Learn more Download now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more

on 11 January 2017
Thorough and great book.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 29 May 2013
This books deals with cosmology; astrophysics; quantum physics and philosophy in the reasoning for the existence of God or a super intelligence. I was able to hold my own until I reached the philosophy part of the book - where I could not grasp the author's philosophical reasoning as I just did not understand it My weakness not his.

On the basis on the first three aspects I referred to I would recommend this book and leave you to draw you own conclusions from some very cogent reasoned arguments .
22 Comments| 12 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 3 February 2014
The beginning of the book can be hard going, delving deep into modern Cosmology and Physics. For those not of a scientific background, this portion of the book could require reading, and rereading just to make sure you follow the implications of the theories Spitzer is presenting. Followed by a great postscript that is however very technical, and can require a very close reading if you are not familiar with contemporary physics of Philosophy of Science.

Then the Second Part: The Philosophical Arguments.

The first Argument is a reframing of the well known Cosmological Argument of Aquinas and Aristotle. Abandoning the use of traditional and classical terminology (bar divine simplicity) throughout the argument (instead preferring conditioned and unconditioned realities), Spitzers crafts what is probably one of the best presentations of this argument I have read in recent scholarship. Coherent, concretely defined, and thoroughly argued. It's going to be VERY difficult to refute, after a few months attempting to find a hole in the argument I have remained unable. Simply fantastic.

The Second argument I am still struggling with, however I haven't had time to return to it since mid-January. A reframing of Bernard Lonergans Proof of God in light of the first Philosophical Argument. I can't comment too much on the argument, as I am still figuring everything out within it- it is completely new to me, probably explaining my difficulties.

The third Philosophical Argument is a defence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument in light of the previous two arguments. Going through the Philosophy of Time and a demonstration of the impossibility of an infinite regress of an actually existing dimension of the universe, through mathematics and Philosophy. Revealing an inherent contradiction with the notion of 'infinite past time'.

After this is review of the Subject matter as a whole: and methodological concerns for Atheism. As 'There is no God' is as much of a knowledge claim as 'There is a God' the burden of proof does indeed fall on the Atheist in light of arguments presented in favour, and there appears to be no conceivable way that the premise of Atheism can be justified without begging the question. This is a very small section in light of the other parts, but necessary after the argument has finished. Especially in drawing attention to the methodologies of via negatio (Apophatic Theology) in understanding the concept of God as understood for Classical Theism.

The next is the Transcendentals...I haven't actually worked through these yet, I was more interested in the Philosophical Arguments
11 Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 10 October 2013
Given the grandiose title of this book, it is easy to see why some atheistic or agnostic readers might be put off by its content and find its arguments difficult to accept. It has been unfairly criticised by some reviewers, seemingly on the basis that a Jesuit priest is somehow (by definition) unqualified to write about contemporary cosmology, an obvious non-sequitor. I too initially approached the book with a degree of scepticism.

However, this soon gave way to an admiration for the ambitious nature of the philosophical enterprise attempted by Robert Spitzer, and the extent to which he succeeds in his basic aim of demonstrating the subtle relationships between recent advances in cosmology and traditional theological proofs of God's existence. It becomes obvious after only a few pages that Spitzer is not only very well informed about modern cosmology, but also adept at explaining it in user friendly language. I found the book to be very well written, erudite, and surprisingly accessible given its dense subject matter. Moreover, it seems to me that the arguments it presents are, when properly understood, logically compelling and fundamentally sound, irrespective of Spitzer's doctrinal background.

