The Physics of Christianity [Paperback]

Frank J. Tipler (Author)

Book Description

Release date: August 19, 2008

A highly respected physicist demonstrates that the essential beliefs of Christianity are wholly consistent with the laws of physics.

Frank Tipler takes an exciting new approach to the age-old dispute about the relationship between science and religion in The Physics of Christianity. In reviewing centuries of writings and discussions, Tipler realized that in all the debate about science versus religion, there was no serious scientific research into central Christian claims and beliefs. So Tipler embarked on just such a scientific inquiry. The Physics of Christianity presents the fascinating results of his pioneering study.

Tipler begins by outlining the basic concepts of physics for the lay reader and brings to light the underlying connections between physics and theology. In a compelling example, he illustrates how the God depicted by Jews and Christians, the Uncaused First Cause, is completely consistent with the Cosmological Singularity, an entity whose existence is required by physical law. His discussion of the scientific possibility of miracles provides an impressive, credible scientific foundation for many of Christianity’s most astonishing claims, including the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and the Incarnation. He even includes specific outlines for practical experiments that can help prove the validity of the “miracles” at the heart of Christianity.

Tipler’s thoroughly rational approach and fully accessible style sets The Physics of Christianity apart from other books dealing with conflicts between science and religion. It will appeal not only to Christian readers, but also to anyone interested in an issue that triggers heated and divisive intellectual and cultural debates.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

The relationship between science and religion has long been a tenuous one. Some have worked to put these disciplines in "dialogue" with each other, while others have dismissed any possibility of a collegial relationship. To his credit, Tipler, professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University, attempts the former. He proposes that Christianity can be studied as a science, and its claims, if true, can be empirically proven. "I believe that we have to accept the implications of physical law, whatever these implications are. If they imply the existence of God, well then, God exists." After a cogent description of modern physics, Tipler embarks on a crusade to prove that God exists, that miracles are physically possible and the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus do not defy scientific laws. The author's arguments are somewhat intriguing—his knowledge of science seems exhaustive and this may attract other scientists to consider the importance of religion. Many of his theological insights, however, are problematic. Dubbing Christianity a "science" does not automatically make it so, and Tipler seems to dismiss the centuries-old importance of the apophatic tradition in Christianity, that is, approaching the mystical nature of the Divine by positing what cannot be said about God. Tipler's interest in integrating science and religion is noble, but his method is uneven. (May)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Review

Praise for Frank Tipler’s The Physics of Immortality:

“A thrilling ride to the far edges of modern physics.” --New York Times Book Review

“A dazzling exercise in scientific speculation, as rigorously argued as it is boldly conceived.” --Wall Street Journal

“Tipler has written a masterpiece conferring much-craved scientific respectability on what we have always wanted to believe in.” --Science

“More readable than Roger Penrose’s The Emperor’s New Mind or Douglas Hofstadter’s Gödel, Escher, Bach . . . an imaginative eschatological entertainment appropriate to the approaching end of the millennium.” --New Orleans Times-Picayune

“Undeniably fascinating…” --Seattle Times

“Tipler’s brash announcements are challenging—and entertaining. Although written from the viewpoint of a Ph.D., anyone should be able to get a kick out of the professor’s big-bang ideas.” --Publishers Weekly

“A book that proves the existence of the Almighty and inevitably of resurrection, without recourse to spiritual mumbo jumbo . . . Tipler does it all.” --Mirabella

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 336 pages
• Publisher: Doubleday Religion; Reprint edition (August 19, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0385514255
• ISBN-13: 978-0385514255
• Product Dimensions: 0.7 x 5.5 x 8.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 8.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (47 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,868 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

117 of 152 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars Interesting May 13, 2007

By William Kerney VINE™ VOICE

Format:Hardcover

Tipler's ideas are again mind-blowing, as they were with the Physics of Immortality. Some issues I have with it, though:

1) His main flaw, is the amount of certainty he gives to his sentences. When you research what he's talking about, you see that the facts, as they are, are much more questionable than what he leads you to believe.

