Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy

The Part One of the book is wolderful. Much autors explain the cause of the bigbang as quantuum fluctuation and this is wrong because would be impossible quantuum fluctuations in the nothingness. The autor point this out very well and finished with this false paradigma definitely. Also the fine tunning problem of the universe is very well described in details. Thus God must have created the universe and I am not in the mind of God to know why He prefered the long term Darwinian evolution and why if in this universe with trillions and trillions os stars only we (Fermi paradox seems to be true) exist. But I am a mortal retired electrical enginner living in Rio de Janeiro 77 years old and not God. But this uniquiness of mankind should be mentioned. Part Two is phylisofical and I think should be another book because is a little tiring. Any way it is a good book. The first book to mention Fine Tunning was the excelent book Just Six Numbers of the Royal Astronomer of UK Martin Rees in 2001 and nobody mention this!
The author Robert Spritzer is a priest and his book has no bias of this fact. He is very familiar with modern physics and philosophy.
Congratulation!
Paulo (Fernando Veiga do) Amaral

In the first paragraph of the Introduction, Father Spitzer charges that recent popular books on agnosticism and/or atheism disregard "the considerable evidence for theism provided by physics and philosophy during the last few decades" (p. 1). That left me extremely excited to read and learn more. Unfortunately, Father Spitzer's own book - especially the beginning - is written in a manner which requires some fluency in physics. I believe that better editing would have made this a much more accessible book.

Though he was a university president, Father Spitzer's scientific credentials are not made clear. This is a great shortcoming of the book.

The author of this book is a highly esteemed theologian/philosopher. As such, his many arguments in this treatise are very profound and well thought-through. Being an author myself and 40+ year researcher on most of the subjects this book targets I can say with some degree of authority that I believe Dr. Spitzer could have made the same points more effectively by employing a much less verbose and technical narrative. His contributions to knowledge are important enough that, had he chosen a less formal approach, he could have potentially reached a much wider audience.

Here's the ultimate praise any reviewer could give: "I wish I could have written that". I was particularly impressed by the use of the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem about finite past time in all reasonable cosmologies, to demonstrate a beginning for the Universe. With regard to the anthropic coincidences that are used to demonstrate an intelligent designer for our universe, Fr. Spitzer's exposition has the virtue of being focused and well organized, in contrast to some others on this subject, where the coincidences are piled one on top of another, until at the 378th coincidence one's eyes begin to glaze. And he has the ethos of science nailed down, that is to say, he marks science as an empirical enterprise that can give evidence for an intelligent designer (that is, be a sign-post to God), but, unlike metaphysics, cannot "prove" the existence of God.

The philosophy was heavy going for me, but presented clearly and convincingly. (The second and third readings will be even more valuable I assume.) I was particularly impressed by Fr. Spitzer's demonstration of an unconditioned reality ("First Cause"?) and by the categorization of the several kinds of infinity, and why Hilbert disavowed Kantor's infinite set theory (the Hotel that can never be filled?). Thank you Fr. Spitzer; I'm looking forward to your next book on the intersection of science, philosophy and faith, in which some of the topics that couldn't be covered in detail in "New Proofs" might be discussed: evolution, mind and soul, and quantum mysteries.

Beware. This work is NOT for the average reader. It takes someone with an advanced degree in a branch of modern theoretical science, or the equivalent in post-graduate study and research, at the very least, to even begin to attempt to evaluate the book's worth. Even with the required education, I'm still uncertain of its practical value. Albert Einstein once stated - "If someone can't explain their ideas plainly and easily, they do not understand the subject very well themself." In the early part of the book the author made a few interesting points regarding the implications of recent discoveries in microbiology and quantum physics. After that the book decends into a quagmire of highly subjective discussions from the perspective of theological philosophy and conjecture. Problem is .... if you don't accept the author's opening premise on many of the esoteric-philiosophical points which follow (as many will not) the remainder of his discussion is confusing and moot. If the author's point in writing this book had been to establish a legitimate case for a small-g "god" ... one that is a natural force of nature, as in the Eastern sense of cosmology, and left it at that, the book might have some merit. Regretably it seems his underlying objective was to support an untenable case for the real existence of the Biblical "God Almighty." No doubt the FIVE-STAR reviews are all coming from established clergymen.

This book is worth reading and having on your bookshelf. It does indeed discuss "new proofs" despite the critics claim that there is nothing "new." The author clearly points out that a couple of new scientific discoveries (dating between 2003 to the present) help ratify, extend and transform some previous proofs.

As someone with an advanced knowledge of astrophysics, I can tell you that just because someone builds off an existing idea doesn't mean that person's idea is not new. Einstein extended and transformed Newton's ideas. Newton transformed Kepler's. Kepler transformed ideas from someone else, etc.

So the critic, unable to comprehend the scientific arguments of this book, resorts to cheap shots by claiming this book is not "new." Don't believe them. Buy the book.

This book is incredible. It makes an astonishing case for the existence of God, and clearly demonstrates that alternatives to a "created universe" are the weaker scientific propositions. But it does something more. It gives us mortals an inkling into the nature of God. A transcendent intelligence who not only created the universe, but sustains it. It goes a long way toward not only answering the what, but the why of the created world.

It is not an easy read, and is done in a style that will withstand academic scrutiny. I'd suggest that you read it very deliberately, and have faith that it will all come together. If you stay with it, I promise gushes of insight throughout the book.

