Robert J Spitzer 'New Proofs of God: Contributions from Contemporary Physics and Philosophy'

[Skeptic92]

So has anyone read the book? Currently on the third Philosophical argument, which appears to be a defence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument however I’m not too sure where he is going with it just yet. The first part (Cosmology, and a bit of Quantum Physics. with a post script from another Philosopher of Science) was very interesting, but I will have to research to make sure the theories he is presenting he is doing so accurately.

The first two Philosophical arguments (A reframing of the classical Cosmological Argument & a Lonerganian proof based on ontology instead of Epistemology) were incredible, the first is fairly simplistic for those familiar with Aristotelian/Scholastic Philosophy as it is basically an updating of the old First Cause argument with a reframing of the terminology to be a more concretely and unambiguously defined argument. Thoroughly enjoyed reading it, and was very thought provoking- I still haven’t managed to find a weakness by which to refute it or critique it from. The second Philosophical Argument was harder to grasp, and took a few reads- it is thoroughly interesting but for those unfamiliar with contemporary Epistemology and the ‘Lonergan’ Proof of God may find it hard going; I know I did.

Not finished the final Philosophical argument or the Transcendentals, however I must say I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the book. I would say it isn’t meant for beginners to philosophy though, it is a very technical text at times- that whilst attempts to be accessible, it is a book on one of the most intricate of subject matters.

 

[balto]

Wow, it’s weird that you posted this thread. My mother bought me this book for a Philosophy of Religion class I took a couple of years ago but I only read it about a year and a half ago (it’s actually what got me to discover the arguments of classical theism and make a serious commitment to Catholicism). I was interested in reminding myself of how we know that God is omniscient, so I picked it up again a couple of hours ago and re-read the Lonergan proof for the existence of a single unrestricted intelligibility which is an act of understanding, understanding itself (or however he phrased it). I’m not sure I completely understand it yet though. I only vaguely remember the other proofs.

 

[Skeptic92]

Wow, it’s weird that you posted this thread. My mother bought me this book for a Philosophy of Religion class I took a couple of years ago but I only read it about a year and a half ago (it’s actually what got me to discover the arguments of classical theism and make a serious commitment to Catholicism). I was interested in reminding myself of how we know that God is omniscient, so I picked it up again a couple of hours ago and re-read the Lonergan proof for the existence of a single unrestricted intelligibility which is an act of understanding, understanding itself (or however he phrased it). I’m not sure I completely understand it yet though. I only vaguely remember the other proofs.

Honestly, my opinion of it couldn’t be higher. The major points of his argument I find hard not to concede, as it appears the assert that the premise is false would be absurd. I’m unsure what to make of it at the moment, but on my first read through I actually think he might of been successful: this may be a demonstrative proof of the existence of God that leaves little room for scepticism, let alone outright Atheism.

I think the text is going to need at least another read through from me, and maybe one after that. This is however quite complicated philosophy, so I’m used to the work needing a couple of reads.

For those that might view this thread and be interested here is the link to the book: amazon.co.uk/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833/ be warned though: it isn’t for the beginner and will require a good long, hard read to fully grasp the content matter.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So has anyone read the book? Currently on the third Philosophical argument, which appears to be a defence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument however I’m not too sure where he is going with it just yet. The first part (Cosmology, and a bit of Quantum Physics. with a post script from another Philosopher of Science) was very interesting, but I will have to research to make sure the theories he is presenting he is doing so accurately.

The first two Philosophical arguments (A reframing of the classical Cosmological Argument & a Lonerganian proof based on ontology instead of Epistemology) were incredible, the first is fairly simplistic for those familiar with Aristotelian/Scholastic Philosophy as it is basically an updating of the old First Cause argument with a reframing of the terminology to be a more concretely and unambiguously defined argument. Thoroughly enjoyed reading it, and was very thought provoking- I still haven’t managed to find a weakness by which to refute it or critique it from. The second Philosophical Argument was harder to grasp, and took a few reads- it is thoroughly interesting but for those unfamiliar with contemporary Epistemology and the ‘Lonergan’ Proof of God may find it hard going; I know I did.

