Both Albert Einstein and Antony Flew had various religious influences during their adolescent years. But both turned away from Christianity due to rational inconsistencies that, in their views, made faith incompatible to science, on the one hand, and to reason, on the other. Einstein retained a deistic sense of appreciation of the universe while Flew retreated into atheism. The former expressed his deism in Spinozian terms and never actually seriously questioned the god of Spinoza. Flew, on the other hand, embarked on atheism based on rationality on the Socratic premise that he would follow where the evidence led. While Einstein remained a deist to the end, Flew followed the evidence converted to deism and then to theism. Insights into these two great rational thinkers will serve to remind the church and zealous evangelicals that a more deliberate account needs to be taken of a person’s background, their personal philosophy and reasons for commitment to alternate beliefs. Knowing what draws thinking persons to their commitments allow for a more insightful approach to be adopted by Christians wanting to state the case for Christian theism as fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
“I see nobody on the road,” said Alice.
“I only wish I had such eyes,” the King remarked in a fretful tone. “To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance too!”
For many, religious faith translates into the very fabric of their living experience. For those who claim some form of theism or deism there is, without exception, some evidence of their belief. Faith translates into some system of belief – often more overtly evident and more clearly discerned in committed Christians, Hindus, Muslims and others. A particular faith expression among Christians will, for instance, hinge upon whether it is an interpretation influenced by, among others, reformed, Pentecostal or Arminian theology, or some other theological derivation. Due to changing theological convictions Christian believers may sometimes move from one brand of theology to another. This does not mean abandoning Christianity, but a shift in conviction based upon new understanding.
To further appreciate the importance of understanding one’s audience may be illustrated by some of the challenges faced by a third millennium audience. These may include the attractions of superstition, the physical transformation of one species into another or even into a chimeran Hollywood blend (Transformers) seemingly necessary for survival in fictitious worlds struggling with primeval elements such as chaos, darkness and semblances of order. For many young people it is within this context that forms of theism and deism are presented in a variety of ways. The point is this: to engage with thoughtful young people, imbued with third millennium mind-sets, requires a shift from a generic time-tested formula of God-talk to one that appreciates the commitment of persons or audiences to their own ideas about God, nature or materialism that are often the expressions of scientifically oriented worldviews.
I will focus on the particular attraction that deism had for the 20th century’s most famous scientist, Albert Einstein (1879–1955). This will be followed by a brief examination of the stances held by the philosopher, Anthony Flew (1923–2010), who converted from atheism to deism and finally settled on theism. Finally, it must be clarified that when the terms
This article concludes with be a brief evaluation of theism or deism’s influences on the shaping of Einstein and Flew. This critical approach should serve to show the depth and commitment of rational persons to their beliefs. Christians will appreciate that to engage in any conversation with such individuals or audiences
From the corpus of scholarly books and articles available, it becomes clear that there is no consensus on a single form of deism (Rowe
Deism may also be traced in the development of Islam (Dupré
Deism spread from the continent to England and the USA. The rational mechanistic cosmologies of Galileo, Kepler and Newton served to influence many of the leading thinkers of the time. At first, the attribute of a transcendent other God was challenged, then God got side-lined and, finally, simply ignored. But to claim that God-talk was redundant was
Basically, a deist believes in a solution: a god who is the creator of creation, but does not go as far as overseeing creation in the sense of governance or superintendence. Or, when seen from a strong philosophical perspective, it is the ground for:
Our values, our morals, our goals, our identities, who we are, where we are, above all how we know any of these things, it all comes from our philosophy of life – whether we know it or not … Many people call their philosophy a ‘Religion’. (Carrier
Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation. (Johnson
Present forms of deism may be very much part and parcel of debates among philosophers and natural scientists. The god of classical deism was impersonal – one who created the universe or world which is on a pathway guided by that creator’s divine providence. To claim personal intervention from this god is to negate the inherent universal gifts of humankind – gifts such as patience, reason, compassion, love, kindness and so on, not particular to any person and not needing supernatural intervention.
