A View from Panentheism

View from Panentheism

Prominent 20th century philosopher, Antony Flew, epitomizedthe search for truth in one's life by showing how beliefs can change throughreason. In Flew's book, There Is a God,he demonstrates this conviction to reason by his conversion from atheism to aparticular belief in God. I explain this dramatic switch and the aspects thatled up to it and resulted from it, as Flew tries to defend God's existence byoffering several logical arguments for it through the basis of Deism. Though manyof Flew's contemporaries question his reasoning and grounds for his conversion,as his arguments are lacking and unpersuasive in key areas which undermines andlabels his conversion as simply delusional. However, I believe by utilizing andimplementing the philosophy of Panentheism, instead of Deism, onto Flew'sarguments they transform into being sounder and more defendable, and hisconversion is then understandable. Therefore, I contend and illustrate theworldview of Panentheism, specifically Advaita Vedanta, for it bolsters thebelief in God's existence.

Before discussing Flew's conversion, it is important to delve into theevents of his life and understand why he initially believed in atheism and theaspects that lead to his conversion and creating arguments for God's existence.Like many atheists growing up, Flew followed in the footsteps of his father, aMethodist priest, and was part of the Christian tradition, yet he never saw thepoint of religious practices and felt more unenthused and disinterested. Assuch, critical analysis and reasoning were the aspects he felt most excitedabout, which would eventually lead him to reject his father's faith. Aconsistent problem in religion that has driven many people away from it is theproblem of evil, which asks how could there be an all-loving, all-powerful, andall-knowing God when evil exists in a world He governs, and Flew was nodifferent, as he came to see the problem of evil to be one of the primaryreasons for his conversion to atheism at a young age. Moreover, as Flewcontinued his education in philosophy, he was influenced and defended the ideaof Logical Positivism, which is a theory of knowledge where philosophicalproblems and topics must be examined and cognitively verifiable throughempirical science. Consequently, from this theory, Flew strengthened his stanceon atheism by asserting that religious beliefs are irrational, for they are notgrounded in empirical science and as such cannot be verified to be false ortrue. However, his stance on atheism was most supported by looking at thelegitimacy of the concept of God. Flew argued a conception of God cannot becreated and believed by humans, as people are finite and an idea of an infinitebeing cannot arise from limited and material creatures. Basically, Flewcontends that we cannot know the identity of God and there exists no basis orreason for a belief in God; therefore, he asserts that the only reasonableposition is to be an atheist or agnostic. Yet, Flew, being a philosopher atheart, believed in the doctrine of Plato in "following the argument wherever itmay lead," and later on life he will be led to the belief in God's existencethrough arguments he deems result in the existence of a Deistic God. 

As Flew progressed in age, he came to realize the dangers dogmatic atheism inflicts on philosophical topics and questions, as conclusions that arise from atheism are arguments that always go against religious thought and offer no further explanation on how or why certain aspects of the universe exist or function. Thus, resulting in arguments lacking in reasonableness because many atheists do not provide evidence or reasons from philosophy or science to support the "truth" of their claims (87). As a result, Flew proposes three arguments brought out by science and based on dimensions of nature, which point to the existence of a deistic divinity, as an infinite Intelligence or a Designer Being. The first one being the existence of the laws of nature. Flew explains the universe is designed in a such a way where the laws of nature are mathematically precise, ubiquitous, orderly, and tied together. Moreover, the importance is how these laws came to be, as science can only go as far as the physical universe permits them to, and science has reached the "bottom" of empirical inquiry by discovering the smallest subatomic particles in the universe but not knowing how all these levels or laws function together to create a sustainable universe for humans to live in. This underlying unity of science and the laws of nature, which are all perfectly orientated allowing for the survival of people, led Flew to assert the belief that some Designer or Mind of God created all the aspects of nature and exists outside of the universe, similar to a clockmaker, who established the essence of nature and once set does not interfere with creation. Similarly, Flew comes to the same conclusion when pondering how living matter with reproductive capabilities emerged from non-living, non-reproductive matter. Flew takes up this origin of life problem, as it is a contradiction to believe that in the beginning of the universe somehow mindless matter produced sentient beings with intrinsic ends and genetic codes, and science has not and cannot give a materialistic explanation for this because non-living matter lacks intrinsic goals or teleological organization and does not have any reproductive abilities. Essentially, one cannot give a physical explanation for something that lacks all physical qualities and seemingly generated living, physical life. Because, the context of this problem is set in a time before creation where no physical matter existed except for mindless darkness, so a materialistic explanation for the origin of life is like trying to prove I was at two places at once; it simply cannot be proven in this present, earthly reality or more specific to Flew's argument in a pre-creation reality. Therefore, Flew argues that there must be some infinitely intelligent Mind or Being, who is responsible for the origin of end-directed, reproductive life. Lastly, Flew believes the existence of the physical world requires a further inquiry into how something came from nothing, and he concludes the explanation being the existence of a divine Mind who caused creation. Of course, the biggest objection to the existence of a divine Mind is the big-bang theory; however, Flew explains that even if this were the case in which the universe has a beginning caused by the big-bang the problem still persists, as what produced or caused the big-bang, and Stephen Hawking agrees with Flew that "it is physically impossible to discover what, if anything, caused that big-bang" (138). Thus, Flew believes a creative factor is necessary to explain this causation, which he deduces to be an intelligent, divine Designer. These arguments clearly point to some version of God, but Flew's conclusion to deism is not the most accurate or plausible one, as deism refers to a personal God, which I define differently from personal in theism, as instead an actual Being or divine Creator who designed the world and not having any further contact in it, which is unpersuasive to most people. Consequently, I believe the conclusion of a panentheistic divinity from his arguments better supports his claim, and applying this worldview onto his arguments makes it more scientific and plausible for God to exist.

