New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy

by Robert J. Spitzer

With the incredible popularity of recent books championing agnosticism or atheism, many people might never know that such books almost completely ignore the considerable evidence for theism uncovered in both physics and philosophy over the past four decades. New Proofs for the Existence of God responds to these glaring omissions.

From universal space-time asymmetry to cosmic coincidences to the intelligibility of reality, Robert Spitzer tackles a wealth of evidence. He considers string theory, quantum cosmology, mathematical thoughts on infinity, and much more.

This fascinating and stunning collection of evidence provides solid grounding for reasonable and responsible belief in a super-intelligent, transcendent, creative power standing at the origins of our universe.

Genres: Philosophy, Science, Religion, Theology, Catholic, Spirituality, Christianity

319 pages, Paperback

First published April 15, 2010

About the author

Robert J. Spitzer, SJ, Ph.D., is a Jesuit priest, philosopher, and educator, and retired President of Gonzaga University (Spokane, WA).

Fr. Spitzer is currently the president of the Magis Center of Faith and Reason and the Spitzer Center for Ethical Leadership.

http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/

Reviews

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

As far as I am concerned, this book is a 5. The reason I put a 4 is because as valuable as it's insights are, it can be somewhat difficult to follow. Let me clarify what I mean: Dr. Spitzer is a first class intellect and versed in current developments in modern physics, apart from Math and Philosophy. If you don't mind the talk about Big Bang, multiverses, quantum mechanics, Boltzmann brains and the like then you won't be disappointed. Fr. Spitzer develops his argumentation not only from the point of view of science, but also from the human intellect, the mind and our longing for truth, love, justice and beauty. He reaches excellent points and presented wonderful ideas that will stay with me forever.

So, I think the book contains great treasures, but they need some digging in order to come out. Not a simplistic book, but if you are willing to walk some distance with Fr. Spritzer, is definitely worth it.

[Matthew Pendleton · Rating 1 out of 5]

Terrible science combined with a misleading title (i.e., nothing in this book was at all new nor has been since the writings of Aquinas). The cosmology contained therein is mostly out of date already despite being only 2 years old, so the contemporary result is that it appears that Spitzer is vigorously attacking an army of strawmen like Don Quixiote with so many monstrous windmills. Contains a great deal of equivocation about the meaning of the word "to know" that would disappoint even the casual scientist, not to mention a very convenient definition of "entropy" which is only related to causality and time when it is convenient. The weirdly inappropriate use of exclamation points on what is supposed to be a serious treatise is just a minor irritation compared to the larger holes in the reasoning. It's still worthwhile to read though as a lesson about how science can be misinterpreted through the twisting definitions of words and reducto ad absurdum.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Still going with this. It's a book that needs to be read and re-read, then researched from other sources.

I'm a lot more dubious about the Big Bang theory than I was when I started, mainly because I don't see how that hypothesis explains the Planck era. In fact, I haven't come across ANY good explanation for the Planck era.

At the moment, I'm dealing with Spitzer's analysis of time - and that will take time!

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant and definitive set of proofs for the existence of God (as defined in the arguments) showing that such belief is reasonable and responsible. The author is meticulous and rigorous. The best argument for theism I've ever read. A completely rational and evidentiary approach without circular argument and grounded in empirical data and philosophical deduction. It will not be worth arguing on this topic with anyone unless they've read this book. The author even sets out the requirements for disproving his arguments and shows that doing so would result in inconsistency and irrationality. An absolute must read for those interested in the existence of God. Be warned, though, the book is an incredibly demanding read. It is very deep and complex philosophical reasoning! But there are great rewards for the determined and persistent reader.

[Evan Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great read for science-literate people. It's very deep, so be prepared to research some of what he talks about. In short, the universe shouts its design by a creator.

[Jon Sorensen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good book, but definitely not for the beginner. This book requires a good understanding of physics and philosophy.

[Charles Curtis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Spitzer does a fantastic job and is thorough. It's a bit of a challenge in grasping the details of the astrophysics portions, unless that's your expertise. But worth trudging through it.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think I started reading this back in the spring before I left Illinois, got through Part I and then stalled out at the beginning of the philosophical section.