I beg to differ with Fr. Spitzer, I think the Kalem argument amounts to no argument at all and I wish " philosophers " and apologists would stop using it. For scientific reasons we cannot possibly know what happend at the first few moments of the " Big Bang, " let alone before. There are respected scientists who disagree with it and favor a more general type of unfolding.

I’m not familiar with Lonergan. Have you read Science before Science? I thought it kind of fell apart when the author, Dr. Anthony Rizzi, started on Quantum Mechanics. The first half was pretty good getting the basic principles of Thomism explained. But he didn’t follow through when the science got tough. Thomas is all we need really.

Take a look at these links, starting with the Star of Bethlehem. Scientific proofs.

youtube.com/watch?v=zPHKg0M3mEo ( Proof from Astronomy )
youtube.com/watch?v=vvVt4lDSPeY ( God’s wonders )
youtube.com/watch?v=LWWFf8G3BKI ( from need for an intellegent source of information and transmition of information in the nucleus of a cell )
Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

I was going to take a look at it one day, but in the end I decided not to buy the book since most of the proofs looked like new riffs on older proofs, and I’m usually a bit skeptical about big conclusions drawn from scientific argument, since scientific data can often be interpreted in many ways (although I’m not sure if that is actually a fault of the book–it was just my rough impression). Maybe someday.

 

[polytropos]

I beg to differ with Fr. Spitzer, I think the Kalem argument amounts to no argument at all and I wish " philosophers " and apologists would stop using it. For scientific reasons we cannot possibly know what happend at the first few moments of the " Big Bang, " let alone before. There are respected scientists who disagree with it and favor a more general type of unfolding.

I don’t think the kalam cosmological argument is too bad. It will forever be defeasible since one of its premises is supposed to be scientifically established, but I think its conclusion is plausible.

I also think that it is important to have some theist familiar with contemporary cosmology.

Other arguments are superior, of course. I am not too worried about kalam on a popular level since it does not rule out classical theism. But the fact that it is not as much of a starting point for a doctrine of divine simplicity (in contrast to, say, Aquinas’s arguments) seems to be a weakness. That is shared with a lot of other contemporary arguments–Paleyan design arguments and fine tuning arguments in particular.

Have you read Science before Science? I thought it kind of fell apart when the author, Dr. Anthony Rizzi, started on Quantum Mechanics. The first half was pretty good getting the basic principles of Thomism explained. But he didn’t follow through when the science got tough. Thomas is all we need really.

I find Rizzi’s scientific explanations interesting, but unfortunately not all that compelling. (It also seems like one gets to the end of them and wonders if he has really explained anything.) My main complaint with the book is the huge emphasis on common sense. I do agree that moderate realism can be said to be a common sense philosophy in many ways, and that is one of its strengths. But that is not, in my opinion, a sufficiently rigorous justification for it, even though it is what he keeps bringing up. That seems to stem from the fact that Rizzi is not a philosopher.

One of Rizzi’s strengths though is describing the separate sciences (or scientia) and how they are related.

 

[ccmnxc]

I’ve read the book, and I really enjoyed it. I didn’t really get the second proof at all, though I took a brief hiatus from the book about half-way through that proof, which certainly didn’t help after I came back (I was to lazy to start the chapter over). The first and third proofs seemed pretty straight-forward, and I was pleased by both of them. The section on the Transcendentals was quite interesting, but since I am not too familiar with that area of philosophy, I wasn’t sure what to think of it, especially in relation to how the topic is treated by other authors. The scientific part was interesting, and I enjoyed it, but I’m with polytropos in that what is seen as scientific fact today can be seen as obsolete tomorrow. Either way, I thought the book overall was quite excellent, and I would certainly recommend it to others.

 

[SMA_12]

Haven’t read the book, but I have heard him give a couple of talks in person and he blew me away!

In the book, does he by chance talk at all about near death experiences as a proof of the existence of the soul? It’s a pretty awesome topic.

Admittedly, half of what Father Spitzer talked about in regard to the universe was well over my head but I still really enjoyed him speak. He can crack some pretty funny jokes too!

