This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
I own this book it's pretty good.Modern Thomism, classic philosophy, classic metaphysics meets modern physics.
Who is Robert Spitzer? Is he a physicist? I had never heard of him.
here he is, no longer president of gonzaga, now works at the magic institute (or is it magis?).Bad-ass jesuit philosopher type with an interest in physics (cosmology in particular and how it bears on gods). So, not a physicist, but a philosopher in the anthropic principle vein, fine-tuning and all that.
A friend bought me this book but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.
Just starting the book. But I'm in the process of finalizing a move to a city pastoral position so might not get to too much of it over the next week.Will try though.A new History of the Tudors is also diverting my attention. A good general audience read. Treats them like they should be treated. Not mythologized.
BDK, He also has Bruce L. Gordon PhD who is a Philosopher of Science(Physics) physicist who contributes to the book.As too your designation of him as a "Bad-ass jesuit philosopher type"......I like it. It's very apt.Cheers!
Mr. Grev,"But I'm in the process of finalizing a move to a city pastoral position "Blessings to you on your new move and mission!!!
Mr. Shackleman:Many thanks for your kind remarks.Early in reading the book, but already something comes up that brings Tony Hoffman's apparent reasonable point that he made in another thread into light here for a comment.From page 5 , regarding views of the Big Bang Theory, “..... This mitigating view was itself subsequently mitigated by the discovery pf Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin that every inflationary model universe (and/or multiverse) must have a beginning. Since this indicates an edge of time (prior to which there is no time), the conclusions of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin point strongly to a creation of the universe (from no previously existing physical matter-energy). The cause of such a creation would then have to transcend our universe (and any multiverse in which it may be situated).” To me then it seems pretty strong that if the evidence decides the matter for a person then evidence seems pretty strong in favour of a supernatural agent. So why not believe? Something more is needed to compel belief then just the simple force of a reasoning person weighing the evidence. Or being given definitions of the supernatural. Or being shown why the supernatural is meaningful or practical. Please note I am not denigrating the point made by Mr. Hoffman. I consider it quite reasonable. Understand please, I don't need scientific evidence to prove or disprove God. One of the fatal weaknesses of much of the arguments is they seem to hinge on what the latest discovery might prove. I think it reasonable and rational to believe in a Supernatural Being who creates for a variety of reasons that are not dependent on what Science says. But it is fascinating to follow the debate.
"Bad-ass jesuit philosopher type with an interest in physics ..."Why I love BDK.
i think he was on the Larry King Live show with the guys who wrote The Grand Design. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AdKEHzmqxA
I was going to say, "Transcendental Thomism meets big bang cosmology" -- but BenYachov more or less beat me to it.
From Spitzer's autobiography:"The Magis Center is dedicated to showing the close connection between faith and reason in contemporary astrophysics,philosophy, and historical study of the New Testament."It's called Apologetics - part of the theology genre attempting to 'read' relationships in the ink blots and tea leaves of christianity.
Quite a bold claim from an obvious failed Atheist Apologist.
So Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and whoever else are not apologists also?As usual, not much is said that isn't already known. As to being able to read tea leaves, the desperation just might be on the other side.And I usually see that it is when one reads comments by their devotees.Try something different next time and actually engage the arguments.We are all defending or are apologists for a worldview. Nothing new there.
Continuing to work my way slowly through the book.I might have paid attention in physics class in High School if I had a teacher like the authors encountered in this book.Marvel at how the claim of some to only follow the evidence is laid bare before the marshalling of certain facts that make it very probative or favourable for the theistic argument. Remember I am not saying it proves, only makes one case -- theism -- very favourable and the other -- the totally naturalistic account -- highly unlikely.
Ben Yachov wrote:>He also has Bruce L. Gordon PhD who is a Philosopher of Science(Physics) physicist who contributes to the book.The lie that Gordon is a physicist is spreading around the Web, it seems.No, according to his own bio, he does not have a degree in physics. He is a philosopher.“Philosopher” does not equal “physicist.”
The Table of Contents lists the following for the book's sixth chapter.Chapter Six: Methodological Considerations and the Impossibility of Disproving God 216Introduction 216I. Common Methodological Elements 216I.A. Complete Disjunction WithinMetaphysical Assertions 217I.B. The Notion of “Infinity” 219I.C. Causality 220II. Three Approaches to the Notion of “God” 225III. The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God 229IV. The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism 232Really? I thought we had progressed beyond the idea that disproving the existence of God was impossible. Perhaps someone who owns the book could summarize Spitzer's main points on that.
Post a Comment