In Part I Spitzer assembles the physics and cosmology information and spends a lot of time making the "fine-tuning" argument. Mostly I enjoyed reading about these deep physics data. I'm wary of the fine-tuning argument, although I think the point is reasonably well made that the "many universes" counterargument is not any more sensible or intuitively acceptable. In any case, I loved the book through Part I, and then...

Part II starts the philosophical arguments. The third chapter is just a restatement of Aristotle, Aquinas, etc. using the term "conditioned" instead of motion or cause, and seems to me hardly worth the dead tree to print it on yet one more time, especially as often as Spitzer repeats himself for clarity. If you're Ockham or whoever and you weren't satisfied in the fourteenth century, you're not satisfied now with this new term for cause. The fourth chapter introduced me to Bernard Lonergan in the course of taking over some of his arguments about intelligibility and active intelligence, which I found intriguing enough to go and actually check a copy of Lonergan's Insight out from the library. (Note that I somehow managed to get it home without a luggage cart, probably because I've been lifting weights. Insight is a hefty tome.) The fifth chapter is the best part of Part II, and the part that I feel the strongest need to go out and check Spitzer's mathematical sources and evaluate first of all, whether they say what Spitzer claims they say, and second, whether their arguments make any sense to me. If they really do show that a "realized infinity" or "C-infinity" is actually a self-contradiction, that indeed is a new and powerful philosophical demonstration that the universe has to have been finite in time and therefore demands a transphysical cause, just as Aristotle argues.

The rest of Part II and Part III can hardly be called arguments at all, and only make sense addressed ad intram to believers, or I suppose to some sort of incipiently religious person who is already deeply moved by the transcendentals to prod them the final few feet over the line to theism. In all, the book really would have been half its length if I were writing it. I nearly gave it three stars on that basis, but no book that adds this many other books to my reading list can really go below four.

[Joshua Stein · Rating 1 out of 5]

Goodreads is rife with a number of enthusiastic reviews of this book, and the general tone of those reviews is the same: this is a thoughtful and challenging book, dealing with the most substantial arguments available (within Catholic theology) for the existence of God. This is, basically, the sales pitch of the book, given by Spitzer in the introduction, and it is the way that the book was pitched to me, initially, by a friend and professor.

My review of the book will be harsh and thorough, responding both to inadequacies in content, in the styling of the philosophy, and the writing itself. Rarely do I take the time to respond to a single book so thoroughly unless it is directed at a very particular person or group. In this case, the response is merely a counterweight to the sycophantic reviews elsewhere. I did find the book very unpleasant, and so I am not simply being contrarian.

For those in the tl;dr approach to book reviews, a short summation: (1) The book is poorly written, jumping back and forth between dramatically oversimplified explanations of complex areas of physics and philosophy and incredibly technical neo-Thomist jargon. (2) The book misrepresents even claims that it quotes directly re: physics in order to increase the apparent philosophical consequence. (3) The book misunderstands many of the central notions that it invokes (e.g. probability, intelligibility, etc.) in the course of its arguments, and the accounts that it gives of these concepts are, at best, vacuous and, at worst, incoherent. (4) The book is seriously methodologically confused, bouncing back and forth between natural language and technical/quasi-formal analyses all while maintain that these analyses have an ontological (rather than merely conceptual) consequence.

I have debated working through the book claim by claim, but I have decided instead to offer straightforward arguments in support of each of these failures, for those who are interested and don't mind that I am directly quoting large portions of the book. (I don't really worry about spoilers in non-fiction.) That review is be posted on my personal site, because it is considerably longer than the 20,000 character limit on Goodreads blog entries.

[Dale Lehman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read several books of this sort over the past 10 years. Most of them cover the same ground, but do it in somewhat different ways. The repetition must be helping, because every time I read one, it makes more sense than the last one. ;-)

Proofs of God involve philosophy much more than physics, but Spitzer choose to lead off with a discussion of cosmology and the fact that our universe has a finite past. The science will be interesting to those who, like me, enjoy the subject, although I already knew most of it. But be forewarned that the "afterward" to the cosmology section is rather technical, so you may have trouble following it even if you have some familiarity with the subject. (It basically is a sharp critique of ideas that postulate a "multiverse" as a way to get around the "fine-tuning" problem.)

