Christian apologists are surely aware of the modern Anthropic Principle, a phrase first popularized by Barrow and Tipler’s 1988 work, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford University Press. The “strong form” of the insight addresses the values of the fundamental constants of physics.

Scientists such as Robert H. Dicke, Fred Hoyle, John Gribbin, Martin Rees, Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking, and numerous others, agree that our universe possesses these physical constraints. However relatively recent it may appear to be in the scientific literature, it has been stated at least as early as 1833, and I’m sure there are other occasions where it can be found earlier.

William Whewell was a 19th century English polymath, scientist, Anglican priest, philosopher, theologian, and historian of science, not to mention Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. As a curious matter of fact, he was the first to coin the term “scientist.”

During Whewell’s time, debates raged over the relationship of natural theology and the new discoveries and findings of modern science. A certain Earl of Bridgewater, gentleman naturalist, commissioned eight Bridgewater Treatises upon his deathbed to explore “the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation.” Whewell’s work was the third in the series. The treatises are:

1. The Adaptation of External Nature to the Moral and Intellectual Condition of Man, by Thomas Chalmers, D. D.
2. On The Adaptation of External Nature to the Physical Condition of Man, by John Kidd, M. D.
3. Astronomy and General Physics considered with reference to Natural Theology, by William Whewell, D. D.
4. The hand, its Mechanism and Vital Endowments as evincing Design, by Sir Charles Bell.
5. Animal and Vegetable Physiology considered with reference to Natural Theology, by Peter Mark Roget.
6. Geology and Mineralogy considered with reference to Natural Theology, by William Buckland, D.D.
7. On the History, Habits and Instincts of Animals, by William Kirby.
8. Chemistry, Meteorology, and the Function of Digestion, considered with reference to Natural Theology, by William Prout, M.D.

Dr. Whewell’s task was to argue for the existence of God as evidenced by the findings of astronomy and general physics. In a section on “The Length of the Year” he made this observation:

“The length of the year or interval of recurrence of the seasons is determined by the time which the earth employs in performing its revolution round the sun: and we can very easily conceive the solar system so adjusted that the year should be longer or shorter than it actually is. We can imagine the earth to revolve round the sun at a distance greater or less than that which it at present has, all the forces of the system remaining unaltered. If the earth were removed towards the centre by about one-eighth of its distance, the year would be diminished by about a month; and in the same manner it would be increased by a month on increasing the distance by one-eighth.

We can suppose the earth at a distance of 84 or 108 millions of miles, just as easily as at its present distance of 96 millions: we can suppose the earth with its present stock of animals and vegetables placed where Mars or where Venus is, and revolving in an orbit like one of theirs: on the former supposition our year would become twenty- three, on the latter seven of our present months. Or we can conceive the present distances of the parts of the system to continue what they are, and the size, or the density of the central mass, the sun, to be increased or diminished in any proportion; and in this way the time of the earth’s revolution might have been increased or diminished in any degree; a greater velocity, and consequently a diminished period, being requisite, in order to balance an augmented central attraction. In any of these ways the length of the earths natural year might have been different from what it now is: in the last way without any necessary alteration, so far as we can see, of temperature.

Now, if any change of this kind were to take place, the working of the botanical world would be thrown into utter disorder, the functions of plants would be entirely deranged, and the whole vegetable kingdom involved in instant decay and rapid extinction.”

You may find his work in various formats here: (happy reading!)

Astronomy and General Physics Considered with Reference to Natural Theology

Of course you know this most famous work by Thomas Robert Malthus – An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). It is still discussed today among social theorists, Marxists and academicians. Charles Darwin credits his first insight into natural selection as inspired by his reading of Malthus. In addition, Malthus scores Christian apologetics points as he touches upon a variety of issues such as the best life, morality, the purposes of God, the reasonableness of bodily resurrection and the problem of evil. Who knew? It is a fascinating work that went through seven editions.

One extended quote on the reasonableness of bodily resurrection will hopefully pique your interest. He begins with a thought experiment…

“The resurrection of a spiritual body from a natural body does not appear in itself a more wonderful instance of power than the germination of a blade of wheat from the grain, or of an oak from an acorn. Could we conceive an intelligent being so placed as to be conversant with inanimate or full grown objects, and never to have witnessed the process of vegetation of growth; and were another being to shew him two little pieces of matter, a grain of wheat and an acorn, to desire him to examine them, to analize them if he pleased, and endeavour to find out their properties and essences; and then to tell him, that however trifling these little bits of matter might appear to him, that they possessed such curious powers of selection, combination, arrangement, and almost of creation, that upon being put into the ground, they would chuse, amongst all the dirt and moisture that surrounded them, those parts which best suited their purpose, that they would collect and arrange these parts with wonderful taste, judgment, and execution, and would rise up into beautiful forms, scarcely in any respect analogous to the little bits of matter which were first placed in the earth, I feel very little doubt that the imaginary being which I have supposed would hesitate more, would require better authority, and stronger proofs, before he believed these strange assertions, than if he had been told that a being of mighty power, who had been the cause of all that he saw around him, and of that existence of which he himself was conscious, would, by a great act of power upon the death and corruption of human creatures, raise up the essence of thought in an incorporeal, or at last invisible form, to give it a happier existence in another state.

