I have a very great respect for Lawrence Krauss's views on physics,
but find his (usually), fawning and tolerant attitude to "faith"
really quite nauseating... UNTIL NOW!
(Excuse transcription errors, I had to type the article in from the
print issue)
Titled:
"MORE DANGEROUS THAN NONSENSE"
His review of Tipler's "The Physics of Christianity" in New Scientist
is a breath of fresh air, and a sign that Krauss is losing his
tolerance for theocratic *****.
The Physics of Christianity by Frank Tipler
12 May 2007
Lawrence Krauss
New Scientist
Magazine issue 2603
In trying to provide evidence for Christian beliefs, a respectable
physicist has bent science to its breaking point
"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, Tennessee. That was surprising, since
Tipler goes out of his way to provide convoluted physics
justifications for similar Christian miracles, including the image of
Jesus on the Turin shroud, long debunked as a forgery by many experts.
When conventional physics doesn't provide a sufficient explanation for
the religious phenomenon in question, Tipler reinvents it.
As a collection of half-truths and exaggerations, I am tempted to
describe Tipler's new book as nonsense - but that would be unfair to
the concept of nonsense. It is far more dangerous than mere nonsense,
because Tipler's reasonable descriptions of various aspects of modern
physics, combined with his respectable research pedigree, give the
persuasive illusion that he is 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 scientific approximations as
if they are completely valid in all contexts.
Indeed, while he complains several times that other physicists let
their philosophical prejudices influence their conclusions, Tipler has
clearly let his own desires get the better of him. Based on personal
experience, I believe that Frank Tipler is an honorable man and do not
think that he intended to pervert reality to serve his goals -- but
nevertheless he has.
Tipler, for example, claims that the standard model of particle
physics 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 doesn't have to, and all the evidence thus far suggests that it
won't.
He argues that we understand the nature of dark matter.
We don't.
He argues that we know why there is more matter than antimatter in the
universe.
We don't.
I could go on and on, but you get the point.
When stretching the limits of knowledge beyond the pale doesn't
suffice, Tipler resorts to some interesting posteriori uses of
probability. For example, he argues that the resurrection of Jesus
occurred when the atoms in his body spontaneously decayed into
neutrinos and antineutrinos, which later converted back into atoms to
reconstitute him.
Here Tipler invokes the fact that within the standard model of
particle physics the decay of protons and neutrons is possible,
although he recognises that such a decay would likely take 50 to 100
orders of magnitude longer than the current age of the universe:
thus, the probability of such an event is essentially zero.
However, using a strange "Christian" version of the anthropic
principle, a subject he once co-authored a book about, he then claims
that without Jesus' resurrection, our universe could not exist ---
therefore, when one convolves this requirement with the almost, but
not exactly zero, a priori probability, the net result is a near
certainty.
I have racked my brains to think of a more extreme example of
uncritical and unsubstantiated arguments put into print by an
intelligent professional scientist, but I cannot.
Given some of the junk that has been published in the past decade,
that's saying a lot.
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."
Prof Lawrence Krauss is Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics and
Astronomy and Director of the Centre for Education and Research in
Cosmology and Astr5ophysics as Case Western Reserve University in
Ohio.
.
|
