they cannot know for sure but think that maybe God does not exist.

Ah! Level 6 may reflect a faint light that is still alive in the hearts of atheists. That very low probability that God exists may be the sign of a faintly burning wick that is still burning. It is that crack in the wall that may allow the water of a mighty river to flow through. This is what happened with Antony Flew, the famous British philosopher and atheist, who at the end of his life abandoned his atheistic beliefs and embraced theism.

Even Dawkins himself has to admit that there are few people on Level 7. The reason? Maybe, when people are faced with the reality of their mortality, people have to consider seriously that life may not end at death. It is when one is confronted with the night of death, as Ingersoll was, that one hopes to see a star, a faint light that begins to shine in the darkness of a dark heart.

In his book, Dawkins never said that God exists, but he also said that it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. Thus, it is possible that, for Dawkins, Level 6 may be the sign that a faintly burning wick is still burning, but so faint that it is about to be put out. If it is so, let us then remember the reassuring words of the prophet about the work of the Servant: “He will not let a faintly burning wick be put out” (Isaiah 42:3).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Note: Chris Heard has been writing a chapter-by-chapter review of The God Delusion. To read Chris’ reviews, visit Higgaion.

Tags: God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, Antony Flew, Robert Ingersoll, Atheism