 

[Birdmanman]

I’ve read at least one of the arguments out of it (the ‘unconditioned reality’ argument) and thought it was brilliant (while reminiscent of the First Cause argument). I would definitely recommend reading at least the philosophical arguments the book contains. (The scientific portion of the book has a huge number of citations to studies, which might be useful if your into that kind of thing).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t think the kalam cosmological argument is too bad. It will forever be defeasible since one of its premises is supposed to be scientifically established, but I think its conclusion is plausible.

I also think that it is important to have some theist familiar with contemporary cosmology.

Other arguments are superior, of course. I am not too worried about kalam on a popular level since it does not rule out classical theism. But the fact that it is not as much of a starting point for a doctrine of divine simplicity (in contrast to, say, Aquinas’s arguments) seems to be a weakness. That is shared with a lot of other contemporary arguments–Paleyan design arguments and fine tuning arguments in particular.

I find Rizzi’s scientific explanations interesting, but unfortunately not all that compelling. (It also seems like one gets to the end of them and wonders if he has really explained anything.) My main complaint with the book is the huge emphasis on common sense. I do agree that moderate realism can be said to be a common sense philosophy in many ways, and that is one of its strengths. But that is not, in my opinion, a sufficiently rigorous justification for it, even though it is what he keeps bringing up. That seems to stem from the fact that Rizzi is not a philosopher.

One of Rizzi’s strengths though is describing the separate sciences (or scientia) and how they are related.

Appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Linus2nd

 

[balto]

Honestly, my opinion of it couldn’t be higher. The major points of his argument I find hard not to concede, as it appears the assert that the premise is false would be absurd. I’m unsure what to make of it at the moment, but on my first read through I actually think he might of been successful: this may be a demonstrative proof of the existence of God that leaves little room for scepticism, let alone outright Atheism.

Absolutely, I agree with you there. Actually after reading and understanding his presentation of the Unconditional Reality argument (variant of the First Cause argument) I was pretty thoroughly convinced that atheism couldn’t possibly be true. Some things were initially counter-intuitive to me, like for instance that God is absolutely simple. But once you understand a lot of the points he makes everything kind of falls into place.

 

[balto]

I was going to take a look at it one day, but in the end I decided not to buy the book since most of the proofs looked like new riffs on older proofs, and I’m usually a bit skeptical about big conclusions drawn from scientific argument, since scientific data can often be interpreted in many ways (although I’m not sure if that is actually a fault of the book–it was just my rough impression). Maybe someday.

I agree whole-heartedly with your reservations about using scientific findings to argue for the existence of God. I would have to reread the first half of the book, but I think the reason why he included the commentary on Big Bang cosmology wasn’t so much to convince the reader that it points to God but that it doesn’t necessarily point to atheism. I think his target in that section was the misconception that “science has disproved God” and “believing in God amounts to a belief in magic.” This was useful for someone like me who is constantly bombarded with arguments of that stripe.

The philosophical proofs were modern presentations of older proofs, but you still might find some insights so it may not be a total loss. This was where I first encountered these arguments so having them presented in this way was useful to me at least.

 

[Skeptic92]

I beg to differ with Fr. Spitzer, I think the Kalem argument amounts to no argument at all and I wish " philosophers " and apologists would stop using it. For scientific reasons we cannot possibly know what happend at the first few moments of the " Big Bang, " let alone before. There are respected scientists who disagree with it and favor a more general type of unfolding.

Linus2nd

His defence of the Kalam Argument seems to be coming almost entirely from the Philosophy of Time, and demonstrating its impossibility of being infinite based upon deductive reasoning rather than Craigs pure use of Scientific (inductive) reasoning in supporting the second premise. Whilst he has already established that the scientific knowledge we have currently seems to point to the necessity of an absolute beginning (The BVG theorem), he has only used this for reference of scientific support of the second premise- it isn’t all he is using in support of it.

He appears to be using scientific knowledge to show that it points towards a transcendent cause of the universe, and a defence of the classical teleological argument whilst not making the mistake of asserting Intelligent Design. I personally do not use the Kalam Argument as I don’t believe I have a thorough enough understanding of the Philosophy of Time and Contemporary Physics to justify and defend the second premise- I do not think this to be true for Spitzer though, although I have yet to finish it.