Science has been the mothers milk of atheism for 400 years. In the next generation that will all change. The accidental universe is no longer a sustainable proposition. Human kind is at a significant turning point in our understanding of ourselves. Enjoy.

Fr. Robert Spitzer (Jesuit, former President of Gonzaga University) doesn't just put a telesope or a microscope to his peepers as he scans the cosmos for design and declares that God exists! He utilizes logic, deep philosophical thought as he makes a case for theism and refutes atheism forasmuch as asserts that "incomplete, illogical, and nonsystematic thought" is not "good enough. Unfortunately, it never is." And in "New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy" Fr. Spitzer delivers fascinating and compelling potent proofs for God's existence based on logic and systematic thought.

The author provides captivating evidence for theism drawn from the realms of physics and philosophy discovered within the last 50 years.

"New Proofs for the Existence of God" includes proofs that are built upon concepts such as:

- space-time asymmetry to cosmic coincidences to the intelligibility of actuality
- string theory
- quantum cosmology
- mathematical thoughts on infinity and additional material.

I would add that Scripture declares: "Your throne, O God, is established from of old; You are from everlasting" (Psalms 93:2). And mathematics has demonstrated that infinite numbers exist in theory. So how can one account for infinite numbers if one solely relies on a finite epistemic foundation (finite cosmos interpreted by finite human minds)? Can ascribing theism as one's epistemic source be the solution? Can presupposing an infinite transcendent God justify infinite numbers? For one can count: 1, 2, 3, 4,... and go on infinitely. One can count backwards: -1, -2, -3, -4,... and go on infinitely in that direction. Yet our universe is finite. Without an infinite God, one cannot account for infinite numbers.

Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite (Psalms 147:5).

This intriguing and dazzling assortment of evidence furnishes the reader with powerful reasons to know that God is the transcendent source for the cosmos and mankind.
------
See the New Book that contends for the existence of God using moral absolutes by Mike Robinson:
There Are Moral Absolutes: How to Be Absolutely Sure That Christianity Alone Supplies
------
or additionally see the dynamic new book on apologetics:
Truth, Knowledge and the Reason for God: The Defense of the Rational Assurance of Christianity
or
 type in the ASIN #:1432706322

I am a Christian (of Fr. Spitzer's own tradition), have Bachelor and Master degrees in physics, am currently pursuing a PhD in physics, and study philosophy as a hobby (e.g. Sts. Augustine, Aquinas, and John Paul II; Sheed, Weinandy, Flew & Varghese). Please believe, then, that I don't have an agenda or prejudice when I say that this is the first book I've read by Fr. Spitzer, and the last of his I am inclined to read without a full refund. I did not realize I was effectively paying him to be his proofreader: This text is riddled with errors. I cannot recommend anyone read it, especially if they are looking to convince a disbeliever in God's existence. The few arguments that aren’t logically invalid rest on uncertain premises. I say this as someone in his target audience who's even on his side. This book also suffers from verbosity and needless repetition; I doubt a skeptic would have the patience to have his time wasted in such a manner.

I’ve written a detailed rebuttal of most of his arguments, showing where the errors are (there are some grossly obvious ones) -- and these errors are philosophical, logical ones. Since they are obvious to novice philosophers such as myself (for example, in his proof against circular conditioned realities, he trips over his own definitions), it makes me think poorly of Fr. Spitzer and that this book was a rush job published without an editor.

My rebuttal is about 4500 words long, whereas the store encourages a 500 word review, so I will try to publish it elsewhere on the store and briefly summarize here.

I decided to give the book a weighted average (perhaps fitting since it advertises to be scientific), omitting unrated portions. I used Netflix 5 star rating, “hated it”, “didn’t like it”, “liked it”, “really liked it”, “loved it”. The result is 1.79 of 5 stars, or 36% good, 64% bad. I read the Kindle edition; the breakdown:

(Section, Percentage, Rating of 5)
Part 1, 0-28: 1.5
At best, the cosmogonical arguments are presented at a level for professional cosmologists; at worst (i.e. for everyone else), it is "Take my word for it." Regarding the fine-tuning argument in particular, my primary objection was completely neglected by Fr. Spitzer, which is inexcusable since he goes out of his way to include much unnecessary physics, whereas my question is a central challenge to the proof.
Chapter 3, 29-36: 1
The author's occasional failures ruined the entire argument. One fatal error is the consequence of him misapplying (forgetting) his own definitions!
Chapter 4, 36-45: 2
The only redeeming thing about this chapter -- hence two stars instead of one -- is that it introduced me to new ideas, and I gained experience with critical thinking. This chapter's argument is built upon very weak assumptions without evidence. Moreover, Spitzer actually provides a compelling demonstration /against/ his own argument, particularly since he fails to comment on the problems that arise through his discussion.
Chapter 5, 45-55: 1
This chapter is plagued with the author's insistence that time is an "aggregating structure". He makes other obvious errors as well, such as considering 'infinity' to mean "a large number" and referring to a time before time existed, errors that are inexcusable for someone purporting to write a book concerning scientific evidence.
Chapter 6, 55-61: 2.5
He summarizes logical principles, wastes the reader’s time, demonstrates how his theology is non-falsifiable, and presents weak or irrelevant discussion about the mystery of suffering.
Chapter 7, 61-66: 2
Fr. Spitzer waxes eloquent on beauty, truth, and justice. This chapter is essentially a giant hypothesis with no proof. It’s pleasant thinking, but not self-evident and still ignoring human suffering.
Chapter 8, 66-75: 2.5
Fr. Spitzer seems to repeat himself here, emphasizing our desire instead of what we desire, the opposite end of the line segment, so to speak. Ultimately nothing is proven and it’s all postulation.

