Posted by: markcarlton | November 26, 2007

How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

I would like to recommend the book, There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, by Antony Flew. Yes, before there was Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, there was Antony Flew, and his essays on atheism are the basis of the arguments they make today. As he said in commenting on Dawkins argument that Albert Einstein was an atheist: “Richard Dawkins propounds my old position…” Indeed he does. Indeed, they all do.

Flew presented his first atheistic paper at a meeting of the Oxford University Socratic Club which was chaired by C.S. Lewis. His sub-chapter, Locking Horns with Lewis, is very interesting reading (as is the entire auto-biographical portion of his book).

The unofficial creed of the Socratic Club, propounded by Lewis in the first issue of The Socratic Digest, was; “Follow the argument wherever it leads.” This statement became Flew’s creed. For most of his life the argument led him away from a belief in God. During those years he laid the intellectual foundations for what would latter become the New Atheism of Richard Dawkins and company.

But unlike the present leadership of the New Atheist movement, Flew kept reading other people’s arguments, and he considered them respectfully and carefully. Ironically, in so doing he proved the wisdom of a warning given to atheists such as himself by his old nemeses, C.S. Lewis: “A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere-’Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,’ as Herbert says, ‘fine nets and stratagems.’ God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous.”

Flew began to find his atheism shaken while studying new scientific discoveries in the area of micro-biology. Specifically, as he began to unravel the DNA molecule his atheism began to unravel too. By studying intelligent design (probably to refute it) he came to realize that he was seeing the evidence he had repeatedly insisted could not be found. He found the signature of God.

And so on December 9, 2004, the man who laid the intellectual foundation upon which modern atheism sits — truly the world’s most notorious atheist — astounded his colleagues and the intellectual world by publicly announcing he had switched sides.

Dawkins, and others in the movement, felt betrayed. They charged him with accepting Pascal’s wager because of his fear of approaching death. Flew answered this charge by pointing out that he was formerly an atheist and a mortalist (one who does not believe in life after death). He now identifies himself as a deist and a mortalist.  “So,” he argued, “since I do not believe in the hereafter, how can I be accused of accepting Pascal’s wager?” However, he does have a new openness to Christianity. In fact, I would say he’s flirting with it right now.

So, I would especially challenge my atheist readers to take the time to read Flew’s short book. Since you like his arguments against God’s existence so much, perhaps you should consider the arguments that led him to change his mind.

Responses

I googled the title to read some other reviews of this book. There are some interesting discussions going on about this one. (BTW, it was interesting to see your blog show up on the first page - um, congrats? You’re famous, Mark. LOL!) I find it fascinating that many who embark on the journey to disprove God’s existence end up discovering plausible evidence that refutes their hypothesis. This is a book I will be looking forward to reading.

Somewhere, C.S. Lewis is smiling.

Actually Mark, even with this change of mind, Professor Flew’s position remains vastly closer to mine than it does to yours or C.S. Lewis’. While he now states that he believes in the existence of a God, the God that he believes in is a far cry from the one that you and C.S. Lewis advance. The following quote is a case in point:

“While reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings.”

I consider myself to be both an Agnostic and an Atheist. I always tell people, “Insofar as I do not believe that God exists, I am an Atheist. But insofar as I recognize my on fallibility, I am an Agnostic”. The point I’m making here is that I do acknowledge that there is a chance (I think it is a slim one) that I may be wrong and God may exist.

However, if that is true and God does exist, and if His nature is as defined by Professor Flew, i.e., a God that established the laws of nature but who does not contravene those laws in order to participate in human affairs, then the existence of that God has little to no effect on my world view.

Can you say the same? Would not the existence of the God postulated by Professor Flew pretty much undercut your most basic Christian Beliefs?

You obviously haven’t read Flew’s book. Flew’s conclussion — following Aristotle and many others — is that the creator of the universe would need the following attributes: immutability, immateriality, omnipotence, omniscience, oneness or indivisibility, perfect goodness and necessary existence. Quoting Philopher, David Conway, Flew adds:

“There is an impressive correspondence between this set of attributes and those traditionally ascribed to God within the Judaeo-Christian tradition. It is one that fully justifies us in view Aristotle as having had the same Divine Being in mind as the cause of the world that is the object of worship of these two religions”

As to Christianity, Flew says this:

“My current positon, however, is more open to a least certain of these claims [of divine intervention and revelation]. In point of fact, I think that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. There is nothing like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. Virtually all of the argument about the content of the religion was produced by St. Paul, who had a brilliant philosophical mind and could both speak and write in all the relevant languages. If you’re wanting omnipotence in a religion, this is the one to beat.”

In addition, he included an appendix in which he asked his friend, Anglican theologian, N.T. Wright, to answer several of his questions, and to give an argument for the resurrection of Jesus. This is what Flew added at the end of Wright’s argument:

“I am very much impressed with Bishop Wright’s approach, which is absolutely fresh. He present the case for Christianity as something new for the first time. This is enormously important, especially in the United Kingdom, where the Christian religion has virtually disappeared. It is absolutely wonderful, absolutely radical, and very powerful. Is it possible that there has been or can be divine revelation? As I said, you cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence.”

And with these words he ended his book. So, my friend, I would suggest that you actually read the book before pontificating about it. Respectfully, it’s always better to know what you’re talking about before you offer an opinion ;o)

Mark, I see nothing in any of those quotes that indicates his belief in a participating deity. His admiration of the religion on the basis of its foundations on the charisma of Jesus and the “brilliant philosophical mind” of Paul really is very interesting. It’s also interesting that he sees Christianity as unique among religions. But unless I miss my mark you view Christianity as something more than a powerful philosophical tradition.

Did he at any point contradict the quote that I referenced in my previous post? Has he now said that he believes in a deity that participates in human affairs? If so, then his position has indeed shifted to a point closer to yours than mine (and I can live with that). But, if not, my previous pontification stands.

He says he is open to such a God, that’s what he is referring to when he speaks of “revelation.” And, yes, he is moving in my direction. Actually, the logic he is using is the logic I tried — unsuccessfully — to lead my friends at DH to follow. First, you determine whether or not there is a God. Then you ask the much more interesting question; has the God who exists revealed Himself to us? This then leads to the most interesting question of all; If so, where and when?

Flew is starting late, but once you get to the place he has arrived at it doesn’t take long to cover the rest of the distance to the cross. He has arrived late, but given the influence of Wright, and several other Christians he mentions favorably, he should get there shortly.

Leave a response

Your response:

Categories