Saturday, November 3, 2007

One Less Atheist in the World...


Found this interview with Antony Flew, via The Insight Scoop Blog. Mr. Flew was a life long atheist thinker who now has come to belief in God. Not the Christian God, mind you. He considers himself a Deist. In his view of God, God created the world and let it go to its own devices. Like a the classic watchmaker analogy. God made the world, wound it up, and then let it go.

Mr. Flew cites two decisive points for his "conversion". Interesting that both points fold into the classic argument for God from design:

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. (emphasis mine)

Thus, Mr. Flew finally recognizes the validity of one of the arguments for the existence of God that St. Thomas used in the Summa:

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God." St. Thomas Aquinas (STh I.2.3)

The last line of the quote from Mr. Flew I found interesting. He is saying, I believe, that he recognized that the difference between living things and non-living things wasn't simply a different chemical composition or arrangement of atoms, but the difference lies in that the living thing has something about its being that causes it to be alive. In other words, a soul. In Aristotelian terms, Mr. Flew recognized that a being (especially one that is alive - it is easiest to see there) has a unity about the thing and something else that makes it a certain thing as different from just a pile of parts. This principle of unity of a thing that individuates it is called the form of the thing. Thus, humans aren't merely an arrangement of molecules but a being standing in itself distinct from other things. Our soul is our form. It is the principle that individuates matter into an individual thing of a certain sort. To accept that beings are composites of matter and form is a giant leap to accepting God because then there are logical consequences that make God necessary. Aristotle covered these arguments in the Physics and Metaphysics.

The interview continues with the interviewer asking him about the scientific data that supports the existence of God (which Mr. Flew claims convinced him). He then comments to the question of atheists being behind the curve on scientific evidence supporting God's existence:

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. (emphasis mine)

Once again, Mr. Flew cites issues, that drove him to accept the existence of God, that are the basis for the arguments asserting God's existence from the time of Aristotle on. St. Thomas takes them up in the question from the Summa that is linked to above. The "laws of nature" and "life with its teleological (ordered to the end) organization" are answered in the argument from the Summa cited above (the so-called 5th way). The "existence of the Universe" is answered in the 2nd way where St. Thomas proves the existence of the First Efficient Cause. The First Efficient Cause argument basically states that there must be a cause of all existence that is in itself uncaused. It is because a thing cannot cause itself. Thus, it must be caused by another. This cannot go onto infinity in ordered causes, however, or there would never be the effect because there would not be a first cause. God is this First Efficient Cause of all being Who is not caused.

He wraps up by stating :

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.

As Jesus said to the lawyer, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." (Mk 12:34); he would say the same to Mr. Flew. The God of Aristotle is the God of St. Thomas. Once Mr. Flew discovers how St. Thomas corrects and expands (via Divine Revelation) Aristotle's understanding he will be ready. Furthermore, if he carefully reflects on what it means to be person, he will realize that a essential aspect of a person to transcend himself to another. That in the very what it means to be person is to be self communicating, the highest form of that communication being love. When he realizes this, Mr. Flew will know that God as Person will be essentially self communicating, and since God's essence is his existence, God's very being will be to self communicate. We see this in the complete self communication between the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. Thus, we can have that talk with God, Mr. Flew. He came in human form so he might speak to us face-to-face in the Person of Jesus Christ.

9 comments:

Mike E. said...

Excellent post, Mike.

I think the case you make here, and the example of Mr. Flew, are and excellent demonstration of the *proper* use of reason in looking for God.

I think sometimes we get so carried away with the "rational" case for the existence of God, we stretch some of the arguments that are "proofs" of God - stretch them to be proofs of Christianity.

I think it is entirely reasonable, once the existence of God is accepted, to believe Christianity most fully describes God - but Aquinas doesn't have five proofs of The Assumption of Mary.

We must have faith to really know God; Mr. Flew, as you wrote, is "not far," and we can hope that last step is also not far for him.

Again, great post.