The only difference, with regard to our own apprehensions, that is not in favour of the latter assertion is that the first miracle we have repeatedly seen, and the last miracle we have not seen. I admit the full weight of this prodigious difference, but surely no man can hesitate a moment in saying that, putting Revelation out of the question, the resurrection of a spiritual body from a natural body, which may be merely one among the many operations of nature which we cannot see, is an event indefinitely more probable than the immortality of man on earth, which is not only an event of which no symptoms or indications have yet appeared, but is a positive contradiction to one of the most constant of the laws of nature that has ever come within the observation of man.”

More gems such as this are to be found, but I leave it to you, dear Reader, to find them.

An Essay on the Principle of Population

I present to you this wonderful account of a faith lost, then regained. We owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Timothy McGrew for bringing the story of George Romanes back to light. Dr. McGrew is the founder of “The Library of Historical Apologetics,” an effort at “Rediscovering Forgotten Defenders of the Faith.”

Wikipedia opens up the entry on George Romanes with these two paragraphs:

“George John Romanes FRS (20 May 1848 – 23 May 1894) was a Canadian-born English evolutionary biologist and physiologist who laid the foundation of what he called comparative psychology, postulating a similarity of cognitive processes and mechanisms between humans and other animals.

He was the youngest of Charles Darwin’s academic friends, and his views on evolution are historically important. He invented the term neo-Darwinism, which is still often used today to indicate an updated form of Darwinism. Romanes’ early death was a loss to the cause of evolutionary biology in Britain. Within six years Mendel’s work was rediscovered, and a whole new agenda opened up for debate.”

The story of George Romanes, who lived a short 46 years, is a remarkable one in that it describes a serious faith lost due to his reading of Darwin, then regained near the end of his brief life after rethinking the issues. George had a clear insight into the implications of Darwinian theory upon Biblical theology and ethics, and these issues bothered him throughout his adult life. Only a serious reflection, prompted by respected Christian friends, with a dose of apologetics, guided him back to his first convictions of faith.

His health failed him early in life and prompted an earnest reconsideration of all that “science” had taught him. George’s story parallels the life of Anthony Flew in that some questioned his (Mr. Romanes’s) sanity at the return of his faith, just as some questioned Dr. Flew’s rejection of atheism. A sober reading of the evidence in both cases reveals that each had full control of their mental faculties at the time of their change of mind.

There is much to this story, and I leave you a link to Dr. McGrew’s website (and others) where you can complete your reading at leisure. You will not be disappointed.

The Story of George Romanes at The Library for Historical Apologetics

The Life and Letters of George John Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

Thoughts on Religion by the late George John Romanes, edited by Charles Gore, D.D.

Among the pantheon of world-famous atheists of the 20th century we must admit two of the most intellectual were Anthony Flew and Bertrand Russell. Both were trained in philosophy from Britain’s best universities. Dr. Flew studied at Oxford while Russell was a Cambridge man. Flew renounced his atheism and Russell remained steadfast in his unbelief until his death in 1970. I don’t know much about Flew’s personal life but Russell produced an autobiography in 1975. His daughter, Katharine Tait, told her side of the story in her book, “My Father, Bertrand Russell”, also published in 1975.

It is to her story I’d like to turn. She seems to have a very mature understanding of her life with her father and his four wives. Though we tend to distort of our own past by selective memory, she realizes this tendency and balances her initial judgments with more balanced introspection.

I’ll not bore you with the details of their relationship and her memories of her father. Rather, I think you can gather from her thoughts how things went down. I am specifically interested in her recollections of how God played into (and out of) his and her life.

Bertrand Russell and his wife established the Beacon Hill School in 1927 and their two children, John and Katharine, were among its students. It was a progressive education fostered by Bertrand’s belief that children should be presented all the options of a subject and be left to determine their own minds about it. Stuffy textbooks were not to be found at Beacon Hill (the math text was the only exception).

She recalls, “Besides being difficult, the material was often controversial. My father did not intend his education to be propaganda; he always wanted us to consider both sides and then make up our minds… In practice, at Beacon Hill, ‘making up our own minds’ usually meant agreeing with my father, because he knew so much more and could argue so much better; also because we heard ‘the other side’ only from people who disagreed with it. There was never a cogent presentation of the Christian faith, for instance, from someone who really believed in it.”

Regarding her father’s four marriages, she offers:

“Tongue in cheek, my father later claimed his four marriages as proof that he approved of the institution of marriage…All his life he sought perfection: perfect mathematical truth, perfect philosophical clarify, certainty of God’s existence, a perfect formula for society, a perfect woman to live with in a perfect human relationship. And although he never found them anywhere, he never stopped looking.”

Her thoughts on good and evil:

“I believe that good and evil are essential to one another, that neither of them can exist alone and that there is envy, fear, anger, resentment, in every human heart, no matter how well brought up. My father did not believe this. Though these ugly things exited in our hearts, their existence was always denied in our family relations and they were left to fester like hidden wounds.”