In effect, he presents a modern version of the cosmological proof set out in Spinoza's 'Ethics' and some of Aristotle's writings, and shows why this traditional argument for the existence of a divine power remains credible and of central importance as an explanatory hypothesis notwithstanding recent advances in scientific cosmology. At present, the main rival to theism - much favoured by atheistic scientists - is the concept of the multiverse, as it allows the apparent 'fine-tuning' of the laws of nature that we observe around us to be explained as a selection effect of multiple parallel universes, rather than evidence of design or divinity in the one universe we can actually observe. However, speculative multiverse theories suffer from a fatal logical flaw, which is that they simply beg the question of what creates the multiverse itself. As such, they simply push the question of ultimate origins one stage further back, solving nothing. They don't even succeed on their own terms for, as Keith Ward has pointed out, the ensemble of possible universes must contain one which is more powerful (in the sense of having more creative power and fewer external constraints) than all the others, in which case it will either suppress their actual existence (so that they remain mere possibilities) or co-exist with them in actuality. If the former, the multiverse theory collapses because there is only one cosmos, QED. But if the latter, the question naturally arises of who or what created the total ensemble of co-existing universes. They can't all be contingent, as this would mean that there can be no ultimate explanation of the whole, which violates the entire scientific programme to achieve a complete understanding of nature. The only way to reconcile the apparent evidence of fine-tuning with a rejection of design or divinity is to postulate a random, uncontrolled process in which an infinite number of unobservable universes accidentally generates a small sub-set capable of generating life and other forms of organised complexity. The fact that this is self-evidently a very unsatisfactory, profligate hypothesis is itself a strong indication that a 'first cause' transcending physics must exist, as Aquinas, Spinoza and Leibniz (amongst others) all recognised, albeit using different methods of argumentation. The cosmological 'proof' is a classic example of a metaphysical argument that can only be falsified on logical grounds, not by reference to empirical testing or any of the other tools of experimental science.

Of course not everyone will be convinced by the cosmological argument. But taken as a whole it seems to me that Spitzer's book does, in fact, present a persuasive re-statement of this traditional argument for the existence of a first cause (which Spitzer himself describes as an 'unconditioned reality', a neutral term that neatly sidesteps the question of whether God is a person). The essential concept is that there must be one, and a maximum of only one, necessarily existing being, which gives rise to the entire contingent world that we observe around us, even though our understanding of that being is bound to be imperfect because of our own cognitive limitations. By virtue of being the first cause, this being is the most powerful being that can possibly exist. (Any being that embodies a self-contradiction will, of course, be impossible and will fail to exist or have any power. So, for example, a God that can commit suicide will embody a contradiction and cannot exist.) Since it is unconstrained by any external forces, the necessary being will express its power to the maximum possible extent, and it is this expression of maximal power that gives rise to the astonishing world in which we find ourselves, with all its infinite diversity. This necessary being cannot fail to exist, for the simple reason that its existence is logically possible and ex hypothesi there can be nothing powerful enough to prevent it from existing. It is important to add that this is not the same thing as saying that God can do absolutely anything He wants. As noted above, the logic that constitutes part of God's essential nature may prevent God from having self-contradictory properties, and this may place limits on God's power, but these limits will be intrinsic to God's own nature, not externally imposed from the outside.

This, according to theists and pantheists, is the solution to the mystery of existence. Whilst it is not a new hypothesis, still less a strict logical 'proof', it seems coherent, can be rationally debated, and has considerable explanatory power. In fact, it is difficult to conceive of a simpler, more elegant explanation of the cosmos. It can explain the apparent evidence of fine-tuning, because the true source of the cosmological constants that lead some scientists to infer fine-tuning is the existence of a unique, necessarily existing being which cannot be other than it is, rather than a multiverse or a cosmic 'designer' who selects a universe "just right for life" from a wider palette of possibilities. The cosmological argument is also a scientific hypothesis, in the sense that it can be used to make testable predictions - one of which is that life, consciousness and other expressions of organised complexity will be relatively widespread, rather than a rare, chance occurrence, in the cosmos. Nor is it true, as Dawkins has claimed, that theism simply begs the question of who created God and why God takes the form He does rather than some other form. The cosmological argument does provide a deductive logical argument for God's existence, and explains the essence of God's nature, by virtue of a very specific, and precisely formulated proposition about the nature of a being with maximal power and its unavoidable role in generating finite things. As a hypothesis, it does not beg further questions - it represents a natural end point in the logical search for a complete explanation of the cosmos. The great merit of Spitzer's book is that he explains exactly why this is the case in a series of rigorous arguments expressed in language accessible to those without a specialist knowledge of physics or philosophy.

