I recently found a really interesting book called There Is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Athiest Changed His Mind by Antony Flew. In it Flew details his journey from a young, unenthusiastic Christian son of a theologian, to an athiest, and eventually back to a theist. He states that throughout his life he followed the Socratic principle of following the argument wherever it may lead. This led him initially to believe that God did not exist. Through years of debates and discussions with religous friends and collegues he finally decided that the evidence of science itself points to a rational mind behind the rational laws of the universe. He suggests that the laws and regularities of the universe must have an author or agent which set them in place. It is implausible to suggest that the laws of nature came by chance, especially since so many of them, if changed in the smallest degree, would render the earth lifeless, or cause the stars and planets to spin apart or break up.
Moving from the macro to the micro aspects of the universe, he suggests that the genetic code by which DNA reproduces is something that could also not have come by chance. The mechanism for reproduction itself, not simply the information reproduced, suggests an Author. More later.
“the evidence of science itself points to a rational mind behind the rational laws of the universe”
I’m confused by this statement. I don’t understand how the laws of the universe are rational in and of themselves. I understand that there are repetitive characteristics within nature that we call “laws”, and that we can use our reason to evaluate them, but I don’t see how they themselves are rational and how evidence points to a rational mind behind it all.
“if changed in the smallest degree, would render the earth lifeless, or cause the stars and planets to spin apart or break up.”
This hasn’t happened in the past, but it still could happen in the future. And therefore, is not required to have already happened if there was no agent or author of nature. And there is a random process in the evolution of nature, but it is also selective. Not everything within nature is agreeable with itself.
I struggle when I see or hear of anyone using the “Fine-Tuning” argument for the existence of God because, the way I understand it, nature’s ancient past wasn’t fine-tuned to fit its present state or fulfill an anthropocentric destiny. The other way around is more likely to happen. That is, nature has continually fine-tuned itself from its not-so-complex beginnings to its awesome and wondrous existence it is today.
Its been a while since I read the arguments, so I’ll try and brush up to reply later. For now I would only say if you’d like to know, read the book, he articulates it very well and was one of the leading atheist intellectualls for many years. Even if you don’t agree, its well worth the read and may even help to solidify your own position if you don’t agree with him.
I’ll leave it for now and reply more later.