Ending the book, he regrettably completely ignores the “lack of elephant in the room”: After emphasizing this infinite love, empathy, and compassion of God, and even after affirming God’s desire to befriend and seek out the reader, he makes not a single comment on how this same God is invisible, does not answer when addressed, does not grant prayers when asked, does not speak to anyone except via a text written by men millennia ago. His closing message is in effect: “This God (who I’ve failed to prove exists) loves you more than you can comprehend and wants to be the fulfillment of your every desire, but He’s hiding and you’ll have to read dozens of books and convince yourself that He exists and that He loves you.”

References, 75-81: not rated
Index, 81-88: not rated
Endnotes, 88-100: 2.5
The endnotes usually added nothing to the argument, were sources for statements that weren’t interesting, or were elegant articulations of a point already stated that one either already agreed with, or else (as I’ve already said) adds nothing to the argument. Most of them were simply sources for statements. It is good that he’s cited his sources.

Spitzer, chapter by chapter, makes Occam's razor like arguments and eviscerates the atheist position. The complexity many speak of evolves from our human ability to argue, like a binomial expansion, against something we perhaps don't want to believe. (Because if one truely believes then one has the responsibility to respond). These compounding arguments necessitate more detailed responses. Spitzer obliges and in doing so cuts through emotional outcries disguised as logic. Read this book.

Since this book's strengths are outlined in other reviews, I won't retread them here. The bottom line is that it does make an interesting and compelling case for the existence of, to use Spitzer's own words: one, unique, unconditioned, absolutely simple, infinite, unrestrictedly intelligible, unrestricted act of understanding that is the continuous creator of all else that is [p.239]. While a lot of this case is not completely new, particularly if you are familiar with the relevant literature, he brings new interpretations and ways of stating these arguments in an over-all Thomistic framework.

Like Aquinas, in the section of the "Summa" where he presents the five ways, Spitzer follows the same tactic of showing how far unaided human reason can take us. Also, like Aquinas, once the arguments are in, he concludes that they point to what is normally identified by people with the word "God." However, as Placher has pointed out, in "The Domestication of Transcendence," within the greater presentation of the "Summa" this section and its conclusion can also be seen as a limiting argument: how far unaided human reason cannot take us in light of how far revelation shows there is to go. This is why Placher thinks that Aguinas' argument for the existence of God does not stop in that section of the "Summa," but is concluded much later in the section on the Incarnation.

This raises two spots in the flow of thought in "New Proof" that need to be strengthened. First, when we move from the earlier chapters of the book, where the bottom line outlined above is argued, to the later chapters, where the attempt is made to bring this conclusion more tightly in line with a theistic God, there is a noticeable shift in tone. We move from one of more assured argumentation to one of suggestiveness. Spitzer is open in admitting this and it does not hurt his position, as it all does add up to a big pointer directing us in a certain direction. In light of the rest of the book, it should raise the reader's suspicion that everything does likely converge on the same conclusion. However, as suspicious as this collection of clues is, they do not clinch the argument and prove it to be the theistic God that Spitzer believes in. Given his methodology and aim for this book, it is probably as far as he can go. However, it does highlight why Placher thinks Aquinas' argument about God is continued later in the "Summa" and suggests the need for a more theologically oriented sequel for "New Proofs" that would "flesh out" the argument for those willing to follow it there.

Second, the book is located in the dialogue between theism, science and philosophy in the Western world. In today's global exchange of ideas, one cannot ignore how readers in the philosophical traditions birthed out of India and China would see this evidence. "God" may be the word that people in the West, or in the place and time of Aquinas, normally thought identified the conclusion of these arguments, but that is not necessarily so elsewhere. I can easily see a Buddhist philosopher, particularly one trained in Madhyamaka, responding, "Well, I don't see how this is proof of a theistic God, especially the Christian one, but thanks for all the new proofs for the existence of nirvana/sunyata." Many Mahayanists, particularly those influenced by the Vijnanavada tradition, could say the same regarding Buddhamind/tathagatagharba. And I am suspicious that a Daoist would be seeing the Dao. These alternative conclusions are easily seen in the more philosophical descriptions used in the book. Even in the later chapters, where we see descriptions many would understand as personal, others, in the Buddhist tradition, at least, use the same or similar terminology for their competing bottom line, too, but do not think it is a theistic God.

In conclusion, the book can be challenged, in the light of available alternative interpretations, as to whether or not it has given "new proofs for the existence of God," unless you wish to argue that God is equivalent to these alternative explanations. Whether or not Spitzer would wish to do so, I do not know. From material on his web site, I would think not. Regardless, again we see reason for a new chapter or sequel that addresses this issue. For those who know the details of these Eastern philosophies, the seeds for a response, pro or con, are already in the book, but for the target audience these hints should be drawn together and put into engagement with these competing philosophies if Spitzer wants to maintain that his theistic conclusions have more explanatory power. Given how much of this book is rooted in cosmology and quantum physics, and how far into these fields Eastern ideas have penetrated over the past forty years, I am surprised that Spitzer did not deal with this issue. It is a widely known rival interpretation ranging from the numerous modern academic books on the Buddhist dialogue with science all the way back to old, populist titles like "The Tao of Physics."

This book absolutely blown me away.
Definitely something to be digested over the course of many weeks.
Let the proofs churn in your brain until you realize the Holy Spirit handiwork in this book's creation.

