Jesuit Robert Spitzer rebuts Atheism

Just today I received a copy of Robert Spizer's New Proofs for the Existence of God - Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy, sent by a friend in USA. Obviously, I haven't read it. I tried to find out about it, and it looks like a heavy, I mean difficult, book with lots of scientific jargon.

One reason I was interested in "New Proofs" was that there seem to be extremely few books from God-affirming scientists rebutting the arguments of God-denying scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Stephen Hawking. There are, surely, many apologetic books from so-called believers, who simply repeat what they were taught, without much critical or scientific reflection. Even in debates, often the believers come across as 'uninformed' or 'naive' with little awareness of contemporary science and are easily talked down to by their opponents. The only book of a God-affirming scientist that made waves internationally--prior to Spitzer's--was Francis Collins' Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Spitzer is not a professional scientist like Collins; but he is a Doctor of Philosophy, and hearing him talk, one cannot but conclude he does have quite a bit of scientific knowledge. Perhaps his doctoral studies were in Philosophy of Science, combining Philosophy and Science. Anyway you can judge for yourself after watching, for example, this fiery and eloquent presentation of Spitzer:



Here is another video clip of Spitzer speaking on "The curious Metaphysics of Dr. Stephen Hawking."



Hearing him talk and having read about 60 pages of his book, I believe Spitzer's rebuttal of atheistic scientists boils down to the age-old maxim, "Nothing can come out of nothing!" The 'something' of a scientifically established Big Bang, initially formulated by the Catholic Priest-Scientist Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, cannot simply come out of nothing--going against all sicentific principles. Spitzer quotes numerous scientists, talks their language, and presents their formulae and theories to show that Science simply has no other valid hypothesis except God to explain the origin of the universe at Big Bang.



As we know, even among atheistic scientists, the conscientious ones do not say, "There is no God," or "We can prove there is no God," but only say, "God is unnecessary," or "We don't need God to explain any of the observable phenomena." For example, when buses were run in Spain and England procaiming atheism, the awkwardly worded poster read: "There's probably no God! Now stop worrying and enjoy your life!" [Not clear what the significance of the poster is when most surveys suggest that people who believe are the ones who enjoy life and have fewer worries!]



Spitzer appeared a couple of weeks ago together with Stephen Hawking and Deepak Chopra on Larry King Live to discuss the book of Stephen Hawking, which the media proclaimed as Hawking's attack on God. There are three video segments of this discussion: the first presents the curt answers of Hawking to Larry King's questions, and the other two the responses of Spitzer et al. Here is the second segment in which Spitzer plays a major role:



Click here to watch the First segment.
Click here to watch the Third / Final segment.

Whatever the merits of Spitzer's book, it is great to see a book that talks science and debates with scientists on an even plane. I was impressed by the number of scientists that he presents as supporters of a God-hypothesis. It is up to atheistic scientists to rebut Spitzer's arguments! You can read more about Spitzer's work at his site http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/ and even order a copy of his book New Proofs for the Existence of God - Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy.

---

Catholics Debate Atheists

[From Editor, 2010-04-02:
*Comments are filtered for Spam! Your legitimate comments will appear!
**Sorry, the video clips of the debate are currently unavailable!
End from Editor]

As is widely reported on the Net, Intelligence Squared had a debate on the topic: "The Catholic church is a force for good in the world." Speaking for the motion were Archbishop John Onaiyekan (of Nigeria) and Ann Widdecombe MP, a convert. Speaking against the motion were the ubiquitous Christopher Hitchens and the gay actor Stephen Fry. Before the debate, 678 were 'for' the motion; 1102 Against; 346 Don’t know. After the debate: those who were 'for' went down to 268. 'Against' went up to 1,876, and 'Don’t know' down to 34. The consensus of both Catholics and non-Catholics seems to be that Hitchens and Fry thoroughly outperformed the Catholic team.

I watched the shorter, 40', version of the debate. It was a pity that the Catholic team put up an African Bishop, for whom English was a second language, and a woman whose voice was so squeaky that it took some time getting used to. The Catholic team addressed the issues reasonably well, but failed miserably as communicators or charmers of the audience, especially when pitted against the smooth-tongued media professionals Hitchens and Fry. Also they were no match for their opponents in shooting arrows or hurling mud, especially in rebuttals.

People have their freedom to engage in whatever debates they like, but it looks to me that Catholics debating atheists like Hitchens engage in not only a futile but also a counterproductive enterprise. Even if they are matched in wit and oratorical skills, the atheists will be at an advantage. The atheists have nothing to lose, no position to defend, no history to identify with, and no responsibility to anyone except to themselves. Hitchens and the whole 'against God/Religion/Catholics' gang have only to be against something; they don't have to be for anything whatever except themselves. That gives them great freedom to attack without getting hit. It is like an invisible man punching a hapless boxer. So the Atheist can say, 'I don't approve of people forgiving one another,' 'I hate my enemies and my friends too,' 'I don't see what the problem is with x sleeping with y, regardless of the mutual relationship, as long as they are consenting adults,' 'Yes, I'll kill if I can get away with it,' and so on. He can attack every position his/her opponent takes as restricting his freedom or as out-of-sync dogmas.

Above all, a religious person comes with a baggage, a history, a heritage, which has proud as well as embarrassing elements. That is simply the fate of every one who places himself with a group, for all institutions, religious as well as secular, are made up of fallible humans. So he cannot but leave himself open to attack. The theist cannot return the attacks of an atheist in kind even if he wanted to, for an atheist has no history, has no group membership, has no commitment. Hitchens, for example, can totally distance himself from all the evils that the other atheists had done before him, for the 'atheists' don't have a Church or a history or a group identity. There is no way a theist, who comes with a group identity and heritage, can ever match wits with an atheist, who has no accountability to anyone except to himself! At least if a Hindu and a Jew or a Christian and Moslem debate, there may be some sort of equivalence of 'historical baggage'; whereas a 'loner' like the atheist can always come one up against a theist.

Another major problem with these debates is that they are simply exercises in 'impressing' people rather than in delivering truth or in searching for truth. Recent debates have become a form of entertainment, so we need entertainers rather than scholars to debate. Truth? That can be dispensed with in the context of the debate. Whatever the atheist says or the theist says, there is no way to verify immediately or even later on since they are neither footnoted nor referenced! Even if statements were footnoted, we would only have a case of X quoting Y, and Y quoting Z, without being able to ascertain whether X, Y, and Z know what they are talking about. As anyone who has gone through the books Bad Science or Who Stole Feminism? or Scientific Blunders or How to Lie with Statistics would agree, it is hard to take at face value the statistics and so-called scientific statements. Winning a debate requires entertainment appeal and quick wittedness rather than veracity or knowledge.

---