A friend forwarded me a recent essay in the National Association of Scholars journal Academic Questions, reviewing Antony Flew’s 2008 book There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, and The Immortal Mind: A Neurosurgeon’s Case for the Existence of the Soul, by our colleagues Dr. Michael Egnor and science writer Denyse O’Leary.
I heard a debate involving Antony Flew when I was in high school back in the ’70s in the basketball arena at what is now called the University of North Texas (then North Texas State). So, I am always interested in reading about Flew and his conversion to some form of theism due to his appreciation of the argument for intelligent design.
From the review by composer Dan Asia:
There are numerous disciplines with which one can discuss the nature and existence of God. They include religion, of course, which has been man’s primary medium for most of his existence. Western Philosophy has been in the game almost as long. Art and music, as ways of expressing man’s relationship to the universe and therefore to the possibility of a Creator, are older than religion and philosophy and represent our earliest attempts at communication with the divine. The separation of science from philosophy began in earnest during the seventeenth century and so has only been with us a relatively short time, as another way to understand our world. Two notable volumes, one philosophical and the other more scientific in approach, make the case for the necessary existence of God.
Antony Flew, an analytic philosopher who died in 2010, was among the world’s most prominent atheists. He stated that throughout his career, he followed the facts wherever they led. This is to say, he asks philosophical questions and attempts to answer with rational thought, sifting through all arguments and facts. In his seminal book of 2008, There Is a God, he makes the case for a force behind the creation of the universe as we currently understand it. He also entertains the suggestion that this God created this universe with humanity in mind. Beyond this, he expresses a preference for the Christian conception of God — likely a vestige of his upbringing — though the book itself does not attempt to defend the truth of any particular religion.
“A Rational and Scientific Perspective”
The reviewer is very complementary of The Immortal Mind, and he concludes:
Egnor and O’Leary offer what they regard as the most coherent and rational explanation available: that human consciousness and mind — what we might cautiously call the soul — are not reducible to the physical body. Rather, they suggest that consciousness may be distinct from the brain and not wholly dependent upon it for its existence. If so, it raises the possibility that the mind is more enduring than material processes alone would allow.
From a rational and scientific perspective, certain conclusions at least press themselves upon us. It may be that the evidence points toward the existence of a guiding intelligence behind the universe, and toward a dimension of human personhood that cannot be confined to matter. Whether one is prepared to call this God, or to speak confidently of an immortal soul, remains open to debate. These questions are hardly “settled science.” Yet, as with the Big Bang before its widespread acceptance, we may find ourselves increasingly compelled to take such possibilities seriously — even if cautiously.
Read the rest at “Reason, Science, and the Return of the Divine” at Academic Questions.