Letter mailed on March 1, 2016, to Archbishop Allen Vigneron (Detroit), Bishop Earl Boyea (Lansing), and Bishop Joseph Cistone (Saginaw):

On July 22, 2015, I mailed a letter of complaint to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith against a Catholic organization for promoting irrational arguments for God’s existence, and thereby undermining the Church’s teaching that we know God exists from reason. This letter is on a website titled “Rational Arguments for God’s Existence: Evangelizing is Good and Proselytizing is Bad.” On October 26, 2015, I submitted a manuscript titled, “Why People Believe God Caused the Big Bang,” to The Review of Metaphysics. This article suggests a psychological explanation based on cognitive dissonance for why people find “god-of-gaps” arguments rational and intelligent.

The website of Ave Maria Radio has you listed as an advisor. I am writing to suggest that you either disassociate yourself with that organization or give its personnel some advice. I started a topic on God’s existence on its forum titled, “Defenders of the Catholic Faith.” I am under the impression that about 200 people were following the discussion. I got to explain why atheists are right about the scientific arguments, but did not get to explain why we know God exists because I was banned from making any further comments. In addition to the forum, Ave Maria Radio has numerous radio programs. I sent an email to all 17 hosts with more detailed information about what I posted and what the responses were. The President and the hosts have ignored by emails.
Respectfully yours in Christ, David Roemer

Open Letter to the Hosts of Ave Maria Radio
Upon information and belief, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wants me to instruct the Catholic Church in America about the arguments for God’s existence. See: Rational Arguments for God’s Existence: Evangelizing is Good and Proselytizing is Bad at http://www.newevangelist.me for all of my correspondence.

To this end, I began a topic on Defenders of the Catholic Faith at http://forums.avemariaradio.net, which is hosted by Stephen Ray. My metaphysics teacher in college was W. Norris Clarke, S.J., and I was taught that the scientific arguments for God’s existence (first cause, Big Bang, fine-tuning of physics constants, design) were irrational and that the metaphysical arguments (free will, finite beings) made sense.

Quoting biologists, I argued that advocates of the theory of intelligent design for evolutionary biology don’t know what they are talking about. I also indicated why the scientific arguments are irrational. At this point, Stephen Ray banned me from making further comments.

Stephen Ray commented on my arguments. He does not see any difference between the scientific arguments and the metaphysical arguments. In his mind, the existence of God explains free will and the Big Bang. Thus, proving that the argument from the Big Bang is irrational in effect proves that God does not exist.

My guess is that Stephen Ray does not grasp the difference between the fallacy that human beings have souls and the provable truth that the human soul is spiritual. My other guess is that he thinks people don’t believe in Jesus because they have a “materialist world-view.” If someone thinks they are Napoleon, it does not mean that their world-view is focused on the 19th century. It means they are crazy.

I am hoping that you all can understand and relate to this letter and will assist me in my mission from the Holy Father.
Very truly yours, David Roemer

Email to Al Kresta relating what I wanted to post on Defenders of the Catholic Faith:

Upon information and belief, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wants me to correct American Catholics who promote scientific arguments for God's existence (see http://www.newevangelist.me). The observation that leads to God's existence is the I-Thou relationship that exist between human beings. This gives rise to the question: What is a human being? The following quote from an atheist sets forth the four possible answers to this question.

Among the traditional candidates for comprehensive understanding of the relation of mind to the physical world, I believe the weight of evidence favors some from of neutral monism over the traditional alternatives of materialism, idealism, and dualism. (Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, location 69 of 1831)

There is nothing "traditional" about dualism. Dualism is just a bright idea from Descartes. "Neutral monism" is the theory supported by the evidence and judged to be true by rational people. There are a number of ways to express this:
  1. Humans are embodied spirits or spirited bodies.
  2. Humans are indefinabilities that become conscious of their existence.
  3. The human soul is spiritual.
  4. Humans are finite beings.
  5. Humans are rational animals.

It #3 and #4 that is the basis of the argument for God's existence. There is no point in explaining the argument to someone who thinks that "human beings have souls." There is no evidence for this. It is just another way of expressing dualism. The reason a lot of people think the Big Bang and fine-tuning of constants is evidence of God's existence is that they think there is more evidence for dualism than for materialism. They don't understand that there is more evidence for materialism than dualism.

Email to Deal Hudson:

Dear Deal,
I thought you might want to see the quotations that I am basing my statement the natural selection explains only adaptation. Notice the first paragraph by Daniel McShae. Notice that Dawkins speaks of "adaptive evolution" and Marc Kirschner says "evolved characters so well adapted". Can you see what is dishonest in Kennth Miller's refutation of what Behe said? Christine Kennaelly thinks natural selection explains evolution, but she is not a biologist:

http://www.newevangelization.info/fifteen/al-jahiz.html

This brings us to the absurdity of the AJP article. One of the reasons there is no explanation (other than Intelligent Design) for evolution is that improbability of getting a protein from the random selection of amino acids. The probability of getting hemoglobin is 20 to the 600th power because there are 20 different amino acids and 600 in hemoglobin. Physicists also do probability calculations in thermodynamics. If you have a gas with N molecules and imagine the container has N compartments, the probability that all of the molecules with go into one compartment is 1/N! (N!= N X N-1X N-2 .....) according to the second law of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics has to do with the location of particles in 3 dimensional space. Biology has to do with information: which amino acid is next to which. It is just as irrational to say evolution violates the second law and it is to say it does not. Whereas there are no peer-reviewed biology articles saying natural selection explains evolution, there is a peer reviewed physics article defending the idea that natural selection explains evolution.
Very truly yours, David Roemer