What I tend to look for in modern Philosophy is the collapse of the modern metaphysics, which has certainly begun. The Cartesian Metaphysics are being critiqued and by some circles abandoned in the Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Mind, Ontology, etc. With some Philosophers rejecting them in favour of the classical Aristotelian metaphysics, which makes arguing for the existence of God without absurdity to be a whole lot easier simply due to the metaphysical framework.

 

[ethereality]

I wanted a refund after reading this book. It is thoroughly flawed and I was deeply disappointed. I mustn’t think too highly of Catholic Answers’ reading recommendations after this lemon.

I have a bachelor’s and master’s degree in physics, and have extensive study of philosophy as a hobby. The apparent lack of proofreading in this book – i.e., the number of problems with it – is simply embarrassing.

I posted a critique of it on Amazon, and I drafted a longer essay explaining some of its errors that I haven’t done anything with: I thought about publishing it on Amazon in proportion to the cost of Spitzer’s work. I.e., if his book is 400 pages and costs $10 and my critique is 9 pages, then charging (9/400)x$10 = $0.23 for it. Would you be interested in such a read? I thought people might be interested to see the reaction of someone “in his target audience”, though I am Christian and hence on his side.

 

[Ignatius]

The first part (Cosmology, and a bit of Quantum Physics. with a post script from another Philosopher of Science) was very interesting, but I will have to research to make sure the theories he is presenting he is doing so accurately.

The first two Philosophical arguments (A reframing of the classical Cosmological Argument & a Lonerganian proof based on ontology instead of Epistemology) were incredible, the first is fairly simplistic for those familiar with Aristotelian/Scholastic Philosophy as it is basically an updating of the old First Cause argument with a reframing of the terminology to be a more concretely and unambiguously defined argument. Thoroughly enjoyed reading it, and was very thought provoking- I still haven’t managed to find a weakness by which to refute it or critique it from. The second Philosophical Argument was harder to grasp, and took a few reads- it is thoroughly interesting but for those unfamiliar with contemporary Epistemology and the ‘Lonergan’ Proof of God may find it hard going; I know I did.

Not finished the final Philosophical argument or the Transcendentals, however I must say I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the book. I would say it isn’t meant for beginners to philosophy though, it is a very technical text at times- that whilst attempts to be accessible, it is a book on one of the most intricate of subject matters.

It isn’t meant for undergrad Physicists either. It’s definitely advanced stuff. I’ve read it, but mainly focused on the area of Physics and science since that is the area I work in and and this area is the one those I work with will most likely listen to.

 

[utunumsint]

I liked the book, although I’m no expert in any of the fields under discussion. I found his discussion on actual infinities and David Hilbert very interesting.

God bless,
Ut

 

[DannyGR]

I wanted a refund after reading this book. It is thoroughly flawed and I was deeply disappointed. I mustn’t think too highly of Catholic Answers’ reading recommendations after this lemon.

I have a bachelor’s and master’s degree in physics, and have extensive study of philosophy as a hobby. The apparent lack of proofreading in this book – i.e., the number of problems with it – is simply embarrassing.

I posted a critique of it on Amazon, and I drafted a longer essay explaining some of its errors that I haven’t done anything with: I thought about publishing it on Amazon in proportion to the cost of Spitzer’s work. I.e., if his book is 400 pages and costs $10 and my critique is 9 pages, then charging (9/400)x$10 = $0.23 for it. Would you be interested in such a read? I thought people might be interested to see the reaction of someone “in his target audience”, though I am Christian and hence on his side.

Are there any books you would recommend in place of this one? I’m interested in the topic and if this book is as you say, I’ll probably not buy it

 

[Ignatius]

Are there any books you would recommend in place of this one? I’m interested in the topic and if this book is as you say, I’ll probably not buy it

It is the best presentation of the facts that there is, but if you’re not going to buy the book, try these sources below.

Here the content is presented in a very understandable way:
magiscenter.com/spitzer_videos_mc.html

Here is Fr. Spitzers website magiscenter.com/.