Book Review: "New Proofs for the Existence of God"

Robert J Spitzer's book New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy has pulled me back from the brink of atheism. For some time I have been seriously evaluating my belief in God given some very compelling arguments offered by many of the better contemporary writings on atheism available now. There is so much irrationality promoted by many theists and their arguments do not often stand up to serious scrutiny. Many of those arguments are circular in nature, presupposing what they are trying to prove, or engage in inconsistencies and logical flaws that frequently ring the death knell on theism. But the bell has been rung too soon. Spitzer's book offers a deeply rational, coherent set of arguments that demonstrate that belief in God (defined correctly) is a logical necessity given what we now know about physics, cosmology, and philosophy. One thing atheists cannot do is to claim that all forms of theism are irrational and/or naive. It turns out, instead, that using rigorous reasoning, atheism is demonstrably illogical and incoherent. How does Spitzer demonstrate this?

His argument is divided into three parts:

Part 1 examines contemporary Big Bang cosmology and identifies elements in the theory that indicates some form of creation and supernatural design. At the end of this section, Spitzer concludes:

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. (p. 104)

An atheist reading this conclusion will probably jump to the conclusion that the argument preceding it is a rehash of Intelligent Design (ID). This would be a mistake. Spitzer's arguments turn on the values of universal constants. The difference between Spitzer's argument and those of ID proponents is that

The latter presume an anthropic universe and seek an explanation for how highly complex integrated biochemical and biological systems could arise from far less complex ones. Pure chance (random occurrence) does not seem to be reasonable, because a random emergence of a highly complex system from a far less complex one is highly improbable.

The argument for supernatural design in [Spitzer's approach] does not address these biochemical and biological "leaps" in complexification. It focuses solely on the incredibly high improbability of an anthropic condition of the universe itself. It therefore does not focus on the process of evolution so much as on the initial underlying conditions (in the universe) that make such anthropic processes possible. It focuses almost exclusively on physics (particularly the physics of the early universe) and leaves the explanation of highly improbable leaps in biochemical and biological complexification to other domains of inquiry. (pp. 51-52)

In addition to a positive argument, Spitzer also responds to the range of proposed theories (eg the idea of a multiverse) that attempt to avoid the conclusion of some sort of supernatural entity. He shows that these are logically incoherent and inconsistent.

In Part 2 of the book, Spitzer turns to philosophical arguments. He discusses the nature of philosophical proof and argumentation before laying out a five-step metaphysical argument for the existence of God. The steps are:

• Step 1: proof of the existence of at least one unconditioned reality
• Step 2: proof that unconditioned reality itself is the simplest possible reality (the word simple here has a philosophical definition)
• Step 3: proof of the absolute uniqueness of unconditioned reality itself
• Step 4: proof that unconditioned reality itself is unrestricted
• An interim conclusion
• Step 5: proof that the one unconditioned reality is the continuous creator of all else that is

At the end of this argument, the conclusion is deductively stated to be

that "the unique, absolutely simple, unrestricted, unconditioned Reality itself which is the continuous Creator of all else that is" must exist. This Reality generally corresponds to what is generally thought to be "God". God, as defined, must exist. (p. 143)

The remainder of the second part of the book explores some other approaches to proving the existence of God including proof of a creator of past time and an ontological explanation of real time. One very interesting chapter is the author's discussion of various methodological considerations related to argumentation around God's existence and the impossibility of disproving God's existence. He also demonstrates what he describes as 'the tenuous rationality of atheism' and explores, briefly, the problem of evil and suffering.

One of the criticisms of traditional philosophical proofs of God's existence is that they never support a particular version of the nature of the god being proved. It could be any god - unless one turns to specific religious texts. In Part 3, Spitzer moves to discuss the nature of the 'unrestricted simplicity and unrestricted intelligibility' of the unconditioned Reality proved in the first two parts of the book. I don't have the space or the competence to outline Spitzer's argument here, but he draws on the fact that

... human consciousness seems to possess five aspirations or desires that can be satisfied by ... ultimate Home, ultimate Truth, ultimate Love, ultimate Goodness, and ultimate Beauty....

