The Omega Point Theory by Tulane University professor of physics and mathematics Frank J. Tipler is what he maintains is a proof of God‘s existence according to the known laws of physics. The theory is an integral part of the Feynman–Weinberg–DeWitt quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) which Tipler also holds is required by the known physical laws.^[1][2]

The Omega Point is a term used by Tipler to designate the final cosmological singularity, which he contends is a physically-necessary cosmological state in the far future of the universe. According to his Omega Point Theory, as the universe comes to an end at this singularity in a particular form of the Big Crunch, the computational capacity of the universe (in terms of both its processor speed and memory storage) increases unlimitedly with a hyperbolic growth rate as the radius of the universe goes to zero, allowing an infinite number of bits to be processed and stored before the end of spacetime. Via this supertask, a simulation run on this universal computer can thereby continue forever in its own terms (i.e., in “experiential time”), even though the universe lasts only a finite amount of proper time.

Tipler states that the known laws of physics require there be intelligent civilizations in existence at the appropriate time in order to force the collapse of the universe and then manipulate its collapse so that the computational capacity of the universe can diverge to infinity. Due to the increasing temperature of the universe during the collapse phase (wherein the temperature diverges to infinity), Tipler says that life will have to transfer its information processes to higher energy states, eventually using elementary particles to directly compute on via traveling waves and standing waves.

Tipler identifies this Omega Point final singularity and its state of infinite informational capacity as God. According to Tipler, this final singularity is actually just a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the uncaused first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions. The implication of this theory for present-day humans is that Tipler maintains this ultimate cosmic computer will be able to run computer emulations which are perfectly accurate down to thequantum level of every physically-possible universe, and any life contained in them, from the start of the Big Bang (which Tipler states starts at zero informational capacity and diverges to infinite informational capacity as the universe progresses in time, thereby allowing sufficiently later states of the universe to perfectly render earlier states). According to Tipler, from the perspective of the recreated inhabitants, the states near the Omega Point would represent their resurrection in an infinite-duration afterlife, which could take any imaginable form due to its virtual nature.

Tipler says that the interstellar colonization phase required for achieving the Omega Point will be accomplished by human consciousness uploaded onto quantum computers in tiny starships that could exponentially explore space, many times faster than biological human beings. Tipler argues that the incredible expense of keeping humans alive in space implies that flesh-and-blood humans will never personally travel to other stars. Instead, highly efficient uploads of human minds and artificial intelligences will spread civilization throughout space. According to Tipler, this should likely start before 2100. Small spaceships under heavy acceleration up to relativistic speeds could then reach nearby stars in less than a decade. In one million years, these intelligent self-replicating spacecraft would have completely colonized the Milky Way galaxy. In 100 million years, the Virgo Supercluster would be colonized. From that point on, the entire visible universe would be engulfed by these sapient spacecraft as it approaches the point of maximum expansion. Per this cosmological model, the final singularity of the Omega Point itself will be reached between 10¹⁸ and 10¹⁹ years.^[3]

History

Tipler has published his Omega Point Theory in a number of peer-reviewed scientific journals since 1986.^{[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][1][13]} The first book wherein the Omega Point Theory was described was 1986′s The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, written by astrophysicist John D. Barrow and Tipler, wherein they concluded the book by writing that^[14]

if life evolves in all of the many universes in a quantum cosmology, and if life continues to exist in all of these universes, thenall of these universes, which include all possible histories among them, will approach the Omega Point. At the instant the Omega Point is reached, life will have gained control of all matter and forces not only in a single universe, but in all universes whose existence is logically possible; life will have spread into all spatial regions in all universes which could logically exist, and will have stored an infinite amount of information, including all bits of knowledge which it is logically possible to know. And this is the end.

In an endnote to the above paragraph, Barrow and Tipler added that “A modern-day theologian might wish to say that the totality of life at the Omega Point is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient!”^[15] The first book solely concentrating on the Omega Point Theory was Tipler’s The Physics of Immortality in 1994.^[16]

Physicist David Deutsch (who in 1985 founded the field of quantum computation by being the first person to mathematically formulate how a quantum computer operates^[17]) in his 1997 book The Fabric of Reality defends the physics of Tipler’s Omega Point Theory in Chapter 14: “The Ends of the Universe” (of which chapter concentrates mainly on the Omega Point Theory):^[18]

I believe that the omega-point theory deserves to become the prevailing theory of the future of spacetime until and unless it is experimentally (or otherwise) refuted. (Experimental refutation is possible because the existence of an omega point in our future places certain constraints on the condition of the universe today.)