Later, while in college at Radcliffe, she was asked by a fellow student about her thoughts on God. She remembers the incident and recalls:

“One day I sat in he library talking to a handsome young man who was a fellow student in one of my German classes. ‘Don’t you believe in any kind of God?’ he asked, knowing who my father was. ‘No,’ I said, ‘I don’t. It doesn’t seem to me necessary. ‘Then what is the point of living?’ ‘Well, I’ve been born now. I have little choice. Might as well go ahead and make the best of it.’ ‘That seems so bleak. How can you bear it?’ ‘Does it? Maybe. It’s just the way life is, the way the world happens to have developed. Not much use wishing it were otherwise.’ My godless world looked as desolate to him as a lifeless world would to me, but I was used to its impersonal freedom, never having known any other. At the same time, I was well aware that my existential despair was mere self-indulgence and that, God or no God, I would have to return someday to the humdrum world of doing good, helping individuals and mankind to the full extent of my rational benevolence, as I had been taught.”

On her marriage and nagging frustration with life’s big questions:

“I was the fortunate wife of a promising young civil servant with two charming children. I had everything I wanted, yet I was not happy. What was wrong with me? In those years, the constant mental dialogue I carry on with my father took the form of reading The Conquest of Happiness,in the hope that it might help me.

The book promised a cure for ‘the ordinary day-to-day unhappiness from which most people in civilized countries suffer, and which is all the more unbearable because, having no obvious external cause, it appears inescapable.’ It seemed made to order for me, until I discovered that he considered puritan morals the cause of such unhappiness and their rejection its cure. What help was that to me, who had been brought up without this burden? How was I to explain or excuse my steady misery?…I must be a sad failure as a human being. Either that, or my father was mistaken… What could my father tell me about the purpose of living?… I read [my father's] Sceptical Essays and Unpopular Essays, In Praise of Idleness and Marriage and Morals, but they all offered the same solutions: reason, progress, unselfishness, a wide historical perspective, expansiveness, generosity, enlightened self-interest. I had heard it all my life, and it filled me with despair.”

On her father’s religious upbringing…

“In Grandmother Russell’s religion, the only form of Christianity my father knew well, the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss. All hope, all joy, were centered on the life after death and were to be achieved only by unceasing warfare against evil in oneself and others. My father threw this morbid belief out the window…

I believe myself that his whole life was a search for God, or, for those who prefer less personal terms, for absolute certainty…Somewhere at the back of my father’s mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depths of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God, and he never found anything else to put in it…”

The religion my parents had grown up in was a dry morality without grace, a series of impossible demands that left them defeated and depressed. They escaped from it joyfully into a free life that affirmed their own goodness and expected their children’s. And yet they passed on to us the same impossible demands from which they had suffered…”

On her conversion to Christianity (Surprise, surprise!)

“Before I started going to church, I had been running about the world, like Christian in Pilgrim’s Progress, looking for a way to escape the burden of my sin, and neither my father nor psychiatry had been able to help me…I remained ‘weary of earth and laden with my sin,’ just like my father in his youth.”

She and her husband began going to church and “as we went on going, Sunday by Sunday, I listened attentively to the hymns, the prayer book, the words of the Bible, even the sermons. As I listened, I began to think that what I heard made sense out of everything…And I found it easier to believe in a universe created by an eternal God than in one that had ‘just happened.’ For me, the belief in forgiveness and grace was like sunshine after long days of rain. No matter what I did, no matter how low I fell, God would be there to forgive, to pick me up and set me on my feet again. Though I could not earn his love, neither could I lose it. It was absolute, not conditional…”

On her desire to share her faith with her father:

“I would have liked to convince my father that I had found what he had been looking for, the ineffable something he had longed for all his life. I would have liked to persuade him that the search for God does not have to be vain. But it was hopeless. He had known too many blind Christians, bleak moralists who sucked the joy from life and persecuted their opponents; he would never have been able to see the truth they were hiding…All I could do was trust him to God’s care, knowing that God loved him more than I did and would do what was best for him.”

Wow. Powerful stuff. No commentary needed. As Jesus said, “He that has ears to hear, let him hear.”

For more of her story, you can find her book on Amazon.

My grad school philosophy and apologetics professor, Dr. Thomas B. Warren (God rest his soul), has the distinction of holding the longest debate on the Existence of God on record. His debate with Anthony Flew on four consecutive nights in Denton, Texas was a masterpiece of preparation and execution. Dr. Warren’s charts and diagrams went up like smoke from a fire.

Dr. Flew was considered the world’s premier philosophical atheist. He had spent his life arguing the atheist position and had written many important philosophical works, including God and Philosophy (1966) and Evolutionary Ethics (1967). He held to the presupposition of atheism and claimed that it was the default position.

The debate covers a large swath of intellectual territory including evolution, the classic arguments for the existence of God – the cosmological and teleological arguments, and more. Dr. Warren is a skilled logician and it shows during the debate. If you have an interest in serious philosophical discussion, take a day out of your life and listen to this debate. You will be richly rewarded.

Warren – Flew Debate