New customer? Start here.

Shop by Department Search

Hello. Sign in Your Account Try Prime Cart 0 Wish List

Customer Review

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful

A disservice to science and Christianity, May 20, 2013

Doug Erlandson

This review is from: The Physics of Christianity (Hardcover)

Since an ample number of the reviews already written have furnished many of the details of why Frank Tipler's "The Physics of Christianity" is pseudo-science masquerading as science and thus why a significant number of his explanations of various of the events recorded in Scripture are implausible (e.g., the virgin birth, the assumption of Mary, etc.), I will assume that the reader interested in the details will look at these other reviews.

I will confine my comments to why "The Physics of Christianity" does a disservice to both science and Christianity. The former is far easier to explain. While Tipler clearly has a scientist's knowledge of physics (he wouldn't be able to use the terminology, much less come up with his creative explanations if he didn't), he has failed in his role as a scientist because he has gone far beyond what the evidence warrants and engages in wild speculation. In many cases, his argument amounts to little more than the following: "X would explain Y (a surprising event, such as the Virgin Birth) if X were true. Hence, there is reason to believe that X occurred and therefore Y occurred as well." The fallacy in this line of reasoning should be obvious. To argue, for example, that it is possible to give an explanation of the Assumption of Mary if it occurred, does not show that the Assumption of Mary occurred.

This brings me to why the book does a disservice to Christianity. The Christian faith is based on belief in a God who is the sovereign creator of the universe and who, if he so chooses, can intervene in the normal course of events. Such interventions are regarded as miracles. To try to show that Christian miracles are simply extremely unusual occurrences that have a non-supernatural explanation after all, is to render belief in a supernatural being unnecessary. To put this point another way: To the extent that Tipler succeeds in showing that the events described in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures have a non-supernatural explanation (whether we're talking about the Virgin Birth or the origin of the universe) he has succeeded in showing that belief in a creator and sustainer of the universe is unnecessary. And so, if what he is doing is in fact good science (which it isn't) and he has shown that what is found in the Bible is scientifically explicable, there is no need for belief in a divine being. Undoubtedly, this is not his intent. But this conclusion follows from the success of his project.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

Was this review helpful to you?

Report abuse | Permalink

The Physics of Christianity B003D7JZC6 Frank J. Tipler Doubleday Religion The Physics of Christianity Books A disservice to science and Christianity Since an ample number of the reviews already written have furnished many of the details of why Frank Tipler's "The Physics of Christianity" is pseudo-science masquerading as science and thus why a significant number of his explanations of various of the events recorded in Scripture are implausible (e.g., the virgin birth, the assumption of Mary, etc.), I will assume that the reader interested in the details will look at these other reviews.

I will confine my comments to why "The Physics of Christianity" does a disservice to both science and Christianity. The former is far easier to explain. While Tipler clearly has a scientist's knowledge of physics (he wouldn't be able to use the terminology, much less come up with his creative explanations if he didn't), he has failed in his role as a scientist because he has gone far beyond what the evidence warrants and engages in wild speculation. In many cases, his argument amounts to little more than the following: "X would explain Y (a surprising event, such as the Virgin Birth) if X were true. Hence, there is reason to believe that X occurred and therefore Y occurred as well." The fallacy in this line of reasoning should be obvious. To argue, for example, that it is possible to give an explanation of the Assumption of Mary if it occurred, does not show that the Assumption of Mary occurred.

This brings me to why the book does a disservice to Christianity. The Christian faith is based on belief in a God who is the sovereign creator of the universe and who, if he so chooses, can intervene in the normal course of events. Such interventions are regarded as miracles. To try to show that Christian miracles are simply extremely unusual occurrences that have a non-supernatural explanation after all, is to render belief in a supernatural being unnecessary. To put this point another way: To the extent that Tipler succeeds in showing that the events described in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures have a non-supernatural explanation (whether we're talking about the Virgin Birth or the origin of the universe) he has succeeded in showing that belief in a creator and sustainer of the universe is unnecessary. And so, if what he is doing is in fact good science (which it isn't) and he has shown that what is found in the Bible is scientifically explicable, there is no need for belief in a divine being. Undoubtedly, this is not his intent. But this conclusion follows from the success of his project. Doug Erlandson May 20, 2013

Overall: 5

Comments

Track comments by e-mail

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first

Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion

Initial post: Aug 7, 2013 11:04:54 AM PDT

J. R. says:

Hi, Doug Erlandson. You wrote:

""
his [Frank J. Tipler's] explanations of various of the events recorded in Scripture are implausible (e.g., the virgin birth, the assumption of Mary, etc.) ...

To argue, for example, that it is possible to give an explanation of the Assumption of Mary if it occurred, does not show that the Assumption of Mary occurred.
""

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler does not argue that the Assumption of Mary did indeed occur, simply that it is allowed by the known laws of physics.

Traditional Christian theology has maintained that God never violates natural law, as God, in His omniscience, knew in the beginning all that He wanted to achieve and so, in His omnipotence, He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal. The idea that God would violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient. In traditional Christian theology, miracles do not violate natural law--rather, they are events which are so improbable that they can only be explained by the existence of God and His acting in the world. As Augustine of Hippo wrote concerning miracles [The City of God, Book 21, Ch. 8],

""
For we say that all portents are contrary to nature; but they are not so. For how is that contrary to nature which happens by the will of God, since the will of so mighty a Creator is certainly the nature of each created thing? A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature, but contrary to what we know as nature.
""

That is, traditional Christian theology has maintained that if we had the ultimate physical law, then we would be able to explain how God's existence and His miracles are possible [cf. Romans 1:19,20; The Summa Theologica, 1st Part, Question 2, Arts. 2-3]. According to the known laws of physics, we now have that ultimate physical law, the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, and so we are now able to explain God's existence and His miracles. Within the Omega Point cosmology, miracles are physically allowed via the Principle of Least Action, as the universe is logically forced by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to evolve into the Omega Point final singularity, and so any event which is required in order for this evolutionary process to occur is certain to occur. Thus, a miracle within the known laws of physics is an event which is so improbable that it can only be rationally explained due to the end-state that said physical laws require the universe evolve to.

The English word miracle etymologically means "object of wonder" [John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (Eds.), The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 2nd ed., 1989)]. The Old Testament words translated as miracle are in the original Hebrew [James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1890)]: oth (tw'), "sign", "token"; mopheth (tpwm|), "sign", "wonder"; and pala ('lp|), "marvelous", "wondrous". The New Testament words translated as miracle are in the original Greek [op. cit.]: dunamis (dÔnamij), "power", "mighty work"; semeion (shmeØon), "sign"; and teras (tèraj), "wonder". So the meaning of these words in their Biblical context has nothing to do with violating natural law.

For much more information on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by said known physical laws, look-up online my following free article. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011 (since updated), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708.

Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. Tipler explaining the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400.

Reply to this post

Permalink | Report abuse
Do you think this post adds to the discussion?