Once you're past the physics, the book settles into philosophy, although that can be as technical as the physics sometimes. Most of the arguments presented demand careful consideration, so this is not an "easy read," but it's worthwhile if one has any interest at all in the question of God's existence. Moreover, this book does go a bit further than most in trying to probe the nature of God and in critiquing the atheist position and some of its arguments (which Spitzer finds, across the board, weak).

Overall, I recommend this book advisedly: it's not for everyone because it's heavy stuff, but if it's the kind of stuff you're into, you'll probably get something out of it.

[Joseph Richardson · Rating 5 out of 5]

A solid and thought-provoking case for theism, based first in compelling evidence from physics and cosmology, demonstrating the necessity of a beginning of time and our universe, and then, applying that evidence to several arguments, both scholastic and modern, from metaphysics and philosophy. There is nothing about these arguments rooted in Catholic or even Christian theology. Parts of the arguments were, I confess, a little over my head — but Fr. Spitzer does as fine a job as anyone I have read of presenting these scientific and philosophical arguments in an way accessible to the average reader.

[Philemon - · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting conjectures, but no proof. The Big Bang wasn't demonstrably created. It was a singularity with no before: space and time only happened after. The multiverse can't be ruled out because of Ockham's razor as Spitzer tries to do. Interesting discussion of fine tuning: the author claims that the Guth / Vilenkin inflationary multiverse requires very fine tuning or it breaks down with bubble universes crashing into each other. This is probably news to Guth and Vilenkin.

So Spitzer sayeth there's no multiverse, which presumably would be too much for God to deal with. Thus there's only our universe, and fine tuning requirements are such that Spitzer says it couldn't have appeared by chance but must have been the work of a "hyperintelligent" designer / creator.

Except the proof for that fails too. Spitzer notes that causality involves regression of the "turtles all the way down" variety. This allows, indeed requires, him to posit an "uncontingent" entity. Since it's uncontingent, this entity can't have any properties or qualities (except somehow hyperintelligence slips in), and must therefore be unique. But if it's capable of creating anything, it must have created the whole causal web of everything that is. Indeed, Spitzer says, the unique uncontingent entity can't help creating constantly, since presumably the whole causal web of reality would otherwise fall apart. The cogency of this whole argument escapes me. Adding the "has to create" possibly violates uncontingency and has the feel of pure speculation.

If Spitzer wants to posit the Unique Uncontingent's existence, that's one thing, but why complicate things by naming it using a term as confusing and culture-laden as God? On the other hand, if someone wants to define God as "whatever we don't know and can't know," that might work pretty well. Praying to that God might be praying to have a place in the unknown, which is something we all have to contend with.

[A.K. Frailey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Though I didn't fully understand many of the proofs in the main part of the book, I could follow the logic of reasoning that led to the last part, which was a brilliant culmination of the work. It will take time to process New Proofs for the Existence of God, but my inner understanding and reasoning were uplifted as I followed along. If you'd like to consider the reality of God from a philosophical and scientific lens that supports reason and encourages positivity, then this is the book to read.

[Meromorph · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was rather disappointed with this work, mostly due to the number of issues, flaws and inaccuracies found in the arguments presented. To give some examples I elaborate on a few of these here.

p. 114. Spitzer is unclear on his definition of «hypothesis F». It seems he operates with the following definition of hypothesis F: “Any conditioned reality is dependent on only a finite number of conditions for its existence” (directly quoted from p. 114). If so, the negation ~F reads “there exists a conditioned reality which depends on an infinite number of conditions”. However, on p. 116 Spitzer writes “According to 'Hypothesis ~F', any conditioned reality is dependent on an infinite number of conditions being fulfilled for its existence”. This statement is simply not the negation of F. The two hypotheses Spitzer argues against are not mutually exclusive, and so the conclusion is a non sequitur. Note that the actual negation ~F of F as stated above is even a vacuously true statement, the empty set providing an appropriate candidate. This is however not a deep error in that the argument can be salvaged by a simple change of words. What is alarming however is the flawed presentation of the cosmological argument found in this book; one would really expect a higher precision in a published book written by someone who has taught metaphysics for several years. (Spitzer gets it right on page 221 at least.)