In short, deism serves as a powerful argument purporting that Christianity (and other religions) had its origins in human endeavours. Consequently not one religion can claim supremacy (Lucci
Modern deism extended its classical take with the scientific discoveries by Freud or Jung of the unconscious. Inevitably this would also explore man’s meaning on a contained earth – the search for purposefulness, humankind’s dependence on the bio-sphere (Darwinism)
It is probably necessary to elucidate the concept of theism as it has been the subject of attempted redefinition for some years now (cf. Potgieter
Clearly the former elaboration of the concept of God is an underlying acceptance of the Judaeo-Christian idea of God.
It was in Caputh (1930) that Einstein drafted his
Das Schönste und Tiefste, was der Mensch erleben kann, ist das Gefühl des Geheimnisvollen. Es liegt der Religion sowie allem tieferen Streben in Kunst und Wissenschaft zugrunde. Wer dies nicht erlebt hat, erscheint mir, wenn nicht wie ein Toter, so doch wie ein Blinder. Zu empfinden, dass hinter dem Erlebbaren ein für unseren Geist Unerreichbares verborgen sei, dessen Schönheit und Erhabenheit uns nur mittelbar und in schwachem Widerschein erreicht, das ist Religiosität. In diesem Sinne bin ich religiös. Es ist mir genug, diese Geheimnisse staunend zu ahnen und zu versuchen, von der erhabenen Struktur des Seienden in Demut ein mattes Abbild geistig zu erfassen. [
An even more succinct expression of his stance was Einstein’s response to the famous telegram from Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, dated April 1929 with the urgent demand: ‘Do you believe in God?’ to which Einstein replied: ‘I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.’
What follows is an attempt to show how Einstein’s religiosity was evident from childhood and took on a specific philosophical form just as his own thinking about the cosmos. Workings of nature occupied him and he began to find correlations between these and natural laws in operation.
Einstein gives a good description of the deistic concept of God (Ben-Chaim
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
Isaacson (
At the age of nine the young Albert Einstein voluntarily adopted Jewish practices despite his parents’ secular interpretation of religion and, in particular, the Jewish faith. At the time he even composed hymns to the glory of God, singing at home and on the streets he walked (Isaacson
When the informal
It was design that intrigued Einstein as it did Spinoza. Spinoza was, however, a monist who equated a supreme God and Nature so that natural laws express and coincide with God’s rational nature
Nevertheless, Einstein was also challenged by his own presuppositions such as the beauty of the cosmos and nature’s orderliness
Although his deterministic belief about nature precluded him from seeing any value in prayer, it did not deny an impersonal but immanent and cosmic spirit. But it would be a god who does not meddle in world affairs at whim (Isaacson
A valid question is whether Einstein’s language about God – he used words such as
As far as Einstein is concerned, I would suggest that a generous interpretation of his views, representative of a modernity worldview,
Flew wrote extensively on critical thinking emphasising practical reasoning buttressed by clear thinking. It is implied for any clear thinking of a Socratic nature in any quest for truth
It sounds almost prophetic when one reads that Flew (
that all of us constantly need to be asking ourselves what it is which we want to believe to be true, and whether our desires so to believe are stronger than our desires to know the truth, however uncongenial to us that truth may be. (p. 10)
It becomes clear that Flew accepted his own challenge. No claim is made to be exhaustive in commenting on his deeply incisive form of reasoning. The purpose is to merely illustrate in generic form one way of understanding Flew’s arguments as these most clearly pertain to this article.
For Flew there were a number of evident principles to consider for clear reasoning. Two of which are most clearly reflected in his personal reflection of his journey from atheism to deism/theism in his book
There is some significance, which will not be explored here, in Flew referring to the premise of ‘We must follow the argument wherever it leads’ (Flew
This observation (Flew
Mention could also have been made of the more inclusive deductive reasoning and formulation of propositions, but the above should suffice to make the point that Flew kept true to his own dictums. It goes without saying that the complexity of Flew’s philosophical reasoning may not be reduced to two principles as above. They are merely illustrative of the more evident premises in his narration of his journey from atheism towards theism. Having said that, by the late 1990s, Flew was evidently no longer persuaded by the best arguments that could be brought against religious theism.
C.S. Lewis’s
Flew claimed that there is no sufficient basis to speak of god or God.