If God is present to human consciousness as its fulfillment in truth, love, goodness, beauty, and being (home), then human reason can go beyond confirming the existence of God as a unique, unconditioned, absolutely simple, unrestricted Creator, to unveiling the nature of this God as perfectly truth-filled, loving, good, and beautiful. Following these discussions, he explores the implications of these arguments on the nature of human freedom. (p. 240)

In my opinion, Spitzer's book is brilliant albeit complex and dense to read. It is a purely philosophical argument grounded in contemporary physics and does not suffer the circularity of many apologetic arguments put forward by theists. I also like the fact that Spitzer lays out an agenda for demonstrating the inadequacy of his arguments if atheist philosophers choose to take up the gauntlet. I'm yet to find a sustained objective critique of Spitzer's book - and would be grateful for anyone directing me to one.

New Proofs for the Existence of God needs to be read by those who have a moderate familiarity with philosophy - so it is unlikely to be of use to the "average" Christian (no disrespect intended). But for anyone willing to tackle a meaty discourse that will stretch their mind it will be deeply reassuring (if you are a theist) and deeply challenging (if you are an atheist). Whatever your starting point there is gold to be mined and lots of thinking to do. Highly recommended!

Book details: Ronert J Spitzer (2010). New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philisophy. William B Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Book Review: The Logic of the Heart (James R Peters)

James Peters' The Logic of the Heart: Augustine, Pascal and the Rationality of Faith is a profound exploration of what it means to believe in God. I've been struggling with the tension between reason and faith for many years and have found few answers that were satisfying. Enlightenment rationalism which refuses to accept the legitimacy of any belief without empirical evidence, radical postmodernist relativism which promotes the idea that all truth is merely the construction of human culture(s) and the rejection of any form of meta-narrative (other than its own), and the blind faith of the fundamentalist theist who firmly shoves their head in the sand and denies the legitimacy of modern scientific understandings of the cosmos - all of these just don't stand up to rigorous scrutiny - at least not for me. What a breath of fresh air, then, to come across James Peters' thorough, in-depth, nuanced discussion of these matters.

The book is essentially a Socratic "dialogue" between the ideas of Augustine, Pascal and Hume. Intriguingly, Peters describes the similarities between Hume (one of the most famous a-theists) and Augustine's and Pascal's critique of the possibility of human rationalism/empiricism in the pursuit of truth. There is a deep desire in humans to inquire and discover with a paradoxical human limitation in succeeding at that pursuit. So Peters passionately affirms the legitimacy of much that Hume writes about the limits of reason.

Just as passionately, Peters shows how Hume, when he comes to discuss Christianity, seems to argue inconsistently with his own understanding. Peters ultimately shows how an Augustinian and, in particular, Pascalian approach to reason and faith is more holistic than Hume's.

One of the strongest features of this book is a sustained analysis of radical postmodernism and, in particular, a great analysis of Richard Rorty's thinking - a telling critique highlighting the self-referentially undermining nature of his approach.

So, what is the essential point of The Logic of the Heart? I hesitate because I know I'm not going to do justice to the ideas and argument in this book. It is that there are some things we need to commit to in order to know the truth of them. One example is trust in another person. When we first meet someone we need to commit ourselves to trusting them before we can enter into a relationship to test their trustworthiness. For Peters, it is the same with belief in God. In order to know of God's existence it is necessary to take a leap of faith in order to know of God's existence through direct experience.

Now this is a paltry statement of the essential point of the book. Peters has a broad and deep knowledge of philosophical literature and demonstrates the rationality of such a position though extended discussion, argument and dialogue with a host of "interlocutors" past and present. His perspective offers a midway between Enlightenment "worship" of reason and postmodernist emphasis on freedom and self-rule.

Who should read this book? The first criteria is that the reader needs to be familiar with general philosophical concepts related to epistemology and, in particular, the debates that arise from the dialogue between empiricists and postmodernists over epistemology. Apart from that, you need to be prepared for a dense, challenging read. Peters' argument is sustained and rich and it's most definitely not a book you can read in a few hours. There is much to chew over. In my opinion, every well educated Christian and atheist would benefit from this book. Peters provides a view worth considering for those who are unhappy with so-called new atheist perspectives and naive fundamentalist evangelicalism. And for Christians who are constantly berated for believing in in the irrational it is a rigorous argument demonstrating that faith can be a rational act of believing.