In contrast to many Christian theologians, Spitzer strips the concept of a first cause of any anthropocentric connotations, thus addressing one of the strongest philosophical objections to religious belief, namely that there is little empirical evidence in the world around us to support belief in a God who displays human qualities such as kindness and mercy. Spitzer is also aware that any successful proof of God's existence must present a convincing explanation of the role of value in the world, one that dispenses with wishful thinking and reconciles its basic metaphysical stance with the existence of natural and moral evil. The later chapters of the book set out his thinking in this area. He has some interesting ideas, particularly about the relationship between harmony, beauty, love and goodness as expressions of the necessary being believers refer to as God. These ideas are philosophically rigorous, carefully developed, and do not rely on sentimental wishful thinking.

Ultimately, it could be argued that, even if one accepts Spitzer's proof of an 'unconditioned reality', all it does is prove the existence of a first cause, not that this cause has the qualities of mercy and justice normally associated with a personal God. After all, the first cause could be the universe itself, as pantheists claim. There is some force in this objection - theists are generally mistaken when they argue that the Big Bang proves that the universe is contingent and has an external cause: time and space form part of the contents of the universe, so the Big Bang is an event internal to the universe, rather than evidence that something exists temporally prior to, or beyond, it. On this view, the key question is not whether the existence of a first cause can be proven, but whether we have any reason to believe that the first cause has moral qualities that make it a fitting object of worship. This is a deep mystery to which philosophy struggles to find a satisfactory answer. Clearly there is a strong sense in which a being which is the source of all that exists must possess the quality of 'goodness', but the cosmos seems indifferent to the fate of individual living things. How is this apparent contradiction to be explained?

The possibility of a timeless, impersonal cosmos, which appears to have been recognised by Spinoza, as well as by Einstein and Stephen Hawking, means that cosmological arguments of the type presented by Spitzer cannot be described as furnishing a 'proof' of a personal God that will satisfy most religious believers. 'Spitzer's God' is not necessarily a comforting one from an emotional or psychological perspective. It is not clear, for example, whether He answers human prayers. This is why the analogy with Spinoza is relevant and apt. But the flipside of this is that the book is largely successful in demolishing physical reductionism as an adequate explanation of the cosmos, and this in itself represents a considerable achievement and an important counterweight to Dawkins and his followers. Spitzer sets out a convincing argument for belief in God - but the God who emerges from this book is not necessarily the 'God of Abraham' found in biblical narratives. Whether this was the author's aim is, of course, open to conjecture.

Most importantly, perhaps, this book is an exciting and surprising intellectual journey. Few other authors have tried to tell a coherent story about the ultimate origins of the world that reconciles traditional philosophical insights with those of modern science (although Roy Abraham Varghese's 'The Wonder of the World' covers broadly similar ground and is also a compelling read). The few who have tried have, on the whole, not been very successful. For this alone, Spitzer earns my admiration. This book will prove fascinating reading for anyone with an open mind who is interested in the question of ultimate origins to which neither philosophy nor science can currently provide complete answers.
66 Comments| 7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 17 December 2013
The arguments presented in this book are well researched, well argued, clearly presented, and fascinating. If you are unfamiliar with the style of argument employed by many Neo-Thomists, it can be a bit of an odd read, but the structure creates a great deal of clarity.
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 16 May 2011
I hate the word "proofs" when it means "evidence" for the existence of God. I would admit that the 20th century has become more God friendly scientifically, with the Big Bang model which was really only accepted because of the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 and with the Anthropic Principle, a word first coined by Brandon Carter in 1974 i.e. the fine-tuning of the physical constants. The Big Bang implies that the universe had a beginning and therefore needed a cause. When it comes to the big questions on cosmology atheism is left floundering. Spitzer covers these and more in great detail, including three philosophical 'proofs' for the existence of God. This is an important and long overdue book. The book is in three parts:

1. Indications of Creation and Supernatural Design in Contemporary Big Bang Cosmology.
2. Three Philosophical Proofs for the Existence of God.
3. The Transcendentals: The Divine and Human Mysteries.