The only use of modern Science is to establish that there cannot have been infinite past time. Maybe not, but that hardly constitutes evidence for the existence of any Creator-God and certainly not the God of the Bible.
His references to modern Science are frequently flawed. For example, he assumes the Big Bang Universe began with low entropy. As Victor Stenger pointed out in "Has Science Found God..." the BB Universe started out with high entropy and entropy has only been able to increase since the beginning because the Universe's maximum entropy has increased as the Universe has expanded.
The philosophical "proofs" of God's existence are really "proofs" for the existence of ideal qualities whose relationships to God are assumed although they are very questionable. Basically, they're all the old metaphysical First Cause type of argument. No arguments or evidence that is really new for the existence of God. The only evidence from Science is that the Universe had a beginning and the Science only applies to the Big Bang "Universe" and no scientist would agree either that the Big Bang Universe is all that exists or that nothing existed before it. Yet, the author defines God as the Creator of all that exists.
His argument is basically that there must be an unconditioned reality (uncaused cause) and that it must be God, and that this unconditioned reality continually satisfies the conditions for everything to exist. That's a far leap without any real justification.
I gave it two stars because I learned from reading the book, for example, that only metaphysics deals with disjunctions of caused/uncaused, finite/infinite, etc, which supposedly gives metaphysics more power than Science to prove things like the existence of God. Frankly, it only makes me very suspicious of Metaphysics, if it depends on such semantic games as assuming that one and only one of any two opposites must always be true, and the other false.
Overall, a big disappointment. I had hopes for something new and meaningful, and my impression of what I got was a lot of long-worded educated-sounding nonsense, frequently misrepresenting Science and trying to intimidate readers with multiple-syllable words into thinking he knows what he's writing about. Unfortunately, he actually doesn't seem to know that his conclusions have only a metaphorical relationship to his reasoning.

The amount of proofs for God's existence is totally amazing. It is ridiculous to see these one star reviews from people who are bitter towards the idea of God, and probably didn't even read the book. This book demonstrates that is very reasonable to believe in God, and unreasonable to not believe in a Creator. I guarantee if you actually read this book all the way through you will be impressed.

I want to emphasize the entertaining nature of this genre as evoked by this production. Some research that I did a while ago had me rummaging around in 18th Century expositions similar to this one. Namely, the mega-earnest efforts of divines to use science to prove their beliefs. It is a definite genre, and if history is any guide, this evocation of that genre will not be the most highly thought -of intellectual effort. But it is interesting for sure. In fact the live performance by this man summing up his book, which can be see on Catholic cable, is unbelievably entertaining. First, this man can talk faster than anyone I have ever heard. And his ability to cram the most long winded proofs into a few seconds of airtime is very special. At one point he had spoken so many clauses about "bubbles" and "fine-tuning" in long dangling sentences that when they finally resolved, and one observed his reddened face from the strain of it all, it was a marvel that he did not keel over. Further, when he comes around to giving the very predictable moral of all this, it is as if he had been given "immunity" on one of those survival shows. Namely, that because it is all sooooooo complicated, therefore that you are just as justified in just believing what you are told as something requiring a lot of work to understand. As an aside let me say that these arguments ALWAYS leave out how this pragmatic assumption somehow justifies accepting the extremely complicated corners of Christian revelation. But the hearer is not so much annoyed by the Deus ex Machina character of it all, as glad again that the man, huffing and puffing and spitting into the camera, actually survived the thousand word dash. Like a sweaty guy making it from his car to the door of the Five Guys. It was honestly one of the funniest and impressive things I have seen in a long time. And clearly those two adjectives don't often go comfortably together. God bless his valiant ticker!

Standard anti-science strategy. Spitzer does a decent job of summarizing certain ideas in cosmology, emphasizing the skeptical view. Most of the scientists involved expressed the skepticism themselves. That leads scientists towards narrower, more falsifiable hypothesis. But Spitzer, like anti-science lobbyists against climate change and cigarette companies against medical science, uses scientific skepticism as evidence of scientific failure. Priests have been writing books like this for centuries. They used to rule the world, now people look to science. Their books always get dated, because science progresses. Spitzer hangs his "proofs" on the inadequacy of quantum fluctuations as a cause of the universe's structure. Stuff will turn up that nobody's thought about, to explain the perturbations, and they won't be "weak" theory anymore. But Spitzer's book will become a curiosity.

After getting half way through the book, I decided that it would just be easier to believe in God then finish the book.......

It is VERY pithy, and will definitely appeal to a certain type...... (those who like to feel superior to others because of their ability to finish books like this)

The first two chapters of this book can be called new, in that they are efforts to demonstrate the existence of God from the the implications of the Big Bang and the narrow range of universal constants. Thereafter, the "new" proofs are largely "translations" of the Thomistic proofs (i.e., from the philosophy and theology of St Thomas Aquinas, ca. 1220-1270 AD), dumbed down for first-year philosophy students. The one chapter in these which appeared to be new, that based on Lonergan's epistemology, was in fact Lonergan turned about to support a Thomistic approach. Now, for people unfamiliar with Thomism, or baffled by its terminology, much of this book may seem "new." To those introduced to philosophy through the Thomistic model, only a couple of things will actually be "new." Father Spitzer, you should be ashamed of yourself for your choice of title. And you owe me eighteen bucks back.