There is in actual fact nothing new here that the historic Christian Church did not address from time to time. What is apparent, however, is that Flew, the sceptic, does not spend time dealing with the attempts towards answers by Christian theologians or apologists. He kept to his agenda and focused in particular on the matter of theodicy in the matter of attempts to speak intelligibly about God.
Conversely, how does Flew then view the existence of what he terms facts? He contends that facts have to be accepted as they are, and to require ultimate explanations from them is non-sensical. This approach (Flew
Is that a reasonable approach? Religious proponents have argued that the argument may be made that, while there may not be adequate proof for the objectivity of sensory experiences, the same ought to apply to religious ones. But then there has to be some way to account for the objectivity of Christian experiences in the earliest Christian records. Reasonableness needs to be factored in. The Bible, compiled from numerous manuscripts, gives a liberal account of such experiences begging interpretation.
While not comprehensive, the very brief outline above demonstrates, from Flew’s standpoint, that he followed where the evidence led. But was the naturalistic cul-de-sac model satisfying to his penetrating Socratic mind and consequently careful reasoning?
When discussing the existence of God, Flew held that the burden of proof lies with the side propagating theism.
Flew’s conversion from atheism was the result of a spiritual journey which, for him, reached a climax in 2004 (Hazen
Some matters became clear from the interview. Flew (
Flew’s god
An Aristotelian conception of god
Flew on revelation
In the interview with Habermas (
It is, of course, impossible to subject the full data spectrum of revelation pertaining to creation, verification and falsification, and for that reason it remains secondary data. Consequently, Flew continued to hold that revelation cannot support any evidence to conclude with an attribute such as goodness. His rational approach would allow for a God, but one who is a-goodness, neither good nor evil, and therefore has no or little interest in human behaviour. This point of view accounts to some extent for the evil perceived all around us. It also suggests that it excludes the tradition that would claim a deity to possess infinite goodness and, for that matter, knowledge and power.
Flew the theist
Flew accepted a deistic position as representative of his new position, because it does not try to justify a first cause to account for the process of secondary causes in creation. This does not mean that he was not open to theistic revelation (Habermas
This position is also used to strengthen the case for design in light of the more recent advances in science, revealing how finely tuned the universe is, makes it possible for life to exist (Flew with Varghese
Theism is back in the picture with Flew’s new position. In this sense he challenged Dawkins’s view of evolution espoused in Darwin’s 14th chapter of
To that end one may conclude with a measure of certainty that he advanced beyond deism to theism. However, it would not be safe to conclude that there is a total discount of Aristotle’s deity. Nor would it suffice to compare Flew’s theism to equate with the God of the Bible. Flew accepted a deity that could reasonably be credited with some involvement in this universe and the world. His belief in deity was basically subject to the scientific observation that nature obeys laws for its own existence and for that of life (Flew with Varghese
While Einstein’s deism would lean more towards encapsulation into the concept of being,
Nevertheless, it is evident that deism or theism explores degrees of material or divine transcendence and immanence. For a Christian these will reflect more clearly in traditional understandings of divinity and it will be more clearly expressed in creedal and catechetical formulas. In grappling with the thoughts of these great thinkers, I was reminded again and again of Warfield’s ‘ineradicable
The deepest source of our view on life’s fundamental issues does not lie in scientific theory, but in the
Einstein’s deep relation with Spinoza’s philosophy of god as ‘in’ the universe is worthy of exploring for its ecological value statements. The nature of its aesthetics not only stimulates but evokes a desire towards comprehending ecological complexities and maintaining the system of nature. In Flew’s theism of God as ’beyond and in’, the universe continues to challenge rational thinkers to explore questions that arise where science ultimately leads to and so face the challenge of engaging with theism. This article should encourage every Christian to dialogue with persons persuaded by deism or theism attempting to introduce such persons to the Creator God, the God of the Bible.
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
McGrath (
I am aware of the discussions surrounding models representative of reality (cf. Wartofsky
For the origin and historical development of the term, see Lucci (
Wartofsky (
Dupré (
This list could be developed to include Karl Marx’s theory of capitalism, Einstein’s relativity.
