The theological forest and the dogmatic trees: Frank J. Tipler's The Physics of Christianity

You'd think that Frank J. Tipler would have a reputation as a bit of a crackpot. His 1994 book The Physics of Immortality describes his theory—in the scientific sense, mind you—that at the end of the universe all matter will collapse into a singularity wherein every being that ever lived will be raised from the dead to eternal life. The "Omega Point" theory, backed up with extensive calculations and formulae, inspired multiple works of SF, most notably Frederik Pohl's Eschaton Sequence and Robert J. Sawyer's Hybrids. Tipler also helped popularize the concept of the anthropic principle, the idea that our universe's physical laws are suspiciously well-suited to the development of carbon-based life—an idea that appears, among other places, in Robert J. Sawyer's Calculating God and not one but two stories that appeared this year in Analog—Carl Frederick's "The Exoanthropic Principle" and Jerry Oltion's "The Anthropic Precipice." 

Borderline-wacky scientific ideas are among the best inspirations for SF, and Tipler's blend of religious concepts and scientific proofs certainly seems pretty close to wacky. There are plenty of non- and pseudo-scientists applying theoretical axes to theological grindstones, but Tipler is fairly unique in that he's legit. A professor of mathematics and physics at Tulane University, he has a solid background in quantum physics and general relativity. And though his opponents might consider his ideas non-scientific, he backs them up with calculations complex enough that few non-professionals are qualified to debunk the meat of his arguments. In the scientific community, Tipler's ideas have been occasionally lambasted (a review in Nature called The Physics of Immortality "a masterpiece of pseudoscience"), but he certainly hasn't been written off as a crackpot. In fact, Tipler's 2005 article on quantum gravity was selected as one of the "Highlights of 2005" by the journal Reports on Progress in Physics. Notably, Tipler cites this essay as the foundation of his most recent book, last year's The Physics of Christianity.

The Physics of Christianity is a more straightforward book than The Physics of Immortality; indeed, it devotes the first few chapters to a (still rather dense) crash course in basic theoretical physics for laypeople. It gets off to a promising start in the introduction, where Tipler lays out a theological hypothesis reminiscent of Olaf Stapledon's Star-Maker:

The latest observations of the cosmic background radiation show that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago at the Singularity. Stephen Hawking proved mathematically that the Singularity is not in time or in space, but outside both. In other words, the Singularity is transcendent to space and time. According to theologian Thomas Aquinas, "God created the Universe" means simply that all causal chains begin in God. God is the Uncaused Cause. In physics, all causal chains begin at the Singularity. The Singularity itself has no cause. For a thousand years and more, Christian theologians have asserted that there is one and only one "achieved" (actually existing) infinity, and that infinity is God. The Cosmological Singularity is an achieved infinity. 

The Cosmological Singularity is God.

There's an excitement running through the beginning of the introduction. It could have been the beginning of a scientifically-supported theological treatise, but that's sadly not the case. Instead of explaining philosophical theology, Tipler bogs himself down in discussions of individual miracles, several of which are of little theological importance. Discussing the Incarnation and Resurrection make sense, but why devote so many pages to the Star of Bethlehem? Tipler behaves as if there is an absolute consensus that the star a) was an undisputed historical fact, and b) must have been a supernova, rather than a comet—or a metaphor. If that weren't bad enough, the discussion of the Resurrection—the sine qua non miracle, the thing that Paul declares (1 Cor 15:14) essential to his (and all Christian) faith, the source of Hume's critique of Christianity on which so much of modern skepticism and atheism depend, the most important thing a book like this could discuss—gets warped into a bargain-basement defense of the Shroud of Turin. A discussion that should be broadly relevant turns into a defense of a very particular kind of Catholicism (or something), and one begins to wonder what Tipler means by "Christianity." If there's a single word to describe the book as a whole, it's sidetracked.

There are also some unexplained discrepancies between The Physics of Immortality and this book. For instance, the earlier book devotes several pages to explaining why Tipler disbelieves in the Resurrection and the Trinity. The Physics of Christianity offers theoretical explanations of both, but no explanation for what has led the author to change his mind. The differences can be frustrating to those familiar with Tipler's earlier work, and that frustration is exacerbated by the fact that he refers to The Physics of Immortalityfrequently. An appendix of things Tipler no longer agrees with—something akin to Augustine's Retractions—would be a big help.

Nevertheless, there are some intellectual gems scattered throughout The Physics of Christianity. Take chapter 5's rightful insistence that "Miracles do not violate physical law":

Indeed, why should God violate His own laws? He knows what He wants to accomplish in universal history and has therefore set the laws of physics accordingly. Thus, to claim... that a miracle violates physical law is in effect to deny either God's omniscience or His omnipotence... If we cannot trust God to keep inviolate His physical laws, then we cannot trust Him to keep His word that we will one day be resurrected to live with Him forever.