Michael Lee said...

Thanks.

Excellent point. St. Thomas' proofs do not demonstrate the Triune God as such. The proofs are a way to demonstrate that God exists and that he has providence over all things. All the articles of faith require faith. St. Thomas' proofs are prerequisites to faith. Faith is believing certain things because God has said they are true. These things (the articles of faith)will never be proven and, in fact, cannot be. We only know of them because God has revealed them to us. Furthermore, we believe the articles of faith only because God has given us the light of faith to recognize them as from God, AND he moves our will to assent to them.

To try and extend the proofs to proving something beyond God's existence and providence is to commit an error; just like it is an error to reject the proofs for what they do.

Paul E said...

Mr. Flew's journey is likely not over. I would think a curious mind, after accepting that the world is made, would wonder 'why?'. That may be the link from Reason to Christ.

Michael Lee said...

Paul,
I totally agree. One way may be that he finds that God didn’t just create the world and then let it go as Deists hold. In fact, Deism, IMHO, is logically absurd as is shown in St. Thomas’ arguments in Question 8 Article 1 of the Prima pars of the Summa. There St. Thomas argues that God is everywhere and in everything as the agent cause. The agent must always be present as the motion (any kind of change or coming-to-be) is occurring, e.g., the builder must be there as a house is built: if no builder, no house. St. Thomas’ argued earlier that God’s essence and his being are the same, and that God is the First Efficient Cause. It follows, and he makes this argument, that anything that is not its being (only God is his being as was said) must have its being caused. Thus, every moment of our existence there must be an agent cause present to keep us in being, viz., God. God must, consequently, be in us every moment of our existence. Furthermore, St. Thomas argues, since our being (existence) is the most interior and deep in us, “God should be in all things, and most intimately.” Once one sees that this line of argumentation refutes Deism, one must look for a God that is in us most intimately. The God of Aristotle is not enough. It is an incomplete account of God. Since God is most interior to us, it demands a relationship of love. Then one opens himself to the God of love and sees that God eternally desires this relationship of love with man, since he always has the intimate relationship of agent cause, anyway. The man then sees that he has not been faithful to this God of love and thus needs a mediator and savior.

Or God could simply infuse the knowledge of himself and give Mr. Flew a Saul-on-the-way-to-Damascus-type experience. :-)

Michael Carlos said...

Very interesting post. I've read Dawkins' God Delusion book and although he makes some provoking arguments, they were not enough to dissuade me that there is no God.

Perhaps one day Dawkins will convert...?

Michael Lee said...

I think that would definitely have to be a Saul-on-the-way-to-Damascus kind of conversion. Dawkins seems so angry that he doesn't think very clearly. Seems like a similar kind of anger that Saul was packing around before the Lord revealed himself to Saul.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the post Mike. It has always seemed to me that reasoning the existing of God was not difficult. But pride gets in the way for many. But personal God is tougher. I consider myself a very faithful and spiritually minded Catholic and I know I struggle with it at times. I suppose I get frustrated that God cannot without blowing away my free will, communicate in a more overt, specific way to me personally. When I hear the stories of visionaries, mystics, stigmatists, etc. I think to myself, "Man, they had it great." I know God loves me, but sometimes I just wish I could hear an unmistakable voice whisper in my ear and confirm as much. I just left adoration and was there by myself and I wondered to myself, prayed I guess, if it grieved Jesus that He couldn't/wouldn't just speak plainly words of encouragement to me in that very quiet and intimate moment.
God bless you and your family. Keep up the great work. I love "Into the Deep". It has been a huge blessing. Adam

Michael Lee said...

Thanks for the kind words, Adam! The encouragement is greatly appreciated.

You have inspired me. I'd like to blog on precisely the difficulty you bring up: hearing and experiencing God. It may take me until the semester is over to get to it, but I can hope... :-)

J. K. Jones said...

Thanks for a great post.

The teleological argument is also a favorite of mine.

J. K.