Commentary on Antony Flew's Book, "There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind." Part 1

People are often fascinated when I tell them that simple logic will lead you to a belief in God. One thing that is true of all humans is that we are loaded with presuppositions about anything and everything, and most people carry around certain simplistic Sunday school presuppositions about "religion" that removes serious religious thought from their mental discourse almost immediately.

One of the more nonsensical ideas is the old "Science = Fact" and "Theology = Faith." The most easily identifiable issue with this equation is that science and religious faith are about equal on matters of both fact and faith. That Jesus was a real person who lived in 1st century Palestine and was crucified under Roman occupation and whose followers all believed he rose from the dead is fact according to most believing and non-believing scholars alike. That we can account for the beginning of the universe, consciousness, purpose, love, morality, and the "self" given only the naturalist principals of life as a "random, purposeless, slow-moving sequence of biochemical processes" requires as much or more faith as believing the witness of 500 + people seeing the resurrected Christ (1 Cor 15:3-9). And indeed this same Christ - out of a slew of would-be first century Messiah's - that split history and changed the course of humanity.

Yet the issue isn't with the logic "finding" God, it is with the bias against such a possibility. Most of the "new atheists" don't want the inconvenience of a Divine Maker and I cannot say that I blame them. He's quite a mangy fellow, interfering with our illusion of true freedom while all the time offering us....um.....true freedom.

It is encouraging then to read about just how much the scientific and philosophical communities actually do take God seriously. As the title of this blog indicates, I'm reading Antony Flew's new book on how he became a theist. He simply followed the evidence and - quite courageously - was honest in his assessment. For those of you who do not know, Flew was an atheist from his teens and a well-respected leader and author in atheist philosophy. Of course, he was immediately crucified by the High Priests of the new "Enlightened Atheism" when it was announced he came to the conclusion God does indeed exist. Always ones to support rational and free thought, we read about a not-so-uncommon response by the current "brights":

"Curiously, the response to the AP story from Flew's fellow atheists verged on hysteria. One atheist Web site tasked a correspondent with giving monthly updates on Flew's falling away from the true faith. Inane insults and juvenile caricatures were common in the freethinking blogosphere. The same people who complained about the Inquisition and witches being burned at the stake were now enjoying a little heresy hunting of their own. The advocates of tolerance were not themselves very tolerant. And, apparently, religious zealots don't have a monopoly on dogmatism, incivility, fanaticism, and paranoia" (pg. viii).

Now just to set the record straight, as I have previously, there is no shortage of mindless fundamentalist fanaticism from religious people all over the planet. Yet it is interesting how the celebrants of such wild tolerance and open-mindedness would immediately turn on someone who had devoted his whole life to their very ideals and understandings, only to follow the evidence with an honest heart. In fact, given his age and influence, Flew probably shaped many of the thoughts of the people who are now kicking him. In my mind, the human stupidity on both sides - religious and atheistic - reinforces the age old biblical principal that humanity is fallen indeed. It seems our default state isn't one of utter tolerance, love, and support, and the evidence overwhelmingly shows this time and time again. Chalk another one up for logic leading to an understanding of humanity's need for God.

This book has already grabbed my fascination so don't be surprised to see more commentary as I read through it. What I seem to be enjoying the most is how many scientists and philosophers do take God seriously at higher levels of academia, and how the new atheists "refuse to engage the real issues involved in the question of God's existence" (pg. xvii).

No kidding. They may have to face down their own angry mob if they come to any rational conclusions.