p. 201. In the subsection II.B “The Mathematical Prohibition of C-Infinities”, Fr. Spitzer relies heavily on Hilbert's article “On the Infinite”. In this article, Hilbert does indeed address the question of whether the universe is infinite or not. However, Hilbert indicates that questions regarding the infinitude of the universe (or infinitude of past time for that matter) are physical of nature, and ought to be answered using physical methods, i.e., by measurements, experiments and empirical data, and not by examining the consistency or inconsistency of mathematical systems. To quote from Hilbert's article: “Euclidean geometry necessarily leads to the postulate that space is infinite. Although euclidean geometry is indeed a consistent conceptual system, it does not thereby follow that euclidean geometry actually holds in reality. Whether or not real space is euclidean can be determined only through observation and experiment. The attempt to prove the infinity of space by pure speculation contains gross errors.”
It seems to me that what Spitzer is doing is precisely this, i.e., answering the question of the finitude of past time by referring to "inconsistencies" in mathematical systems. His proof therefore seems like a confusion of categories. The problems do not stop here, however:

By the “inconsistencies of certain mathematical systems” that Spitzer refers to, it is meant the problems of naïve set theory (e.g., Russell's paradox etc.). These problems were resolved a few years after their discovery by Zermelo and Fraenkel's axiomatic set theory (ZFC). I wish to emphasize that ZFC is widely accepted today as foundation for mathematics, and virtually every mathematician is working with infinite sets (or "C-infinities", to use Spitzer's terminology) on a daily basis (also Hilbert, contrary to what you might believe after reading Spitzer. Among countless examples, let me only mention that Hilbert's famous Nullstellensatz requires the base field to be infinite. To quote a well known passage from "On the infinite": "No one shall drive us out of the paradise which Cantor has created for us."). Of course, the existence of infinite sets in nature can be widely discussed, but so can the existence of any mathematical object. After all, these are all creations of the human mind.
Now, by the words of subsection II.B, Spitzer is effectively declaring himself a finitist (i.e., denying the infinity axiom of ZFC---that is, denying the existence of infinite sets). There is nothing a priori wrong with taking this philosophical viewpoint on mathematics, but one should however carefully note that by declaring oneself a finitist one severely limits the range of mathematical techniques and results available. This becomes a problem already in chapter I, as physics with finitistic mathematical foundation doesn’t even exist yet! Indeed, the cosmology and physical theories that Spitzer bases his arguments on all rely on mathematical foundation that needs the notion of infinity to even make sense. For example, Spitzer is in chapter I invoking differential geometry by integrating along a geodesic on a differentiable manifold. But there is no such notion within finitism. (See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/geo...)

In conclusion, the “new” parts of this book (the usage of “Hilbert's prohibition” on the one side and contemporary cosmology on the other to argue against the infinitude of past time) are in direct conflict with each other, and the old metaphysical proofs (the cosmological/Thomistic argument for a first cause; Lonergan's argument) are imprecisely reproduced if not flawed. Neither does it help that Spitzer randomly supplies with directly false claims, such as “infinity times zero = zero” and “the aggregation of an infinite number of zero-magnitude parts is still zero magnitude”. On the positive side, the book is heavily referenced, and I did for the most part enjoy the last three chapters.

[Joseph R. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Robert Spitzer has written a book presenting proofs for God's existence that incorporate the latest understandings and insights from current physics, especially cosmology. Spitzer is well aware of the classical five arguments from Saint Thomas Aquinas as well as other medieval proofs, some of which he elaborates and enhances with contemporary ideas from philosophy and physics.

The first part of the book looks at the current understanding of the origin of the universe, i.e. the cosmology of the Big Bang. He starts out with a general discussion and then delves into very particular issues in the field, including things like the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem's Boundary to Past Time. I had never heard of that before and still don't have a solid grasp on it after reading this section. I got to a point where I started skimming because I don't know enough contemporary physics to follow the discussion.

In the second part of the book Spitzer shifts to philosophical proofs for God's existence. He begins by laying out the boundaries of philosophy and science and showing that one can argue from basic assumptions to a reasonable and responsible belief in a thing's existence, e.g. the existence of the universe or the existence of the reader of the book. He then gives three proofs for God's existence.