The writing of most prominent atheists, including Richard Dawkins, is really a critique of supernaturalism, and the fact that there are plenty of people who believe in a God that is not supernatural but fundamentally natural often gets forgotten. Since I'm one of those non-supernaturalists, it's great to see in Tipler's book some validation for my own ideas.

But that's really why I found the book so frustrating. Because I agree so much with Tipler's theology, his cosmological definition of God, the place of the Many Worlds interpretation in his model of the universe and of divinity, I wanted him to devote the whole book to matters theological. Discussing individual miracles seems like splitting hairs, and ultimately marginalizes the whole book. When Tipler talks about the Star of Bethlehem—the first miracle he discusses—he marginalizes the whole book. There's no religious consensus on its historicity, and whether or not it actually happened is of absolutely no theological import. By discussing it first and in such depth, Tipler gives his opponents ample evidence to dismiss the whole book as a hodgepodge of rationalizations for things that probably never happened. It's a shame, because the theology (and the scientific explanations thereof) that underlies the discussion is truly compelling. Most of those foundational ideas are more thoroughly explored in The Physics of Immortality, which is a far superior work. If The Physics of Christianity devoted its energies to meatier topics, it would be a far more worthy successor.

Read the first chapter of The Physics of Christianity here.

Comments

[David Ellis]

I've read a bit about Tipler's ideas but I've never read his books.

As to the unexplained change of opinion regarding his views on the resurrection and the trinity, do you think he may just be trying to cash in on the success of books like THE CASE FOR CHRIST (as one might suspect he was trying to do with New Age mysticism in the first book)?

I'm not claiming that's what he's doing but it seems like a possibility to consider.

....Tipler's ideas have been occasionally lambasted (a review in Nature called The Physics of Immortality "a masterpiece of pseudoscience"), but he certainly hasn't been written off as a crackpot.

Well, a person can do solid scientific work and still be a crackpot in other respects. From what I've read about it THE PHYSICS OF IMMORTALITY is not that unreasonable if presented as speculation---but if he presents it as being the inevitable or even near-inevitable future of our cosmos then, yeah, he's a crackpot in my book (at least on that issue).

[Andy Stites]

I started reading this book and did not like it because of 2 objections: 1. He talks much about the many worlds theroy, but does not discuss the moral/ethical dilemmas that come from it. (i.e. how will my reward in heaven be determined if through many worlds I have committed and not committed every sin and righteous act?) 2. The idea that the resurrection is some ethereal computer program does not jive with the scripture's assertions that the resurrection is physical - we will get new bodies.

[braak]

"Indeed, why should God violate His own laws? He knows what He wants to accomplish in universal history and has therefore set the laws of physics accordingly. Thus, to claim... that a miracle violates physical law is in effect to deny either God's omniscience or His omnipotence... If we cannot trust God to keep inviolate His physical laws, then we cannot trust Him to keep His word that we will one day be resurrected to live with Him forever."

This doesn't seem like a very good counter-argument to an atheistic aggressive approach--isn't the "supernaturalism of miracles" a point designed specifically to refute the omniscience or omnipotence of God?

Which is to say, I guess:

Tipler: "This, in effect denies the omniscience or the omnipotence of God."

Atheist: "That is correct. I am denying that there is an omnipotent entity running the universe."

Though, I guess, since God can do anything, and His actions are essentially impossible to predict, a universe run by an omnipotent, omniscient entity would be practically indistinguishable from one that was running on its own.

[Gabriel Mckee]

David: I don't think PHYSICS OF IMMORTALITY was an effort to cash in on anything; it's a bit too dense for him to expect it would move many copies. PHYSICS OF CHRISTIANITY... well... yeah, there's an air of dollar signs here and there.

Braak: Tipler's bit about supernaturalism isn't an argument against atheism, but against a trend in theistic thought that has helped to build the straw man that atheism attacks. In fact, he doesn't mention atheism at all there-- I'm just expanding from his criticism.

[umbrarchist]

Here is another perspective:

http://www.quantumcritics.com/general/star-trek-meets-the-bible.html

Maybe European Christianity has been on the wrong track for 1700 years. Europeans are the Borg of planet Earth after all.

It is certainly bizarre that we don't have information as simple as the distribution of steel and concrete in the WTC towers. How do you build skyscrapers without figuring that out before construction? The Empire State building was completed 70 years before the WTC was destroyed. What kind of computers did they have in 1931? This ain't rocket science.