I am aware of the effect that the overlap between theism and theodicy brought into question varying responses due to divergent understandings of a Judaeo-Christian background in dealing with the horrors of the Holocaust. The same may be said for theism and ethics (cf. Carrier
Goldstein’s response to Einstein’s reply was remarkably positive (cf. Jammer
Einstein sometimes used a variety of phrases in speaking of God:
Isaacson (
A Spinozian deity.
Bohr’s famous rejoinder was, ‘Einstein, stop telling God what to do!’ (Isaacson
The domain of science deals with the ‘how’ and religion with the ‘why’ of issues that challenge humankind’s intellectual rigour in thinking.
These ranged from works by Sophocles, Spinoza, Poincaré, Hume, Cervantes, Mach and others.
This is reminiscent of Isaac Newton on how the wonder of science reinforced his belief in a God.
The fireplace stonework in the faculty lounge of the mathematics department at Princeton has the quote carved in it (TODAYINSCI
While Spinoza was ostracised by the Jews of his day, Einstein was merely criticised. Both were accused of making statements outside of their jurisdictions (Isaacson
In addition, Spinoza saw more to the forms of substance than merely as extended matter; nevertheless, he identified the complexity of life within the material (Rawes
I am indebted to an essay by Michael Mack (
To name but one example. The use of the term
This would, of course, fly straight in the face of Flew’s arguments leading to conclude with an ‘Orderer’ (Flew
This attitude was the basis for his continued resistance to quantum theory and its indeterminacy.
The famous statement by Newton in this regard was ‘Nature is pleased with simplicity.’ Newton’s understanding of simplicity was a key to his understanding of God (Rogers
A pre-modern worldview does not necessarily ascribe cause and effect to natural laws. Postmodernity, on the other hand, reflects a worldview that allows for a variety of stories, whether similar or contradictory, and does not subscribe to the entitlement of any one of them.
For a comprehensive discussion of the arguments of rationality as used by Flew, see, for instance, Beckwith’s treatment of a case for historical miracles (
This book served as a textbook and is basic equipment for any critical thinker. It includes 62 suggestions on how to critically evaluate evidence for and against propositions.
It was founded in December 1941 and disbanded in 1972. Flew presented papers at the club as other illustrious figures such as Iris Murdoch, E.L. Mascall, Michael Polanyi and A.J Ayer did. C.S. Lewis served as its first president from 1942–1954.
Reminiscent of the Bertrand Russel’s answer to the question should God exist: ‘Lord, you didn’t give us enough evidence!’ (Miles
Shepherd adds the works of R.W. Hepburn, C.B. Martin and W.I. Matson to Flew’s own (Shepherd
Flew cites Charles Darwin who collected arguments against his theory of evolution. This methodology ensured that Darwin could deal with these arguments and not just seek to disprove them. Consequently, Darwin was able to establish his position with more and more clarity. ‘Hypotheses are tested by deducing consequences which would follow if the hypothesis were true’ (Flew
Lewis was also a convert from atheism to theism. His spiritual journey, however, concluded in the further conversion to Jesus Christ.
Lewis (
Carrier’s spiritual journey led him into Taoism – an appreciation of agnosticism – to eventually conclude with material philosophy and its natural explanations underpinning his continued atheism.
The reprint of the 1984 edition has an updated preface. I, however, lean on the 1966 edition, because it reflects Flew’s stance and ideas long before his conversion to theism.
This is the old battle between apophaticism (ideas of what god is not) as against revelationism (what god is).
See, for instance, his debates with Gary R. Habermas in February 1985, Dallas, Texas and in May 1985 at the Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia. An entry on YouTube will give the recordings of some of these and other debates. Or see a hardcopy of Habermas, Flew & Miethe (
According to Odoj (
Gary R. Habermas is a Christian philosopher and historian serving as professor of philosophy and theology at the private Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia.
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. (Wiker 2017).
This may of course be critiqued in that it implies the communication of propositional knowledge about material matter. Nevertheless the quote serves to illustrate what I believe Flew meant.
This is reminiscent of Schroeder (
His reply referred to the persuasive arguments that Gerald L. Schroeder (
Reminiscent of Macquarie’s natural theology - that to hypothesize about God debases him to object, God is Being not being. The implications for faith are of course that it is rooted in Being. At that level it is seen to be compatible to the facts of experience for explanatory purposes (Shepherd
See for instance Calvin (