Letter to Master of the Order of Preachers, March 25, 2016
Dear Fr. Bruno Cadoré,
Upon information and belief, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and the Holy Father want me to instruct the Catholic Church in the United States about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, the arguments for God’s existence, and evolutionary biology. To this end, I am hereby offering to give developmental lessons to the faculty at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., about these topics. My correspondence about these matters is at websites titled
- Rational Arguments for God’s Existence: Evangelizing is Good and Proselytizing is Bad (http://www.newevangelist.me)
- Complaint Against Cardinal Dolan: Science and the Catholic Church (http://www.dkroemer.com)
- Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics (http://www.pseudoscience123.com)
What prompts this offer is that The Thomist
rejected the article I submitted about #1. I don’t think the reviewer understood the part of the essay that I consider to be an important insight into why people don’t agree about the arguments for the existence of God. I have since submitted the article to the Review of Metaphysics
. You can find the essay at
I submitted an article titled, “Science, Metaphysics, Philosophy, History, and Theology of the Shroud of Turin,” to a conference of the Shroud of Turin sponsored by the Italy Section of Institute of Electrical and Electronics and Engineers. It was rejected, but I filed an ethics complaint against the conference organizers, which include a consultant to the Custodian of the Shroud of Turin, for practicing pseudoscience. The IEEE dismissed my complaint, but withdrew its sponsorship of the conference.
Concerning biological evolution, my efforts to get the American Journal of Physics to retract and absurd article about evolution and thermodynamics are included in
Very truly yours, David RoemerSent by registered mail
Emailed to Dominic Izzo, O.P., on June 17, 2016
Dear Fr. Izzo,
There are a number of possible reasons why the editors of the Thomist
and the Review of Metaphysics
refused to publish my article or to use my insights to inspire a more scholarly article written by a professional scholar.
1) The editors are suffering from cognitive dissonance because they believe the Big Bang is evidence of God's existence. This conflicts with the reality that it is not. This causes them emotional and mental stress and inhibits them from understanding my article.
2) Many faithful Catholics do not understand the metaphysical arguments for God's existence, but consider the scientific arguments sound. See: http://www.newevangelist.me/ave-maria/kresta.html. For a Catholic scholar to say Richard Dawkins ( "Who made God?") is right might cause some Catholics to lose their faith.
3) The Magis Center promotes the scientific arguments and has the support of 3 cardinals and 3 bishops. Publishing a truthful article about the arguments for God's existence would create political problems. An editor who is a liberal Christian and does not fear God's wrath would be especially concerned about antagonizing influential Catholics.
4) It is fair and reasonable to describe the scientific establishment in the U.S. as being atheistic. I prove this here:
As I hinted at in my registered letter to registered Cardinal Mueller, the Magis Center and many Catholics feel a need to keep friendly relations with the science establishment, however atheistic it may be.
My understanding is that you can't prove that God exists, but you can prove that the human soul is spiritual. This is not an atheist-friendly position because it is insulting to atheists.
Fr. Robert Spitzer, who runs the Magis Center, says that you can prove God exists, but you cannot prove that the human soul is spiritual. Fr. Spitzer thinks the spirituality of the human soul is only a matter of opinion. Those who do not share this opinion are said to have a "materialist world-view." This is not insulting to atheists. Nor are atheists insulted when you say you can prove God exists because atheists know perfectly well that you can't prove that God exists.
Very truly yours,