For example, he says that the Shroud of Turin is consistent with XX males. IF the Shroud of Turin is the real burial shroud of Christ, and IF it is consistent with XX males (the only reference on the internet to this fact comes from Tipler), then, maybe, it gives us evidence. But he doesn't use correct qualifiers. (Qualifiers are words like "perhaps".) He states them as flat fact, which casts doubts on his entire book. A good scientist will always qualifies his statements with words indicating the degree of confidence he has in them.

2) He tries to gain a patina of scientific-ness by using big, complicated words, and, perhaps intentionally, explaining things in a confusing fashion. I took a quarter of quantum physics, and have read some books on it since I graduated from college, so I have a moderate understanding in the field, but even when Tipler is explaining things I already know, I find myself becoming confused by his explanations. He really needs to take a class on how to put together better analogies.

3) He has a very cockeyed idea of what his reader needs to have defined for him. For example, after the following line, "More precisely, the uncertainty principle says that the product of the uncertainty in the position of a particle multiplied by the uncertainty in its momentum must always be greater than Planck's constant divided by 4pi." he could have chosen to define a lot of different things.... Planck's constant, or where the 4pi came from (or why its even important), or what uncertainty means. Instead, of all things, he defines *momentum* (the product of mass and velocity)! He's either intentionally being obtuse, or he's really got an odd idea of who is going to be reading his books.

4) His illustrations suck. He uses illustrations for things that don't need illustrations (like full page ones showing how waves constructively and destructively interfere), but doesn't show diagrams for much more complicated things that he tries to describe using convoluted sentences.

5) Quantum Physics is the new magic. I've noticed from hanging out on philosophy forums online, that Quantum Physics is the new magic. There's a quantum theory of consciousness, quantum this, quantum that. Everything can be proven with Quantum Physics. So some places have a sort of Godwin's Law that you can't use Quantum Physics as proof of anything -- unless you yourself have a strong background in the subject. Of course, this doesn't quite apply, as Tipler is a mathematical physicist, but his writings certainly remind me of all the Quantum Physics-as-magic posts I've seen written online.

So why did I give it four stars? Because it *is* interesting, and if you can work through the above issues, it will make you think, whether you agree with him or not, and many of his points do seem to be right. I've long considered the singularity that started the big bang to be the First Cause which philosophers have long talked about, even in arguments predating Christianity.

-----

Update:
After reflecting on the book, I'm less happy with it now. Essentially, his argument is incoherent. His claims contradict themselves and each other. For example, he claims the following:
1) Multiple universes is true -- in fact, there are infinitely many universes, containing all randomly possible events.
2) A certain law of physics requires actions on the parts of intelligent life to hold true.
3) We have free will
4) The universe was designed to support life.

I've written a longer discussion on this, but suffice it to say that the four statements above are obviously in contradiction. If we have free will, then how can a law of physics require us to perform a certain act (destroying baryons in the universe)? Indeed, it implies we have to do it. But if the many worlds hypothesis is true, then in some universes we *don't* perform the action. But that means his interpretation of a law of physics is only true in some worlds, but not in others. But something which is logically true must be true in all universes (it's actually the definition of logical). Therefore, by definition, his interpretation is illogical. How can he say our universe was designed to hold life, when he claims with the many worlds hypothesis that there are an infinite number of universes, all randomly rolled? We just happened to end up in one suitable for holding life. It's the direct opposite of the strong anthropomorphic principle. How can he say we have free will, when we're really just randomly doing deterministic behaviors (which is determinism, not free will)? How can his interpretation of a law of physics even make sense when it requires intervention on the part of intelligent beings to hold true?