In 1963, my metaphysics teacher in college was W. Norris Clarke, S.J. According to him, the cosmological argument for God’s existence began historically with Aristotle’s concept of the “prime mover.” Following Aristotle blindly, Thomas Aquinas called the “prime mover” the “first cause.” In the 1920s, Etienne Gilson made the cosmological argument logical and persuasive by focusing attention on the metaphysics of Aquinas. The cosmological argument is this: A finite being needs a cause, therefore, an infinite being exists. It is an argument, not a proof, because it is based on the assumption that humans are finite beings and the hope that the universe is intelligible. In the Western religions, we call the infinite being God.

In the early 1960s, it was discovered that the universe, with all its galaxies and stars, began to exist 13.7 billion years ago as an infinitesimally small particle (the Big Bang). This is a reason to believe God inspired the human authors of the Bible because the Bible says many times that God created the universe from nothing. Since the human authors knew nothing about the expanding universe and the cosmic background radiation, the Big Bang is a sign or a reason to believe in the Bible.

Another reason to believe in the Bible is that atheists-agnostics generally don’t discuss the cosmological argument in a reasonable, intelligent, and honest manner. Instead of saying the cosmological argument for God’s existence is not persuasive, they say, “I don’t know whether or not God exists.” Suffering from cognitive dissonance, atheists-agnostics don’t like to think about the cosmological argument.

Fr. Spitzer thinks the Big Bang is evidence of God’s existence. I think it is evidence that God does not exist because it is evidence that the universe is not intelligible. If two jurors arrive at different verdicts after a long trial, one juror has better judgment than the other. But if one juror says a bit of evidence indicates guilt and the other says it indicates innocence then one juror is more knowledgeable, intelligent, rational, or honest than the other.

Fr. Spitzer also thinks the “fine-tuning” of the constants of physics is evidence of an “intelligent designer.” This nonsense is based on the fact that physicists do not understand why the mass of an electron and the speed of light are what they are. If these numbers were other than what they are, the universe would not be the same as it actually is and there would be no mammals. Since human beings are mammals, we would not exist.

Another example of this reasoning is the fact that Earth is exactly 93 million miles from the Sun. Were this number 92 or 94, it would have been either too hot or cold for living organisms to have arisen and evolved. This is not evidence of an intelligent designer because we know what caused the number to be 93. What caused this distance is Newton’s laws of motion and random chance. If someone does not understand the concept of random chance, you can explain it by pointing out there are many planets that are not 93 million miles away from their sun.

In the “fine-tuning” reasoning, physicists don’t know why the numbers are what they are. Pro-religion and anti-religion enthusiasts, nevertheless, discuss whether or not there are many other universes with different physical constants. They never even consider the metaphysical question of whether or not the universe is intelligible.

There is a passage in the book that sounds like it is consistent with belief in God, but it actually supports atheistic ignorance and stupidity: "Acts of self-consciousness (awareness of awareness) are difficult to explain through regular space-time models (one act of awareness capturing itself, as it were)." (location 2211)

I agree that our ability to turn in on ourselves and catch ourselves in the act of our own existence proves that humans are embodied spirits and the existence of other humans proves we are finite beings. But, compare the Spitzer quote with a quote from the most used biology textbook in the United States:"And certain properties of the human brain distinguish our species from all other animals. The human brain is, after all, the only known collection of matter that tries to understand itself. To most biologists, the brain and the mind are one and the same; understand how the brain is organized and how it works, and we’ll understand such mindful functions as abstract thought and feelings. Some philosophers are less comfortable with this mechanistic view of mind, finding Descartes’ concept of a mind-body duality more attractive." (Neil Campbell, Biology, 4th edition, p. 776)

Fr. Spitzer is confusing two different methods of inquiry: physics and metaphysics. Many atheists-agnostics will admit that human consciousness is a mystery. But if you ask them what caused the Big Bang they will say the same thing: It is a mystery. There are no mysteries in science. There are only unanswered questions because science has an extraordinary track record of success. If scientists didn’t assume this they would not work so hard and so long trying to answer scientific questions. There are only mysteries in metaphysics. We should give up trying to understand what a human being is because that gives us a reason to believe there is a transcendent reality and our freedom is before that reality.

In the cultural conflict about the theory of intelligent design for evolution (ID), both sides behave badly in different ways and for different reasons. In the scandal Wikipedia titles “Sternberg Peer Review Controversy,” the editor of a biology journal published an article promoting ID behind the backs of his fellow editors at the Biological Society of Washington. His colleagues at the Smithsonian Institute were so outraged they behaved very badly towards him and caused a congressional committee to write a report titled, “Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian: Smithsonian’s Top Officials Permit the Demotion and Harassment of Scientist Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution.”

There is another example of pro-religion and anti-religion enthusiasts disagreeing about science. In this case, the God-fearers are paragons of reason and the atheists-agnostics are behaving very irrationally. According to the second law of thermodynamics, heat flows from hot objects to cold objects, not the other way around. Thinking that a cold object is more ordered and complex than a hot object, some God-fearing people say and think evolution violates the second law. In 2008, the American Journal of Physics published an article about evolution and thermodynamics with an absurd calculation proving that evolution does not violate the second law. The American Journal of Physics is refusing to take corrective action because it would become a news item. The American public would then find out how irrational and unintelligent people can be about science and religion.

XXXXX

"[There is a] vast majority...of...evidence for theism provided by physics and philosophy during the last few decades. This evidence is capable of [providing] reasonable and responsible belief in a super-intelligent, transcendent, creative power that stands at the origins of our universe...The main purpose of this book is to give a brief synopsis of this evidence to readers...