Deutsch later comments within a concluding paragraph of the same chapter regarding the synthesis of his “four strands” of fundamental reality, which includes the strengthened version of mathematician Alan Turing‘s theory of universal computation in the form of the Omega Point Theory:

It seems to me that at the current state of our scientific knowledge, this is the ‘natural’ view to hold. It is the conservative view, the one that does not propose any startling change in our best fundamental explanations. Therefore it ought to be the prevailing view, the one against which proposed innovations are judged. That is the role I am advocating for it. I am not hoping to create a new orthodoxy; far from it. As I have said, I think it is time to move on. But we can move to better theories only if we take our best existing theories seriously, as explanations of the world.

In 2007 Tipler’s book The Physics of Christianity was published, which gives an update to the latest findings of the Omega Point Theory and also analyzes its pertinence to Christian theology.^[2] In the book Tipler identifies the Omega Point as being the Judeo-Christian God, particularly as described by Christian theological tradition, e.g., that the Omega Point cosmology when formulated in multiversal terms (of which multiverse conception isn’t necessary for the physics upon which the Omega Point itself is based) is fundamentally triune in its structure: the Final Singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the All-Presents Singularity (which Tipler states exists at all times at the edge of the multiverse), and the Initial Singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang), which Tipler identifies with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, respectively (successively, the First, Second and Third Persons of the Trinity).

In this book Tipler also analyzes how Jesus Christ could have performed the miracles attributed to him in the New Testamentwithout violating any known laws of physics, even if one were to assume that we currently don’t exist on a level of implementation in a computer simulation (in the case that we did, then according to Tipler such miracles would be trivially easy to perform for the society which was running the simulation, even though it would seem amazing from our perspective). This proposed process uses baryon annihilation by way of electroweak quantum tunneling, and the inverse of this process, caused via the principle of least action by the requirement of the existence of the final Omega Point cosmological singularity. Tipler also proposes that the virgin birth of Jesus by Mary could be possible via Jesus being a special type of XX male who obtained all of his genetic material from Mary (i.e., an instance of parthenogenesis). If the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and the miracles attributed to him in the New Testament were necessary in order to lead to the formation of the Omega Point—and if the Omega Point is a physical necessity—then according to Tipler the probability of these events occuring is certain. Furthermore, Tipler proposes tests on particular relics associated with Jesus which, if the relics are genuine, could verify whether in fact said miracles took place via the aforementioned mechanisms. Tipler writes in this book that miracles, if they indeed exist, do not violate physical law, but instead are events which are so improbable that they would only be likely to occur within human history via the least-action principle if the universe is required to evolve into the Omega Point.

The Physics of Christianity shows a change from Tipler’s earlier position within The Physics of Immortality regarding theismand Christianity. In the opening paragraph of Chapter XII: “The Omega Point and Christianity” of The Physics of Immortality, Tipler wrote the following:

To emphasize the scientific nature of the Omega Point Theory, let me state here that I am at present forced to consider myself an atheist, in the literal sense that I am not a theist. (A-theist means “not theist.”) I do not yet even believe in the Omega Point. The Omega Point Theory is a viable scientific theory of the future of the physical universe, but the only evidence in its favor at the moment is theoretical beauty, for there is as yet no confirming experimental evidence for it. Thus scientifically one is not compelled to accept it at the time of my writing these words. So I do not. Flew, among others, has in my opinion made a convincing case for the presumption of atheism. If the Omega Point Theory and all possible variations of it are disconfirmed, then I think atheism in the sense of Flew, Hume, Russell, and the other self-described atheists is the only rational alternative. But of course I also think the Omega Point Theory has a very good chance of being right, otherwise I would never have troubled to write this book. If the Omega Point Theory is confirmed, I shall then consider myself a theist.

