There Probably Is a God

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent for The Times of London has a very interesting post in her blog in which she reports that Clifford Longley, former Religious Affairs Correspondent of The Times, is complaining to the Advertising Standards Authority about the atheist bus.

In his complaint, Longley wrote:

'The statement “There’s probably no God”, as currently seen on the side of London buses, is untrue and dishonest, in so far as the word “probably” completely fails to reflect the true state of the scientific argument. In fact it would be honest and true to say the opposite - “There probably is a God.” A fair reading of the material below could lead to no other conclusion.

To read Clifford Longley’s complaint in full, visit Ruth Gledhill’s blog and read his statement. Both theists and atheists need to read the arguments Longley presents. After you finish reading his statement, you will have to say: “There Probably Is a God.”

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Atheism, God, Clifford Longley, Science, Theism

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

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

The Answer Atheists Can't Provide

In an article published in the Washington Post titled “What Atheists Can't Answer,” Michael Gerson asks this questions: “If the atheists are right, what would be the effect on human morality?” His article deals what the issue of what would happen to our world if “God were dethroned as the arbiter of moral truth.”

Gerson wrote:

“How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.”

“Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma.”

According to Gerson,

“America's Founders embraced public neutrality on matters of religion, but they were not indifferent to the existence of religious faith. George Washington warned against the ‘supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” The Founders generally believed that the virtues necessary for self-government -- self-sacrifice, honesty, public spirit -- were strengthened by religious beliefs and institutions.”

Gerson concludes:

“Atheists and theists seem to agree that human beings have an innate desire for morality and purpose. For the theist, this is perfectly understandable: We long for love, harmony and sympathy because we are intended by a Creator to find them. In a world without God, however, this desire for love and purpose is a cruel joke of nature -- imprinted by evolution, but destined for disappointment, just as we are destined for oblivion, on a planet that will be consumed by fire before the sun grows dim and cold.”

Read the article by clicking here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Atheism, God, Theism