The list of contradictions in his arguments I put together is actually quite long. As a result, I think it's better as 3 stars than 4. It is still mind expanding to read, for atheists and theists alike. Read more ›

11 of 14 people found the following review helpful

2.0 out of 5 stars A little off the deep end... November 7, 2010

By Dan

Format:Paperback

Many people on here have written fine reviews, covering more detail than I am willing. But there's one thing I'd like to point out. The bottom line is, I respect the guy for putting his controversial theories out there, probably fully aware that he was going to get crucified by scientists and non-scientist alike, but this book utterly fails in its goal. In attempting to reconcile Christianity and physics, in a way that describes all the miraculous phenomenon of Christian doctrine, Tipler ends up satisifying neither christians nor phyisicists. For example, in trying to explain the resurrection of Jesus, Tipler imagines some sort of de-materialization of Jesus' body into nuetrinos and then re-materialization back into His resurrection body. I mean, come on. Jesus' resurrection body was more than just physical. There was a supernatural spiritual reality to it that cannot be explained by the laws of physics, for it is not subject to such laws. And there's a whole lot more of this in the book. And to be honest, I found myself glossing over some areas that were so out there I felt that they weren't even worth the time reading. In the end, Tipler presents a far-fetched theory that neither christians nor physicists can accept.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful

2.0 out of 5 stars A disservice to science and Christianity May 20, 2013

By Douglas K. Erlandson

Format: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. Read more ›

100 of 151 people found the following review helpful

1.0 out of 5 stars Blinded by Science? July 31, 2007

By A Customer

Format:Hardcover

By the time I was halfway through Frank Tipler's new book I scanned the table of contents and was disappointed to find there would be no explanation of the recently reported miraculous appearance of Mother Teresa's image on a cheese Danish in Nashville. That was unusual, given that Tipler goes out of his way to provide convoluted physics justifications for key Christian miracles, including the image of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin, long debunked as a 14th-century forgery by many experts. Moreover, whenever conventional physics doesn't provide a sufficient explanation for the phenomenon of interest, Tipler re-invents it.

As a collection of half-truths and exaggerations, I was first tempted to describe Tipler's new book as nonsense, but I soon realized that that would be unfair to the concept of nonsense. These descriptions are far more dangerous than nonsense, because Tipler's reasonable descriptions of various aspects of modern physics, combined with his respectable research pedigree, give the distinct illusion that he is honestly describing what the laws of physics imply. He is not. This book provides an object lesson in the dangers of pushing science beyond its domain of validity, and using various scientific approximations as if they are completely valid in all contexts. Indeed, while he complains several times early on in the book that other physicists let their philosophical prejudices influence their conclusions, Tipler has clearly let his desires get the better of him. Based on my personal experience, I believe that Frank Tipler as an honorable man and I do not think that he intended to pervert reality to serve his goals, but nevertheless he has.

Allow me to give several cases in point: Tipler claims that the standard model is complete and exact. It isn't.... He claims that we have a clear and consistent theory of quantum gravity. We don't. He claims that the universe must recollapse. It isn't. (The current evidence indicates that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.) He argues that we understand the nature of dark energy. We don't. He argues that we know the origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe. We don't. I could go on, but the point is made.

When stretching the limits of knowledge beyond the pale doesn't suffice, Tipler resorts to some interesting a posteriori uses of probability. For example, he argues that the resurrection of Jesus was accomplished as the atoms in his body spontaneously decayed into neutrinos and antineutrinos, which then later reconverted into atoms again to reconstitute him. He invokes here the fact that within the standard model of particle physics the decay of protons and neutrons is possible, although he recognizes that the mean lifetime for such decay is some 50-100 orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe. Thus, the probability of such an occurrence is essentially zero. However, using a strange "Christian" version of the anthropic principle -- a subject he co-authored a book about with John Barrow -- he then claims that without Jesus's resurrection, our universe could not exist, and therefore when one convolves this requirement with the near zero (but not exactly zero) a priori probability, the net result is a near certainty.

I have racked my brains to come up with a more extreme example of uncritical and unsubstantiated arguments in print by an intelligent, professional scientist, but I cannot. And, given some of the wild stuff that has appeared in the past decade, that is saying a lot. I believe the kindest thing that could happen to this book is that it languish untouched and unread. I urge potential readers, who may feel the need to seek out some empirical justification for their faith, to bestow a kindness on Professor Tipler and turn to another book with either better science or better theology.
Review by Lawrence Krauss Read more ›