To finish: a quote from the book (p 22):

I have written this book out of the conviction that the basic Augustinian and Pascalian position on faith and understanding is well suited for a post-modern age disillusioned with the idols of hard facts, passionless reason, absolute foundations,mand the amoral rhetoric of consumerism and materialism. Augusrine’s and Pascal’s conception of a situated and dialectical reason, of a reason dependent on the heart, of a reason nurtured and transformed by God’s love, provides a viable middle ground between the Enlightenment idolatry of reason and the radical postmodernist’s idolatry of autonomy and its call for the end of traditional philosophy and theology as unwarranted and oppressive metanarratives. Both Hume and Pascal tried in their own ways to caution us against the pretensions of philosophers who insist that we live by reason alone. I shall attempt in what follows to place these two dialectical opponents against each other. In the end, whether we opt for Hume’s or Pascal’s position on the merits of Christian faith depends on a question at the core of our human nature: “What are people for?"

For a refreshingly challenging read go get this book!

Book details: James R Peters (2009), The Logic of the Heart: Augustine, Pascal, and the Rationality of Faith. Baker Academic.

 

Movie Review: The Grey

The most profound moment in The Grey (for me) is a scene that turns metaphysical/philosophical. The main protagonist, in a a moment of abject despair, cries out to God for help and receives no answer.

Ottway (Liam Neeson) is employed by an oil rig in Alaska to kill off animals that may endanger the workers. The men on the rig are tough and living in a tough environment. Ottway becomes stranded with a group of brawling, beer swilling, violent group of men after a plane crash lands in the middle of nowhere. Unused to being vulnerable, they struggle to survive whilst trying to maintain their tough exteriors - for a while at least. Their common enemies, the environment and territory defending wolves, bring them together in ways that strip them raw - physically, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually.

The story is a pretty straightforward survival narrative. But Neeson brings a power and presence that lifts it into the extraordinary and riveting. And when the story turns briefly to its metaphysical themes - without fanfare or preachiness - the viewer is confronted with the age old question - if God is all-powerful and loving, then why doesn't God do something in our deepest need?

The answer that is given will be completely unsatisfactory for most Christians (it is contained in a quote from Ottway's father) but the question cannot be avoided.

The Grey is a forceful, hard hitting experience. But its power comes as one looks back over the story from the view of the pivotal moment I've referred to and the final scene. And the question about how one should live life in the context of a silent (or non-existent) God lingers long after the final credits roll.

PS: Stay to the end of the credits for a final scene!

You will probably like this movie if you liked The Flight of the Phoenix, The Crash of Flight 401, The Edge, Vertical Limit

Positive review

'It's a fine, tough little movie, technically assured and brutally efficient, with a simple story that ventures into some profound existential territory without making a big fuss about it.' - A O Scott/The New York Times

Negative review

'Neeson is always compelling, even in a movie as ridiculous as The Grey.' - Rene Rodriguez/Miami Herald

AUS: MA15+

USA: R

Book Review: Why There Almost Certainly Is a God

To put it bluntly, Keith Ward’s book Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins shows how ignorant Richard Dawkins is, in the bestseller The God Delusion, when he moves away from his expertise in evolutionary science into the field of philosophy and theology.

The back cover of Professor Keith Ward’s book summarises his credentials:

[He] was formerly Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford. He is a member of the Council of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, and was elected a Fellow of the British Academy on the same day that Richard Dawkins was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society.

According to Wikipedia his areas of interest are ‘comparative theology and  the interplay between science and faith’ and has written in this area.  He is not a Christian fundamentalist and has even published a book, What the Bible Really Teaches: A Challenge for Fundamentalists,  in which, according to Wikipedia, he argued that

fundamentalists interpret the Bible in implausible ways and pick and choose which of its passages to emphasise in order to fit pre-existing beliefs. Ward argues that the Bible must be taken seriously, but not always literally and he does not agree with the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy,saying that it is not found in the Bible…

In the Preface of Why There Most Certainly Is a God Ward tells how his

… arrival in Oxford was heralded by a letter from Richard Dawkins to a public newspaper calling for [his] resignation, on the ground that there was no such subject as theology, and that [Ward] was a particularly stupid example of a theologian anyway.

