There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
For anyone looking, I have a Top Twenty-Five List of books for the skeptic or liberal to peruse. I highly suggest the #1 book of that list or the following book:
I have already blogged on this topic (Antony Flew, A Theist or Deist), but I will once again make a connection to this book and ad a few others for peoples reading list on this all too important topic. First though I want to comment on the opening graphic and have the reader zero in on the comment by Dawkin’s that no “real” scientists believes in Intelligent Design or questions evolution. This just isn’t true. As the graphic already points out, one of Varghese’s books has 24-Nobel Prize winners in their respective fields of science speaking to the intimate connections of theology and science. Also, there are two lists immediately below including other people who hold either a professorship or is a research scientist/medial doctor that question evolutionary thinking:
660 Scientists, Professors Dissent
Physicians and Surgeons that Dissent
Here si an interview with Dr. Flew about the book and his converstion via evidence for God’s existence:
To The Source – Interview with Antony Flew, originally linked via Answers Research Network.
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: As for evidence, you cite a lot of the most recent science, yet you remark that your discovery of the Divine did not come through "experiments and equations," but rather, "through an understanding of the structures they unveil and map." Could you explain? Does that mean that the evidence that led you to God is not really, at heart, scientific?
Flew: It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence.
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: You point out that the existence of God and the existence of evil are actually two different issues, which would therefore require two distinct investigations. But in the popular literature—even in much of the philosophical literature—the two issues are regularly conflated. Especially among atheists, the presumption is that the non-existence of God simply follows upon the existence of evil. What is the danger of such conflation? How as a theist do you now respond?
Flew: I should clarify that I am a deist. I do not accept any claim of divine revelation though I would be happy to study any such claim (and continue to do so in the case of Christianity). For the deist, the existence of evil does not pose a problem because the deist God does not intervene in the affairs of the world. The religious theist, of course, can turn to the free-will defense (in fact I am the one who first coined the phrase free-will defense). Another relatively recent change in my philosophical views is my affirmation of the freedom of the will.
Wiker: According to There is a God, you are not what might be called a "thin theist," that is, the evidence led you not merely to accept that there is a "cause" of nature, but "to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being." How far away are you, then, from accepting this Being as a person rather than a set of characteristics, however accurate they may be? (I'm thinking of C. S. Lewis' remark that a big turning point for him, in accepting Christianity, was in realizing that God was not a "place"—a set of characteristics, like a landscape—but a person.)
Flew: I accept the God of Aristotle who shares all the attributes you cite. Like Lewis I believe that God is a person but not the sort of person with whom you can have a talk. It is the ultimate being, the Creator 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.
This is a good spot to re-post an interview with Antony Flew:
While I believe the best debate yet with Christopher Hitchens was with professor David Allen White, Dinesh D’Souza handled his fine. I am waiting for a J. P. Moreland, or William Lane Craig Debate with Hitchens, but we philosophical theists will have to do with D’Souza and David Allen White for now.
Transcript of the David Allen White debate with Christopher Hitchens as well as the audio from the radio debate:
Here is Dinesh D’Souza speakijng about his new book and his debate with Christopher Hitchens followed by a portion of that debate with D’Souza summing up Hitler’s atheism and finishing with a zinger about the “Non-God Movements” killing in one week verses 300-years of inquisitions:
Dinesh D’Souza on Hannity & Colmes
Dinesh D’Souza Debating Hitchens
But the point of all this is that evolutionary thinking (atheism) --- especially Hitchens Dialectical Materialism (which is easily refuted) --- cannot say something is “evil” in the same sense that theists can say something is “evil.” All one would have to do is read the book The Natural history of Rape to see how the evolutionary atheist MUST view the act of rape. The Theist however, can say that rape is morally wrong at all times in the universes past or future, and that it is morally wrong in all places, whether here on earth or on Alpha Century.
The atheist cannot say that an act of murder is morally wrong, for instance: if two people were on an Island with no culture or religion between them, for one to cross over from his half of the island to kill the other person merely for gain or for sport would not and could not illicit an atheist saying this act is morally condemned.
If they do they are merely saying they personally do not agree with the act much like they personally do not agree with the flavor of vanilla ice-cream. They would posit that rape may have been part of our evolutionary past allowing for the survival of the fittest to succeed in the dominance of the human race, and that rape may once again be key in preserving our species (it is possible), but that only now that it is taboo. In other words, ebough people who dislike chocolate ice-cream/rape have gotten together to say “we do not like that flavor/act.” This is all the atheist has to go on.
Was Hitler a believer though? I suggest a book by a Rabbi entitled:
But here is where I will post some influences on Hitler that make it clear he was no Christian nor was he religious… believing in a theistic God who creates, but rather had a more Gnostic approach downgraded to what Buddhists believe (and Buddhism is an atheistic system of belief). Keep in mind that only recently has America viewed – via the Supreme Court – Buddhism and other non-God religions, religions… including Secular Humanism (atheism):
Many of the Nazi emblems, such as the swastika, the double lightning bolt “SS” symbol, and even the inverted triangle symbol used to identify classes of prisoners in the concentration camps, originated among homosexual occultists in
List, a close associate of Lanz, formed the Guido Von List Society in
The Nazi dream of an Aryan super-race was adopted from an occult group called the Thule Society, founded in 1917 by followers of Lanz and List. The occult doctrine of the Thule Society held that the survivors of an ancient and highly developed lost civilization could endow
Hitler dedicated his book, Mein Kampf, to Dietrich Eckart, one of the Thule Society’s inner circle and a former leading figure in the German Worker’s Party (when they met at the gay bar mentioned earlier) [25].
“…And among them I want also to count that man, one of the best, who devoted his life to the awakening of his, our people, in his writings and his thoughts…” [26]
After the above dedication, the notes in this edition of Mein Kampf read, “Dietrich Eckart was the spiritual founder of the National Socialist Party” [27]. The various occult groups mentioned above were outgrowths of the Theosophical Society, whose founder, Helen Petrovna Blavatsky, was a lesbian [28], and whose “bishop” was a notorious pederast Charles Leadbeater. Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, was obsessed with Freemasonry [29], which is full of occultic influences and practices [30].
References
19) Dusty Sklar, The Nazis and the Occult, Dorset Press;
20) Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and their Influence on Nazi Ideology,
21) J. Sydney Jones Hitler in
22) ibid., p. 123
23) Dusty Sklar, The Nazis and the Occult, Dorset Press;
24) Robert G. L. Waite, The Psychopathic God Adolf Hitler, Signet Books;
25) Wulf Schwarzwaller, The Unknown Hitler: His Private Life and Fortune, National Press Book;
26) Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translated by Ralph Manheim: Houghton Mifflin;
27) Ibid.
28) James Webb, The Occult Underground,
29) G. S. Graber, The History of the SS: A Chilling Look at the Most Terrifying Arm of the Nazi War Machine, David McKay Company;
30) see: Andre Nataf, The Wordsworth Dictionary of the Occult, Wordsworth Refernce; France [1994], pp. 58-60; Texe Marrs, New Age Cults & Religions, Living Truth Publishers; Austin: TX [1990], pp. 199-203; Debra Lardie, Concise Dictionary of the Occult and New Age, Kregal Publishers; Grand Rapids: MI [2000], p. 108; D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Signature Books; Salt Lake City: UT [1998], “freemasonry,” index, p. 604
Here we see the Fuehrer falling more in line with evolutionary thinking than any other line of thought:
“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law [natural selection] did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all…. If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”[5]
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translator/annotator, James Murphy (New York: Hurst and Blackett, 1942), pp. 161-162.