I here offer my rendition of the "state-of-the-art" formulation of the proofs [for the existence of God). I hope to provide a staging area to assemble the work of great astrophysicists, cosmologists, and philosophers who have contributed so much to this field, and to bring their thoughts together in a single, comprehensive volume."

The above extract comes from the introduction of this book by Robert J. Spitzer. According to the back cover of this book, Spitzer is "an expert in diverse areas, including theology, physics, metaphysics, and ethics." From reading the endorsements provided on the back cover of this book, he is also a priest and author.

This book is divided into three parts:

In the first part (2 chapters), there is the cosmological argument for God's existence and a teleological argument based on the universal constants.

(Physical cosmology is the branch of physics and astrophysics that deals with the study of the physical origins and evolution of the universe. A teleological argument or argument from design states that the existence of order and direction in nature is due to some kind of purpose. Universal constants in science are physical quantities that are believed to be both universal in nature and constant in time. An example of such a constant is the speed of light in a vacuum.)

The next part (4 chapters) has a metaphysical (see definition below) proof of Saint Thomas Aquinas` (1225 to 1274) "uncaused Cause argument, a metaphysical proof this time based on Father Bernard Lonergan's (1904 to 1984) book "Insight: A Study of Human Understanding" (1957), and a ontological (see definition below) proof that "has a different starting point than the previous two philosophical [or metaphysical] proofs."

Part three (2 chapters) occurs because parts one and two together provided five proofs for the existence of God. It is mainly involved with the relation of humans to God.

At this point, I think it's best to explain the term "New Proofs" found in this book's title. Simply, there are no new proofs.

The two arguments of part one are old proofs that have been successfully refuted in the past and found to be invalid. What these arguments use is "new" scientific information that has been discovered in modern times. Unfortunately, putting modern scientific information into old, invalid arguments still means that the arguments are invalid.

For the three philosophical arguments of part two, Spitzer reformats them into a "new" format and gives us his rendition or interpretation of old arguments that have been successfully refuted in the past and found to be invalid. Unfortunately, reformatting and reinterpreting successfully refuted invalid arguments means that they still are invalid.

The astute reader of this review will deduce that one chapter is devoted to each argument. But part two has three arguments and four chapters. The very interesting extra chapter of this part discusses, among other things, the methodology between metaphysics and science. My guess is that this is the real purpose of this book and, in my opinion, this book should have ended here.

In this extra chapter of part two, Spitzer says that "Metaphysics should not be summarily rejected because it does not correspond to experimental or empirical grounding of science." I disagree. It should be summarily rejected.

Spitzer does not really define metaphysics although in the cosmological argument cited above he states that it means "beyond physics."

Actually, "metaphysics" is a term not easily defined since it's so fuzzy. It is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world. It is closely associated with the study of the nature of knowledge (called epistemology). A central branch of metaphysics is ontology that investigates the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other.

Generally, metaphysics can be thought of as "speculative philosophy" or esoteric, often mystical or theosophical, lore.

A number of prominent philosophers such as David Hume and John Locke have suggested that metaphysics as a whole should be rejected. In fact, John Locke stated that parts of it are "ridiculous" and "nonsensical" because of its very subtle or difficult reasoning.

Who is this book written for? I don't know but it seems not to be for the average reader. Here's a typical paragraph from part two:

"Now, extrinsic instantiation does not have to be through a spatiotemporal continuum. It could be through another medium that keeps the two instances of reality distinct (such as distinct thoughts in the mind of God). But again, one encounters the same problem, namely that the medium through which instances of unrestricted intelligibility are extrinsically instantiated (in this case, the mind of God) would have to be able to answer questions that each of the two distinct instances of unrestricted intelligibility (contents of divine mind) would not be able to answer. Once again, this implies that all hypothetical instances of unrestricted intelligibility would have to be restricted--another intrinsic contradiction."

Finally, the science in the first part of this book is well-presented. I personally found this part of the book very interesting (even though others readers may find it tough going).

In conclusion, this book provides no new proofs for God's existence. As well, I think most people will find it difficult to read.

(first published 2010; acknowledgements; introduction; 3 parts or 8 chapters; conclusion; main narrative 290 pages; references; index)

<<Stephen Pletko, London, Ontario, Canada>>

XXXXX

Considering the solemn approach by other reviewers to this book, I almost feel I should apologize for not taking it at all seriously.

I wish to begin with the title. Again, it seems an apology is due for bringing my own work into this review, but the first part of the above title, "New Proofs for the Existence of God", could easily be held plagiarized from that part of my book, "On Proof for the Existence of God". More substantively, the title strikes one as no less than ridiculous, since there have never been accepted "old" proofs in this regard. What is more, although the author repeatedly and confidently alleges his many proofs in his arguments, he recognizes that (p.103) "When the logical and metaphysical necessity of an efficient cause, the demonstrable absence of a material one, and the proof that there was an absolute beginning to any universe or multiverse are all conjoined with the fact that our universe exists and its conditions are fine-tuned immeasurably beyond the capacity of any mindless process, the scientific evidence points inexorably toward transcendent intelligent agency as the most plausible, if not the only reasonable explanation".

"Plausible" and "reasonable" do not constitute proof, with all of the author's contended proofs revolving around the last quoted sentence. Let us further examine that sentence.

It speaks of "the logical and metaphysical necessity of an efficient cause". This "necessity" is based on (p.45) the "metaphysical premise" that "from nothing, only nothing comes", which the author himself qualifies: "if it is a priori true". There is no such a priori truth. The concept of causation derives from worldly experience, by which particular physical events are found to result from other particular physical events. There is no logical necessity demanding that anything whatsoever must have a cause.