Tipler now regards himself as a theist due to what he states have been advancements in his Omega Point Theory which occurred after the publication of The Physics of Immortality.^[19][20] Namely, Tipler now says the known laws of physics—specifically, quantum mechanics, general relativity, the second law of thermodynamics, and the Standard Model of particle physics—require the existence of the Omega Point singularity in order to avoid their violation;^{[10][11][12][1]} whereas in The Physics of Immortality Tipler investigated what would be necessary from the postulate that life continues forever while still keeping the analysis confined to the known laws of physics. Tipler states that these physical laws have been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment to date. According to Tipler, this constitutes a massive body of empirical evidence for the Omega Point Theory’s correctness. And as indicated above, Tipler also now considers himself a Christian due to his identification of the Omega Point with the God of Christian theological tradition.

Physics

According to Tipler from a 2005 paper^[1] in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics, he outlines the following reasons why he maintains the universe must end in the Omega Point in order for the known laws of physics (i.e., the second law of thermodynamics, general relativity, and quantum mechanics) to be mutually consistent at all times:

Astrophysical black holes almost certainly exist, but Hawking^{[q 1]} and Wald^{[q 2]} have shown that if black holes are allowed to exist for unlimited proper time, then they will completely evaporate, and unitarity will be violated. Thus, unitarity requires that the universe must cease to exist after finite proper time, which implies that the universe has spatial topology S³.^{[q 3]} TheSecond Law of Thermodynamics says the amount of entropy in the universe cannot decrease, but Ellis and Coule^{[q 4]} and I^{[q 5]} have shown that the amount of entropy already in the CMBR will eventually contradict the Bekenstein Bound near the final singularity unless there are no event horizons, since in the presence of horizons the Bekenstein Bound implies the universal entropy S ≤ constant × R², where R is the radius of the universe, and general relativity requires R → 0 at the final singularity. If there are no horizons then the (shear) energy density can grow as R⁻⁶ which means that the total available energy grows as (R⁻⁶ ) R³ ~ R⁻³, and so the Bekenstein Bound yields E R ~ (R⁻³)R ~ R⁻² which diverges as R⁻² as R → 0 at the final singularity.^{[q 6][q 5]} The absence of event horizons by definition means that the universe’s future c-boundary is a single point,^{[q 7]} call it the Omega Point. MacCallum^{[q 8]} has shown that an S³ closed universe with a single point future c-boundary is of measure zero in initial data space. Barrow,^{[q 9][q 10]} Cornish and Levin^{[q 11]} and Motter^{[q 12]} have shown that the evolution of anS³ closed universe into its final singularity is chaotic. Yorke et al.^{[q 13][q 14]} have shown that a chaotic physical system is likely to evolve into a measure zero state if and only if its control parameters are intelligently manipulated. Thus life (≡intelligent computers) almost certainly must be present arbitrarily close to the final singularity in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent at all times. Misner^{[q 15][q 16][q 17]} has shown in effect that event horizon elimination requires an infinite number of distinct manipulations, so an infinite amount of information must be processed between now and the final singularity. The amount of information stored at any time diverges to infinity as the Omega Point is approached, sinceS → +∞ there, implying divergence of the complexity of the system that must be understood to be controlled.

According to Tipler,^[16] during the collapse phase of the universe, life uses gravitational shear energy by forcing a Taub universe collapse (named after physicist Abraham Haskel Taub), whereby the universe collapses along one axis into the shape of an oblate spheroid by life directing trajectories of mass, thereby creating greater heating along the axis of collapse and hence a temperature differential whereby usable energy can be obtained. The Taublike collapse in one direction, and then another direction (i.e., Mixmaster oscillations) is also used to eliminate event horizons by allowing communication across the universe along the axis of collapse, which is necessary for information processing (and hence life) to continue. This mode of collapse ends (in proper time, as in computer clock time it never ends) in a single c-boundary (i.e., causal boundary) point: the Omega Point. The gravitational shear energy thereby available to life diverges to infinity as the Omega Point is approached. That is, by making the negative gravitational energy go to minus infinity, the positive energy available to life goes to plus infinity, as the total energy of the universe at all times sums to exactly zero, as physicist Stephen Hawking has pointed out.^[21]