The first is a metaphysical consideration that all contingent beings must be dependent on a non-contingent being for their existence. That non-contingent being must have no conditions on which it relies for its existence; it must be therefore simple, unique, and unrestricted. As such, it must be the creator of all things that are real and must sustain them in existence. This being we call God. The second proof is a modification of Bernard Lonergan's proof from 1992. Lonergan's argument proceeds from our human understanding of the universe and eventually leads to an unrestricted intelligibility that we call God. Spitzer shifts the starting point to the intelligibility of the real world to follow the same logic, a path he thinks is easier to demonstrate and more persuasive. The third proof involves the impossibility of an infinite past time, thus requiring a Creator of past time that is independent of time.

The second part ends with a discussion of problems around disproving the existence of God, including some insights on human freedom, suffering, and the problem of evil.

The third part of the book discusses the Transcendentals, various aspects of reality that apply to every thing in the universe, e.g. unity, simplicity, goodness, and beauty. These are preeminent characteristics of God and also longings of our human nature. The divine mystery is the fulfillment of our human mysteries, the fulfillment of our desires for the ultimate in truth or beauty.

This book is very technical and as such is not readily accessible to the lay reader. I've had a good portion of philosophical training, so the second and third parts were interesting and edifying to me. The first part, as I said, was too technical for me to follow. What I am saying is that this is a very well argued book, but reader beware! Or, at least, be aware of the demands it will put on you.

Slightly recommended--if you've got some scientific and philosophical training, this is a lot more valuable and elucidating than if you are less well read in those fields.

[Michele · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent resource book in my opinion. Very intellectual took me a while to read, however I find it very informative when trying to debate with highly intelligent atheists. This book provides many answers from not only a Christian way, but a Catholic response in the rephrasing from, "The Catholic Church teaches," to the "gospel reveals." I am vey thankful to intellects such as Fr. spritzer and many other priests in his class. Thank you for putting together this information for lay people like us, not matter how up to date or not, it is new information to me, especially writing it in a way people can begin to comprehend.

[Ned · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some gems, but tough and verbose

This was a tough read, only made tougher by a rather pedantic approach. Laymen will have a difficult time of it. There are some gems in the book I am glad to have found, but finishing this book feels rather like finishing a tough day at the mine. It is said that even intelligent people prefer to read at a tenth grade level. You'll only find college level reading here, however. 3.5 stars.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb, hard, hard reading. Try Chapter 5, Proof of a Creator of Past Time. He does not buy into Aristotle's, and Aquinas', notions that the universe was created "in" infinity. It took me 4 times but I think I have his argument, based on "Hilber's Prohibition of Actual Infinities."

[James Anderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excelent!

[John Agar]

This is intellectual buffoonery. His argument from a first cause is a perfect example.
Science, he says, can’t prove a metaphysical claim, but it can be combined with a metaphysical premise to prove a metaphysical conclusion. So — he runs through pop science discussions of the big bang, and concludes that they demonstrate that the big bang was the absolute beginning of the physical universe. According to the science, the big bang was uncaused; there was no “before.” But, he says, we can combine the science with the metaphysical claim that “nothing comes from nothing” to conclude that the universe may well have been created by a “non-physical” creator.
So his first step is to dismiss the science. Contrary to the science, the big bang must have had a cause —but it must have been a “non-physical” one. What is that? This is meaningless anti-science. Moreover, that cause was a “creator,” a mind, at least (he claims) 13.7 billion years old, endowed with power enough to create the universe. And while the big bang must have had a cause, this non-physical creator obviously didn’t, notwithstanding that nothing comes from nothing. Time’s real. Don’t waste it on nonsense like this.

[Steven Dzwonczyk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most of my life I have come to the conclusion of the existence of God through faith, which is truly a gift from above, and one that we neither deserve nor can achieve on our own.

This book flips the script, however, using reason, logic, physics, and finally philosophy to draw the reader conclusively to the existence of a supreme being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving.

Robert Spitzer expertly brings you to these conclusions via thorough, flawless reason. A good deal of this was outside of my personal knowledge and understanding bubble, but the author is able to explain even the most difficult concepts in a way that makes them accessible to almost anyone.

The book does take perseverance, though. Don't expect to take it all in during a single sitting. You will need to set aside short periods of time to read and absorb the concepts.