The examined sentence additionally speaks of "the proof that there was an absolute beginning to any universe or multiverse". This theme is one where the author alleges his many proofs in arriving at that inference, and together with "the demonstrable absence of a material" cause and the "fine-tuned" universe, he concludes: "the scientific evidence points inexorably toward transcendent intelligent agency as the most plausible" explanation.

The "demonstrable absence of a material" cause for "any universe or multiverse" follows of course from the "absolute beginning" of the universe or multiverse, the beginning of everything material. But does it point "inexorably toward transcendent intelligent agency"? As noted, the author also argues that "our universe [is] fine-tuned immeasurably beyond the capacity of any mindless process". How is this inference from fine-tuning to a mind justified? The fine-tuning is a frequent subject by authors, and warrants added consideration.

There are extensive arguments for the insignificance of the fine-tuning enabling life, and they resort to probabilities. They lead to the idea of multiverses as an infinity of universes, so as to make our universe one probabilistic happenstance amidst the infinity. However, the multiverses are unnecessary. Probability does not require existence of all possibilities, only the likelihood of a particular one. So if any imaginable universe is likely, ours can happen to be the only existing one. But is imaginable likelihood real? Reality is not dependent on our imagination. Reality is what it is and happens to be "fine-tuned" as observed. But is the fine-tuning surprising? If reality were different in whatever way, it would be fine-tuned to be that way. In other words, the fact that reality is fine-tuned to be whatever it is does in itself not imply an intelligent cause.

The central issue, to be sure, is exactly the existence of a responsible agent behind reality, an agent we identify with God. The book's author uses a similar way to that by St. Thomas Aquinas of identifying God. Aquinas presented his relatively brief arguments to infer an existing entity of which he said such as: "And this we call God". But our author is anything but brief, relying on most intricate late scientific data and combinations of mathematical findings, many of these unresolved and treated by him in a dilettantish way. It seems that if God gave us evidence of his existence, the evidence should be simple and accessible anytime. Nonetheless, our author likewise arrives at certain descriptions of an entity which he then identifies as God. Thus (p.143): "the 'unique, absolutely simple, unrestricted, unconditioned Reality itself which is the continuous Creator of all else that is' must exist. This Reality corresponds to what is generally thought to be 'God'".

How this characterization of a purportedly existing reality was arrived at is itself incomprehensibly contorted, but space here does not allow going into it. What should suffice is that the lengthy description hardly "corresponds to what is generally thought to be 'God'". What is generally thought to be "God", in a universal sense not limited to a particular religion, seems rather simply an Almighty who is caretaker of all of us.

As a review of interesting physics, Spitzer's book is more informed than the complete ignorance found in most works trying to use science to justify theism. Still, there's a lot that's missing. For example, the argument that the second law of thermodynamics renders cosmic bounce cosmologies impossible misses the essential concept that thermodynamics is a statistical law that does NOT preclude changes of state that reduce entropy (as Poincare pointed out a century ago), and ultimately is supported here only by the statement that it is silly, which is hardly a scientific proof. Second, the probability of our current universe arising randomly from all possible universes does not define with specificity how one is to describe the space of all possible universes and further ignores the idea that there are an infinite number of universes that would act essentially as ours does if we change combinations of fundamental constants.

More problematic is that Spitzer doesn't address the unlikelihood of a universe arising that contains at least one god able to create a universe like ours. Even if our universe is a statistical anomaly, in what way is the creator not at least as anomalous?

The truly fatal flaw here, however, is that Spitzer sets out the goal of proving that the universe was created by an unconditionally loving God. This notion is simply incompatible with Judaism and Christianity expressed in the Bible. The God of the Old Testament punished Adam and Eve (and every other human being) for disobeying him when they did not have the capacity of distinguishing right from wrong; killed children in Egypt solely to show how powerful he was; ordered genocidal wars, mass rape, and slavery; demanded the death of certain rape victims; and caused fetuses to be aborted to punish entire cities. God sold the ancient Hebrews into slavery twice in the Book of Judges alone (eventually the Philistines caught on that God would eventually free the Hebrews, so they stopped paying God for the Jewish slaves he provided). Jesus was an altogether more friendly deity, though he, too had his moments of cruelty, such as condemning entire cities to violent extermination because most of their residents didn't believe in his miracles and stating that slaves who don't follow their masters' instructions because they didn't know what their masters' instructions were can only be beaten lightly. These notions are not compatible with an unconditionally loving god. Indeed, Psalm 5:5 very clearly states that God hates all workers of iniquity. If Spitzer isn't trying to prove the existence of God as described in the Bible, then who does he think the creator was?

I suppose this book might be interesting to those (Unitarians, perhaps, or at least the ones who believe in God) who think the tougher parts of the Bible need to be removed and who don't mind applying so-so physics but bad logic to the problem of where the universe came from, which is why I give it two stars, but anyone else should face the truth that science really doesn't provide evidence for or against the existence of God, and says absolutely nothing about whether God loves unconditionally.

The Apostle Paul warned us to ignore the teachings of science. Even then, he knew that the science in the Bible was pretty flimsy. If you want to believe things for reasons other than there being evidence for them, you don't need to read books like Spitzer's, you should take Paul's advice. If you do need evidence to back up your beliefs, you aren't going to find much in this book.