Some have pointed out that the current acceleration of the universe’s expansion due to the positive cosmological constant would appear to obviate the Omega Point. Although physicists Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner state that “there is no set of cosmological observations we can perform that will unambiguously allow us to determine what the ultimate destiny of the Universe will be.”^[22] On this matter Tipler maintains^[23] (see also references ^[1] and ^[12]) that baryon annihilation—which he says would be the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization of the universe—will force the Higgs field to its absolute vacuum state, resulting in the universe’s collapse:

The SM provides such a mechanism, which I actually discussed in the last section of the Appendix for Scientists in (^{[q 18]}, p. 515). This mechanism is the creation/destruction of baryon number by electroweak quantum tunneling. (Baryons are the heavy particles made up of quarks. Examples are neutrons and protons.) In my book, I pointed out that this mechanism would be ideal for propelling interstellar spacecraft, but I did not discuss its implications for the Higgs vacuum, a serious oversight on my part. (An oversight which invalidates the second part of my Fifth Prediction on page 149 of ^{[q 18]}.) If the SM is true—ALL experiments conducted to date indicate that it is (e.g.^{[q 19]} and ^{[q 20]}, last full paragraph on p. 35)—then the net baryon number observed in the universe must have been created in the early universe by this mechanism of electroweak quantum tunneling. If the baryons were so created, then this process necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum. But if the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by this process, say by the action of intelligent life, then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, canceling the positive cosmological constant, stopping the acceleration, and allowing the universe to collapse into the Omega Point. Conversely, if enough baryons are not annihilated by this process, the positive cosmological constant will never be canceled, the universe will expand forever, unitarity will be violated, and the Omega Point will never come into existence. Only if life makes use of this process to annihilate baryons will the Omega Point come into existence.

The Omega Point and the quantum gravity Theory of Everything

In his 2005 paper^[1] in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics, Tipler maintains that the correct quantum gravity theory has existed since 1962, first discovered by Richard Feynman in that year,^[24] and independently discovered by Steven Weinberg and Bryce DeWitt, among others. But, according to Tipler, because these physicists were looking for equations with a finite number of terms (i.e., differential equations with derivatives no higher than second order), they abandoned this qualitatively unique quantum gravity theory since in order for it to be consistent it requires an arbitrarily higher number of terms.^[25] ”They also did not realize that the correct quantum gravity theory is consistent only if a certain set of boundary conditions are imposed …”, writes Tipler (which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities).^[1] Tipler says that the equations for this theory of quantum gravity are term-by-term finite, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur in spacetime, consequently destabilizing it, are transferred to the cosmological singularities, thereby preventing the universe from immediately collapsing into nonexistence^[26]). Tipler writes that “It is a fundamental mathematical fact that this [infinite series] is the best that we can do. … This is somewhat analogous to Liouville’s theorem in complex analysis, which says that all analytic functions other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity.”^[27]

From the aforesaid Reports on Progress in Physics paper,^[1] Tipler elaborates on the mathematics and physics of this issue, in part explained below:

So basic quantum field theory quickly forces upon us the general invariant action
(3)

This is the qualitatively unique gravitational Lagrangian picked out by quantum mechanics. Physicists do not like it because (1) it has an infinite number of (renormalizable) constants , all of which must be determined by experiment and (2) it will not yield second order differential equations which all physicists know and love. But the countable number of constants are in effect axioms of the theory, and I pointed out in an earlier section that the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem suggests there is no real difference between a theory with a countable number of axioms and a theory with a finite number of axioms. The finite case is just easier for humans to deal with, provided the ‘finite’ number is a small number. Further, as Weinberg^{[q 21]} has emphasized, this Lagrangian generates a quantum theory of gravity that is just as renormalizable as QED and the SM.

Since quantum field theory itself is forcing the Lagrangian (3) on us, I propose that we accept the judgement of quantum mechanics and accept (3) (and the countable number of additional terms involving the non-gravitational fields interacting with the h_μν) as the actual Lagrangian of reality.