Why did Dawkins write the letter? Because he had taken a joke by Ward seriously, thinking that it was offered as evidence for the Christmas story! Ward goes on to write:

From that moment, the gloves were off. Even though Dawkins lived and worked in a university with one of the largest and ablest theology faculties in Britain, he went on refusing to admit that there was any such subject as theology. Despite the fact that he and I had entirely friendly and rational personal contacts — as he did with Richard Harries, former Bishop of Oxford, and the vicar of the University Church in Oxford, and the chaplain of his college — he went on proclaiming that all religious believers were stupid, deluded and dangerous.

Following this interesting background about Ward and his relationship to Dawkins, Ward launches into a specific critique of three chapters in The God Delusion — Chapters 2, 3 and 4. The critique of these chapters constitute three parts of Ward’s book and they provide a devastating response to Dawkins’ inadequate understanding of theology and philosophy.

In Part 1, Ward responds to Chapter Two of Dawkins’ book in which Dawkins discusses the so-called God Hypothesis which is defined by him as:

there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.

Ward accepts this hypothesis and then goes on to discuss two arguments that, in his view, makes the existence of God highly probable. These two arguments are 1) the irreducible existence of consciousness and 2) the irreducible nature of personal explanation. Ward explains how Dawkins’ commitment to a materialist perspective results in a reductionist philosophy that is unable to coherently synthesise the two types of explanation – the scientific and the personal. In other words, Dawkins refuses to acknowledge that some questions might need to be answered by using different types of explanations.

Ward then proceeds to tackle Chapter 4 of The  God Delusion. Ward superbly demonstrates the inadequacies of Dawkins’ ‘Boeing 747 Gambit’; discusses the nature of the new Intelligent Design arguments (that are quite different to the original arguments from design); and clarifies Dawkin’s superficial understanding of simplicity/complexity in reference to the nature of God. Ward also clearly explains the new questions and suggestions raised by recent studies in cosmology and the inadequacy of imaginative theories about multiple universes that are more unlikely to be true than the God hypothesis. In doing all this, Ward provides a wonderful argument around issues to do with the existence of consciousness and the intractable challenges it presents for a materialist view.

After providing substantive arguments for point of view, Ward spends some time in answering potential questions that may be raised in response to his arguments.

Ward provides and excellent discussion of Aquinas’s Five Ways or ‘proving’ the existence of God. Essentially, Dawkins understands both the purpose and content of these arguments.

In the penultimate chapter, Ward turns to an exploration of the personal explanation. This chapter includes personal and subjective evidences arising from a personal relationship with the divine. These are:

1. visions and voices
2. the sense of the infinite
3. the path of self-transcendance
4. the Christian experience of Christ and the Spirit

The material in this chapter is balanced but, because of its subjective nature, it is difficult to see how someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of God would be persuaded. The prior arguments in the book, in my view, are very powerful and the personal experience arguments derive their persuasive power from the philosophy arguments in the previous chapters.

The final chapter brings the argument to a conclusion by discussing why there almost certainly is a God. There is an excellent discussion on the nature of certainty and probability which needs to be taken into account when deciding on the God hypothesis. He finishes with an account of what it would look like if a person believes in God for good reasons.

Why There Almost Certainly Is a God is a superb read. Ward writes with great clarity, logical thinking, and intellectual humility — all of which is a significant contrast to the dismissive and superficial style of Dawkins’ writing on this subject. What makes this book so significant is that Ward is an expert in philosophy — the territory into which Dawkins has deigned to enter without the necessary understanding and scholarship.

If you are looking for a book that deals with Dawkins’ approach to the God Hypothesis, then this one is highly recommended. For those who do not believe in God, Ward shows how belief is not a delusion or stupidity and is, in fact,  deeply intelligent and supported by very sophisticated philosophy. For those who do accept the God hypothesis, there will be a strengthening affirmation that there are significant philosophical and scientific grounds on which to base a faith in God.

— Steve Parker

Book Details

Ward, K. (2008). Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins: Lion. (Buy)

Technorati Tags: Keith Ward,Richard Dawkins,God Delusion,God Hypothesis,existence of God