This book will be appreciated by those with a science background (especially physics), or who understand the Anthropic Principle; I cannot comment on the philosophical arguments as that is not my field.
22 Comments| 21 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 11 September 2013
New Proofs for the Existence of God offers a beautifully lucid system of reasoning demonstrating not only the existence, but also the necessity of God.
Throughout the first chapters of the book, Spitzer shows how contemporary science strengthens the idea of a continuous and wilful act of creation. Frequently the new atheists co-opt science for their own ends, asserting that science and belief in God are irreconcilable. However, the view Spitzer takes here is that the two are harmonious, given a proper understanding of what science is actually showing us and how this in turn relates to a classical understanding of what God is: not simply a being among many, but the sheer act of to be itself. Or ipsum esse subsistens, as Aquinas states.
The second part presents three philosophical arguments for the existence of God. Whilst the philosophical reasoning is at times heavy, it is nonetheless rewarding upon completion. Even if the reader is not totally convinced, this section will at least extirpate the charge that belief in God is irrational, with no basis in reason or reality. For those who are open-minded, it may initiate a process of deeper contemplation, leading to the conclusion that there may in fact be a Being whose raison d'être is simply 'to be', who is the continuous creator of all else that is.
The last part of the book concerns the transcendentals. By far the most interesting and enjoyable section of the book, it deals with the properties of the being as proven in part two, viz. that it is truth itself, love itself, justice/goodness itself, beauty itself, and being itself; and how we as humans relate to such mysteries.
Overall it is a challenging read which engages the mind. It at least deserves consideration as a great work of contemporary reasoning, which demonstrates the validity of a belief in God.
0Comment| 13 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 28 May 2011
Tough going on the technical side, but an excellent critique of modern cosmological theories and the metaphysical implications that flow from them.
0Comment| 15 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 28 November 2011
Reading the first Chapter of Part One of Father Spitzer's book, it becomes evident that you are faced with all the arguments for or against a beginning of the Universe (or 'Multiverses'). What makes this book unique and a must-read for both the atheist and the hardcore pro-God believer is that the logic of philosophical reasoning and the empiricism of astrophysics all concur to lead us to a purposeful cause of a designed, fine-tuned anthropic universe that is directed towards an end.

I have come, through this book, to develop a new spiritual awareness to explore and examine passages of the Bible and some of contemporary scientific discoveries such as in quantum physics. For example in Chapter 7 of the Book of Wisdom, "Wisdom, the designer of all things" (v. 21), is also presented as "a reflection of the eternal Light" (v. 26), and "indeed more splendid than the Sun, [and] outshin[ing] all the constellations" (v. 29) and "quicker to move than any motion" (v. 24a). Now we know from science that light is the fastest moving thing in the universe known to man. But thousands of years ago, long before modern science took form and structure, the theologian knew that light moves quicker than any motion. Not through science did this knowledge come, not through astrophysics, but through wisdom acquired by simple observation and acknowledgement of a beginning and of a cause of the present world, God's creation. Can we say therefore that before scientists or astrophysicists went to space or to the outer space, theologians had already been there?

Though presented in simple language, the material in this book is sophisticated in understanding for those like me who might not have a solid background in physics or in the pure and applied sciences. What you need more here is a little more of three-dimensional thinking, relational thinking and thoughtful pragmatism. Taking time to read every sentence and making an effort to grasp what lies therein and behind would help you to understand the link between the biblical universe (creation) and contemporary astrophysical universe. Nevertheless, if there are moments when you ask yourself what purpose your life has on planet earth, whether there is a meaning to all of human endeavour and to what end are these directed, then grasp a copy of this book and follow Father Spitzer as he leads you systematically to discover the awesome, wonder-riddled revelation and concurrence of modern science with a biblical origin of the Universe.
22 Comments| 16 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 20 October 2012
Well, it would have been easy to put this book down after a few pages as non scientists like myself will undoubtedly find the scientific and mathematical content of this book daunting. However, having stuck with it and re-read it a number of times, am I glad I did. Spitzer lends a confidence to his arguments that is catching. Dawkins and his ilk had better listen to an argument based on scientific truth rather than emotional rhetoric. Great stuff.
0Comment| 16 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)