Donoghue^{[q 22]} and Donoghue and Torma^{[q 23]} have shown that Lagrangian (3) will not contradict experiment provided the (renormalized) values of the infinite number of new coupling constants are sufficiently small. …

One consequence of the above Lagrangian being the true description of quantum gravity, explains Tipler, would be that so long as one is within spacetime, then one can never obtain a complete description of quantum gravity and hence of physics: there will always be infinitely more to learn and discover in the field of physics, including by requiring the use of experiment.^[25] He says that physics will be able to become ever-more refined, knowledgeable and precise, but never complete (i.e., within spacetime). Only at the final singularity of the Omega Point (which is not in spacetime^[28]) will the full description of physics be obtained, states Tipler.

In the same aforestated journal article, Tipler combines the above theory of quantum gravity with an extended Standard Modelin order to form what he maintains is the correct Theory of Everything (TOE) describing and unifying all the forces in physics.^[1][2]

Out of 50 articles, Tipler’s said paper^[1] was selected as one of 12 for the “Highlights of 2005″ accolade as “the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website.”^[29] Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics (based on its impact factor, according to Journal Citation Reports^[30][31]), Britain’s main professional body for physicists.

Implications from string theory

If string theory is valid, it would seem to contradict the Omega Point Theory, since the Omega Point Theory requires the existence of a cosmological singularity at the end of time. Whereas, according to string theory, singularities do not actually exist because no material object can be compressed below the Planck length.^[32]

Stephen Hawking has proposed a solution to the black hole information issue in order to preserve unitarity but without the universe collapsing which is dependent on the conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence).^[33]

Tipler himself argues against the validity of string theory.^[1]

Criticisms

To date the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Tipler’s Omega Point Theory has been in 1994 by physicists George Ellis and David Coule in the journal General Relativity and Gravitation.^[34] In the paper, Ellis and Coule gave an argument that the Bekenstein bound violates the second law of thermodynamics if the universe collapses without havingevent horizons eliminated. Tipler argues that in order to bring about the Omega Point that event horizons must be eliminated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of his contention that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.^[1]

There have also been a number of non-refereed book reviews appearing in science journals and popular science magazines which have been critical of Tipler’s Omega Point Theory. Writing in the “Book Reviews” section of the journal Nature, Ellis described Tipler’s book The Physics of Immortality as “a masterpiece of pseudoscience. … the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific or philosophical discipline.”^[35] In the magazine New Scientist, physicist Lawrence M. Krauss referred to Tipler’s book The Physics of Christianity 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.”^[36]

See also

• Christianity
• computer science
• eschatology
• first cause
• God
• physics
• quantum gravity
• theology
• Trinity

Physics books dealing with the Omega Point Theory

• Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), ISBN 0385514247, LCCN 2006039028.Chapter I and excerpt from Chapter II. Chapter I also available here.

• David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes—and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997), ISBN 0713990619, LCCN 97006171. Extracts from Chapter 14: “The Ends of the Universe”, with additional comments by Tipler; also available here, here and here.

• Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), ISBN 0385467982, LCCN 93045046, bibcode: 1994pimc.book…..T. Fifty-six-page excerpt availablehere.

• John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, “Foreword” by John A. Wheeler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), ISBN 0198519494, LCCN 85004824, bibcode: 1986acp..book…..B. Excerpt from Chapter 1.