First of all, the writing is deplorable. This guy is inarticulate. Secondly, he lifts arguments others made years and years ago and acts like he's selling you something new. P. C. W. Davies, Bernard Lonergan, Anselm, Gordon van Wylen, etc., did a much better job articulating these "new" arguments. He neglects the valid criticisms against the arguments he proposes. For example, he apparently is oblivious to the weaknesses of some of these arguments, such as the ontological argument and the one regarding stellar evolution of the Big Bang. Norman Malcolm salvaged Anselm's ontological argument. I highly recommend that Malcolm be read, not this guy, regarding the ontological argument. Furthermore, if you read Origins: The Lives and Worlds of Modern Cosmologists
by Alan Lightman, you will find out the Big Bang argument blew up a long, long time ago. Yet, this guy ignores that fact, and even fails to give credit where credit is due. Finally, he offers an unusual means of salvation that utilizes the philosophy of Bernard Lonergan such that, upon a Kantian type of experience of transcendental categories, we arrive at all we were supposed to arrive at spiritually. And he does this without the slightest reference to Jesus Christ. This guy never left the synagogue. In fact, it's shameful that he lives off Catholic donations even though he comes from a rich family of Ashkenazi origin. Don't let this guy fool you. And don't let him take your money. There's more honor in giving money to a loan shark than to this guy.

I also bought the book thinking maybe someone had actually found some "new proof". Instead, what I read was just the old proofs reworded with some updated science thrown in for good measure. The book is filled with the same old preconceived notions and faulty evidence for a intelligent designer. You can't form a scientific proof for the existence of God if you start from an absolute that "God must exist". It is the greatest error that all of these authors make and none of them have been able to get around: "Absence for an explanation of something does not automatically mean that God must have done it." Belief and science are incompatible because science looks for evidence and facts not leaps of faith. Theologians need to stay out of the theoretical physics business and stick with the scriptures.

To quote a reviewer on a religious site: "There is an abundance and variety of life in this world. How could it have possibly gotten here except by divine creation? It is common sense that life would not be here and could not be here, except it being put here by God. It is no doubt likewise true that the universe would not be here as well, if not put here by divine creation. It is as well, that the love of God and God's love, would go to show this all as well. God loves, so there is the universe. This is real common sense."

This is the kind of mentality you are dealing with when religion attempts to employ science as a tool for "proving God". It's a sideshow.

I'm very familiar with Spitzer's arguments regarding the existence of a creator. It's hard to believe that he is looking at metaphysics objectively, being a Jesuit Priest and everything, so you have to understand his bias before you try to understand his claims. I find he has a huge disconnect between his role as a scientist and his role as a priest. Spitzer has a site [...] where you can learn more about his views and ask some questions, and if you want to see him walk away from logic, start asking about specifics in the Bible or who created our creator[...]He quickly breaks away from scientific explanation and delves deeply into philosophy, which is ambiguous at best. All of his deductions are geared towards supporting a single claim, when other logical deductions are viable.

I understand his assertions that there is a design, the probability of it happening without a creator seems incredibly low, but then the questions stop there. In the end, he believes just like anyone else that this all just happened, but he would rather believe that our creator came from nothing rather than our universe coming from nothing. The concept that our creator always is and always was is not a good explanation, though I'm sure it works for people that don't want to be so intellectual about the subject. Spitzer makes some valiant efforts in trying to describe concepts of a creator with a creator with a creator, ad infinitum, as a concept of something coming from nothing, but I believe he has failed in doing so. He tosses out the realities which are conditioned in their existence and realities that are conditioned by time only because his agenda is to defend realities that have a beginning.

Spitzer touches upon physics and only absorbs the material that fits his agenda. The Big Bang has many other non-proven theories that surround it. He is making assumptions and illogical deductions in many of his claims about the specific nature of the universe before and immediately after the Big Bang. There is a lot that he is not willing to consider and I believe that it clouds his logic. He is not willing to consider a very important side of the equation, the concept that perhaps there is no God. He likes to speak of God's existence in terms of probability and statistics, but as another reviewer pointed out "he does not address the unlikelihood of a universe arising that contains at least one god able to create a universe like ours. Even if our universe is a statistical anomaly, in what way is the creator not at least as anomalous?"

This kind of book might help someone who already believes in a God, but to anyone who views the concept objectively and knows anything about the big bang, thermodynamics and the scientific process in general, Spitzer's concepts are not going to help you out very much. I'm not the only one who thinks this way either, as I know my concepts are shared by Stephen Hawking, a far more renowned and respected authority in science than Robert J. Spitzer. I watched Spitzer's appearance on the Larry King show last year and was sorely disappointed, as I was hoping to hear Spitzer speak up a bit more in a real debate with real scientists regarding these concepts. Not sure why he didn't speak up and allowed Chopra to take over the conversation, maybe we'll get to see a Hawking/Spitzer face-off again in the future.

When one encounters such a proposition, it shows the pervasiveness of intellectual dishonesty to actually further persuade the masses of theistic delusions. Not to mention the oxymoronic nature of the title itself.

Any author who has not gone beyond the illogical position of being a Jesuit priest cannot be credible. The Bible says 'you will know them by their fruits'. Catholicism in current forms and historically has a sour fruit taste. Whether from child abuse, population mind control, condemnation of condoms (where is that in the bible!)scientific denial (Galileo et al) wealth accumulation, and political/religious persecution plus self-aggrandisement the church has too much to answer for. An inabilty to see through that mire of man made self condemnation deserves no attention.