The Physics of Christianity (Hardcover)

~ (Author)

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.

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
--This text refers to the Kindle Edition edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 336 pages
• Publisher: Doubleday Religion; First Printing edition (May 1, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0385514247
• ISBN-13: 978-0385514248
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (35 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #104,846 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #100 in

  Books > Professional & Technical > Professional Science > Astronomy > Cosmology

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

84 of 108 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Interesting, May 13, 2007

By	William Kerney (San Diego, CA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.

43 of 59 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Definitive? No. Plausible? Absolutely., May 12, 2007

By	J.D. (USA) - See all my reviews

I must admit, I found the subject mattter of this book interesting to say the least. No matter what belief system or philosophy you come to the table with (besides willful and determined ignorance, I suppose), this book SHOULD interest just about everyone. After all, like it or not, Christianity has arguably had more impact on the human race than any other philosophy, movement, or phenomenon in our entire history (Don't think so? What's the date today, then?) so when somebody takes on the unbelievably ambitious task of attempting to address such deep (and admittedly hard to accept, based on everyday experience) issues from a purely intellectual standpoint it merits a look-see at the very least.

This book has obviously stirred some controversy of course but I think it deserves the read and here's why:

Tipler does indeed provide a rational, logical, and plausible defense of Christianity based on the natural rules of the universe as we now know them. Do I buy everything in the book? No. But then again, it wasn't Tipler's intention to "prove" THE definitive account of the universe, but rather provide some form of plausible explanation, even if speculative, of the claims of Christianity which, contrary to detractors' objections, it does indeed. I wish I could give you a summary here, but honestly, you really must read the book. This is not light reading and a fair or sensible summary simply could not be done in this limited format. However, that isn't to say that the book is cumbersome or impossible to understand at all. Tipler is engaging (its obvious the subject has his full attention which gives it more impact and immediacy), he's honest, and he's obviously very intelligent and articulate. Most importantly, its very obvious Tipler has spent an immense amount of time truly thinking about the subject. He isn't just throwing a cheap opinion around or making unfounded conjecture. I think some may have missed the point of the book, that is, Tipler isn't saying things DID absolutley happen in this one particular way but that things COULD happen in some way similar to some of his proposals - very big difference. I've seen naturalists not even so much as blink when confronted with the mind-boggling improbability and practical impossibility of the entire universe somehow creating itself from nothing by nothing and then developing through natural proccesses occurring at random over eons and eons of time to produce what we now see. But of course when the shoe is on the other foot, they want absolute 100 percent certainty, ironically citing "speculation", as they simply write off literally any other viewpoint besides their own as "unscientific". But nonetheless, Tipler does an admirable job of providing plausible explanations for his views, which of course is exactly what detractors, most of whom obviously have an axe to grind, don't like, as evidenced by the venom and childish insulting manner seen in some reviews. For example, it's one thing to disagree with Tipler's proposed explanations (I do, actually on more than a few key issues), but it's quite another to attempt to demean Christ Himself by stating you think it would "explain a lot" if Christ had small testicles (I'm not kidding, read the reviews).

Anyway, if you've ever wondered if there could possibly be some explanation for things like the virgin birth, the trinity, or miracles besides the infamous "Well, God works in mysterious ways..." then read the book. I can promise you'll find something of value.

43 of 60 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Complete disregard for honesty, August 1, 2007

By	Tom in northern California (Sutter Creek, CA USA) - See all my reviews

I was so upset that I purchased and wasted my time reading this book that I won't spend any more time than necessary telling you not to bother with it. It's not clear at all what his point is, but it starts off with misstatements of truth: 1) That the standard model of quantum mechanics is complete and exact -- it's not at all, nor would any reputable scientist say it is. It is the closest we have at this time; 2) He says that we know what quantum gravity is -- actually, we've been searching for the solution to quantum gravity for fifty years now .. and it's still eluding us; 3) He says the universe will collapse -- hogwash! An amazing yet quite proven finding from 1998 is the discovery of "dark energy" that is actually making the universe expand at a faster and faster rate; And his errors go on and on. Given the amount of falsification throughout the book, there's just no point to wasting your time reading the book.