References

1. ↑ ^{1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11} F. J. Tipler, “The structure of the world from pure numbers”,Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh…68..897T. Mirror link. (Note: citation formatting in the above-quoted passages have been modified for clarity. Typographical errors in the third quoted passage have been corrected, again for clarity.) Also released as“Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything”, arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.
2. ↑ ^{2.0 2.1 2.2} Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), ISBN 0385514247, LCCN 2006039028. Chapter I and excerpt from Chapter II. Chapter I also available here.
3. ↑ F. J. Tipler, “The structure of the world from pure numbers”, Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh…68..897T, pp. 915-916. Mirror link. Also released as “Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything”,arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007, pp. 28-29.
4. ↑ Frank J. Tipler, “Cosmological Limits on Computation”, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP…25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point Theory.)
5. ↑ Frank J. Tipler, “Achieved spacetime infinity”, Nature, Vol. 325, No. 6101 (January 15, 1987), pp. 201-202,doi:10.1038/325201c0, bibcode: 1987Natur.325..201T.
6. ↑ Frank J. Tipler, “The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1988, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (1988), pp. 27-48; published by University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association.
7. ↑ Frank J. Tipler, “The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg’s Questions for Scientists”, Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Mirror link. Republished as Chapter 7: “The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg’s Questions to Scientists” in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (editors), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg(Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114.
8. ↑ Frank J. Tipler, “The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation”, Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Issues 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286…36T.
9. ↑ Frank J. Tipler, “A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation”, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B. L. Hu and T. A. Jacobson (editors), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf…..H. Mirror link.
10. ↑ ^10.0 10.1 Frank J. Tipler, “Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe”, NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119 (mirror link); an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12–14, 1998; doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. Mirror link.
11. ↑ ^11.0 11.1 Frank J. Tipler, “The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant”, arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001. Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (editors), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586…..W.
12. ↑ ^{12.0 12.1 12.2} Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent life in cosmology”, International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB…2..141T. Mirror links here and here; also available here. Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007.
13. ↑ Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, “Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem”, arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, March 20, 2000. Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, Issue 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T.
14. ↑ John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, “Foreword” by John A. Wheeler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 676-677, ISBN 0198519494, LCCN 85004824, bibcode: 1986acp..book…..B.Excerpt from Chapter 1.
15. ↑ John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, “Foreword” by John A. Wheeler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 682, ISBN 0198519494, LCCN 85004824, bibcode: 1986acp..book…..B. Excerpt from Chapter 1.
16. ↑ ^16.0 16.1 Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), ISBN 0385467982, LCCN 93045046, bibcode: 1994pimc.book…..T.
17. ↑ D. Deutsch, “Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London; Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 400, No. 1818 (July 1985), pp. 97-117,doi:10.1098/rspa.1985.0070, bibcode: 1985RSPSA.400…97D. Mirror link.
18. ↑ David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes—and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997), ISBN 0713990619, LCCN 97006171. Extracts from Chapter 14: “The Ends of the Universe”, with additional comments by Tipler; also available here, here and here.
19. ↑ Sam Vincent Meddis, “Computers of the distant future”, USA Today, four parts, August 3–31, 1998. Part 1: “Machines evolve” (August 3), Part 2: “A quantum leap” (August 10), Part 3: “Universal truths” (August 17), and Part 4: “Web of thought” (August 31). See Part 1 concerning Tipler no longer being an atheist.
20. ↑ Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), ISBN 0385514247, LCCN 2006039028, Chapter III: “Life and the Ultimate Future of the Universe”, p. 62.
21. ↑ Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1996), ISBN 0553103741,LCCN 96019732, bibcode: 1988bhtb.book…..H, Chapter 8: “The Origin and Fate of the Universe”, pp. 166-167. Hawking writes:

The answer [to where the univere's energy came from] is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy. … As [physicist Alan] Guth has remarked, “It is said that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch.”