I read this on the advice of a friend who recommended another Spitzer book, which was unavailable at my library. It was a happy accident that I started with this one.

[Lizzy · Rating 3 out of 5]

It had some really great information and there is a lot that I will be thinking about for a while. However, it was highly technical and as I'm not the best as physics or philosophy, there were some chapters I found difficult to follow. I got it as an ebook which helped because I could highlight terms or concepts I didn't understand and immediately look them up or get more information (which helped a lot). Overall, a really useful and interesting book, but challenging for those of us who are not well versed in physics or philosophy.

[Rick Taglieri · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is divided into two sections. The first third is based on proofs from physics and cosmology, which as a amateur astronomer I found quite easy to follow. The second 2/3, or based on philosophy which I found a much harder slog. Those some might say the physics are outdated, he keeps everything up to date and With even more information on his website, The Magis Center.

[Andy Paul Chen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think it is fine to have a shot at proving existence of God through science. But I also think it is not necessary to trash the entire mathematical field of Real Analysis to arrive at that conclusion

[Robert DuRocher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very informative for the average person

Father Spitzer introduces the current physics theories so we can understand them as non-astrophysicists and relate them to a creation event of a transcendental being--God.

[Vinnie Santini · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book! A little more difficult to read than I thought it would be. A good look at what science and philosophy can actually say or not say about God.

[Tom]

DNF

[Ethan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is much smarter than me. I tried to hang with it, but I kept getting lost in the weeds of the steps and sub-steps of the philosophical proofs (definitely not my strong point). I spent the whole book scrambling to keep up. For one, the Physics portion in the beginning was not written for a wide audience. There's no good basic foundation to build the later chapters on, he just launches right into some of the most complicated subject material imaginable. Spitzer appends his difficult chapter by including another author's much more detailed physics chapter. That drained my batteries much too soon into the book, it should have been an appendix. By the end of the physics portion, I concluded that this was an apologetic written to physicists, in their own language. For the average reader, just google "Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin Theorem". (The Theorem proves that all practical models of the universe have a beginning. Since this is something coming from nothing it implies a Creator, so you either get comfortable with that idea, or you start having to reach for more and more implausible theories to get around the need for a Creator.) As to the philosophical proofs, I can only shrug. That part of my brain is like a buzzing, flickering neon sign missing some letters. Fr. Spitzer is quoting Bernard Lonergan at length, so you're dealing with Lonergan's weird philosophical terms. Spitzer attempts to clarify them by adding his own terms, and then the footnotes appeal to Aquinas and his terms. It was those latter appeals to Aquinas and Plato that kept me afloat (Kreeft's "Summa of the Summa" is excellent). BUT, by the end, talking about the five attributes (truth, goodness, beauty, love?, and home), that I understood. That part was wonderful, and Spitzer didn't need to use the ultra-precise, legalistic language of the earlier chapters. I did like this book, but I don't know anyone else who would.

[Vernon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Meh. I was hoping for more than just philosophical and metaphysical mumbo jumbo. I was most excited about the proofs using physics. He totally had me up until the point where he says something to the effect of, 'we are not sure what this part is, so it must be God.' Right. Or the invisible pink unicorn. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just because it is unknown does not mean you can attribute it to God. That is what people have been doing for thousands of years until the thinkers and scientists show that they have been wrong all along. The metaphysical proofs (blurg; metaphysics is not real...) were so fluffy that they just kind of fall over on their own. I am totally open to some good proofs, but this aint it. The funniest thing (well besides the god of the gaps argument) was that he was constantly referring back to very old and very dead people to prove his point. Just because they were here first does not make them right. They also believed that the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. They were most definitely not always right and their words (besides their fiction) should be take with a bit of critical thinking, something Spitzer should be using himself.

[Jason Neff · Rating 4 out of 5]

The topic and the extensiveness of its treatment by Spitzer are extraordinary. One star removed because 1) at certain points Spitzer can be difficult to read, and 2) he can be very repetitive in "summing up" points. There's just a bit too much "tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them" going on here.

Don't skip this due to its literary weaknesses though. It's worth the effort - especially his [skeptical] discussions of string theory and the multiverse. I do wish there had been more specifically about quantum physics, written for a lay person.