 Panentheism is a philosophy generally held in eastern countries such asIndia that explains God as a divine essence who is one with the universe butalso is above and beyond it. However, there are various philosophies ofpanentheism, and for the sake of Flew's arguments I will specifically use theform of panentheism created by Adi Shankaracharya known as Advaita Vedanta, asthis philosophy, as opposed to deism, will show from Flew's arguments it isbetter inferred that God exists as an infinite divine consciousness known asBrahman. Firstly, Advaita Vedanta is a school of thought connected withHinduism, which describes God as an impersonal consciousness, meaning without abody or any physical aspects, that created this material reality through Mayaor illusory, material energy, and as such also produced a spiritual, unchangingreality, Brahman, that is present within every single being and aspect ofcreation. Thus, creation is seen as a literal expression and expansion of Godand not a duality between the two, for It produced the physical universethrough its material energy and manifested in the world by the true,metaphysical reality, Brahman, present in all beings. Therefore, when analyzingFlew's first argument of the existence of the laws of nature, Advaita Vedantaenlightens the idea that these laws are the essence of a divine consciousness,and specifically Maya, the energy that pervades this universe, produced thelaws of nature. Moreover, Flew described the laws as having a sense of unity,for they all function to work together in a specific way for creatures tosurvive, and Maya can explain this unity, as though there are a multiplicity ofdifferences in the world, like the laws of nature, they all have the sameorigination and are unified and acted out through the energy of God depicted asMaya. Similarly, Flew's second argument of the origin of life takes the same explanationthat instead of deducing a Designer being the origin of sentient, reproductivecreatures from mindless matter is more easily solved from the fact that themindless matter was actually an active, real energy with a mind called Maya,which produced all things physical or material in the world. Lastly, whenapplied with Advaita Vedanta, Flew's third argument of the existence of thephysical universe is again understood through Maya and Brahman, as God's energybrought about the existence of the physical world and that nothingnesspre-creation is God, as Brahman, whose essence is pervasive and within allthings. The important premise is Flew infers a personal, deistic God thatactually exists as a being outside the universe, which creates a sense ofarbitrariness; while, I contend God exists but as an impersonal energy thatcannot be defined or given any personal, material attributes. Thus, now Flew'sarguments with Advaita Vedanta point to the existence of God, however, is morepersuasive and less of a leap of faith, as God is not a personal deity but aninfinite, metaphysical reality or energy unobservable to the eye but realizedand experienced through the mind.

In conclusion, Anthony Flew presents the unique situation of an atheist converting to a believer in God. His arguments present situations that cannot be resolved through science, and God's existence is the only viable solution. Instead of Deism, Advaita Vedanta better conveys Flew's affirmation of God's existence through the understanding of the divine as an impersonal consciousness. As such, I do not advocate any belief system or philosophy, but it would be wrong to simply interpret God in one aspect and take it as truth, as all would agree God is a concept that goes beyond human logic, and any theory of divinity should be analyzed and given merit, for our ignorance in holding one tradition to be the truth is a disease that will continue to plague our expedition in understanding the universe and a possible God.