22. ↑ Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, “Geometry and Destiny”, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 (October 1999), pp. 1453-1459, doi:10.1023/A:1026757718530, bibcode: 1999GReGr..31.1453K. Also at arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999.
23. ↑ Frank Tipler, “The Omega Point and Christianity”, Gamma, Vol. 10, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 14-23 (mirror link); note that the foregoing version corrects character formatting errors of the versions available here, here and here. (Note: citation formatting in the above-quoted passage has been modified for clarity.) For the version in Dutch, see “Het Punt Omega en het christendom”, Gamma, Jrg. 10, Nr. 2 (April 2003), pp. 14-23; also available here and here.
24. ↑ Richard P. Feynman, notes taken by Fernando B. Morinigo and William G. Wagner, edited by Brian Hatfield,“Foreword” by John Preskill and Kip S. Thorne, Feynman Lectures on Gravitation (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1995), ISBN 0201627345, LCCN 95011076, bibcode: 1995flg..book…..F. “Foreword” mirror link; also available here.
25. ↑ ^25.0 25.1 Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), ISBN 0385514247, LCCN 2006039028, pp. 34-35. Chapter I and excerpt from Chapter II. Chapter I also available here.
26. ↑ On this matter, in addition to Tipler’s 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and his 2007 book, see John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, “Action principles in nature”, Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 (January 7, 1988), pp. 31-34,doi:10.1038/331031a0, bibcode: 1988Natur.331…31B. Also released as “The Finite Action Principle; or, Singularities without Singularities” in the Gravity Research Foundation’s 1987 essay competition. Mirror link.
27. ↑ Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), ISBN 0385514247, LCCN 2006039028, pp. 49 and 279. Chapter I and excerpt from Chapter II. Chapter I also available here.
28. ↑ S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973), ISBN 0521200164, LCCN 72093671, bibcode: 1973lsss.book…..H, pp. 217-221.
29. ↑ Richard Palmer, Publisher, “Highlights of 2005″, Reports on Progress in Physics. Mirror link. See also “Editorial board”, Reports on Progress in Physics. Mirror link.
30. ↑ “Journal Citation Reports (JCR) Year 2006—Science Edition”, September 2007. Mirror link.
31. ↑ “Journals Catalogue 2008″, IOP Publishing (Institute of Physics), Section: “IOP Impact Factors”, p. 37. Mirror link.
32. ↑ Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory (New York, N.Y.: W. W. Norton, 1999), ISBN 0393046885, LCCN 98025695, bibcode: 1999eush.conf…..G, pp. 252-253.
33. ↑ S. W. Hawking, “Information loss in black holes”, Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8 (October 2005), Art. No. 084013, 4 pages, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.084013, bibcode: 2005PhRvD..72h4013H. Mirror link. Also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005.
34. ↑ G. F. R. Ellis and D. H. Coule, “Life at the end of the universe?”, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 26, No. 7 (July 1994), pp. 731-739, doi:10.1007/BF02116959, bibcode: 1994GReGr..26..731E.
35. ↑ George Ellis, “Piety in the sky”, Nature, Vol. 371, No. 6493 (September 8, 1994), p. 115, doi:10.1038/371115a0.Mirror link. A review of Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), ISBN 0385467982, LCCN 93045046, bibcode: 1994pimc.book…..T.
36. ↑ Lawrence Krauss, “More dangerous than nonsense”, New Scientist, Vol. 194, Issue 2603 (May 12, 2007), p. 53,doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(07)61199-3. Mirror link. A review of Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), ISBN 0385514247, LCCN 2006039028.

References originally in quoted passages

1. ↑ S. W. Hawking, “Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse”, Physical Review D, Vol. 14, Issue 10 (November 1976), pp. 2460-2473, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.2460, bibcode: 1976PhRvD..14.2460H. Mirror link.
2. ↑ Robert M. Wald, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), ISBN 0226870251, LCCN 94011065, Section 7.3, pp. 182-185.
3. ↑ John D. Barrow, Gregory J. Galloway and Frank J. Tipler, “The closed-universe recollapse conjecture”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 223, No. 4 (December 1986), pp. 835-844, bibcode: 1986MNRAS.223..835B, CAT.INIST No. 8251334. On p. 926 of the same 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper, Tipler writes that “A dynamical proof for S³ can be found in Barrow (1986)”, with “Barrow (1986)” being this reference.
4. ↑ G. F. R. Ellis and D. H. Coule, “Life at the end of the universe?”, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 26, No. 7 (July 1994), pp. 731-739, doi:10.1007/BF02116959, bibcode: 1994GReGr..26..731E.
5. ↑ ^5.0 5.1 Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), ISBN 0385467982, LCCN 93045046, bibcode: 1994pimc.book…..T, Appendix C: “The Bekenstein Bound”, p. 410. Said Appendix is reproduced in Frank J. Tipler, “Genesis: How the Universe Began According to Standard Model Particle Physics”, arXiv:astro-ph/0111520, November 28, 2001, Section 2: “Apparent Inconsistences in the Physical Laws in the Early Universe”, Subsection a: “Bekenstein Bound Inconsistent with Second Law of Thermodynamics”.
6. ↑ Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent life in cosmology”, International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB…2..141T. Mirror links here and here; also availablehere. Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007.
7. ↑ S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973), ISBN 0521200164, LCCN 72093671, bibcode: 1973lsss.book…..H, pp. 217-221.
8. ↑ Malcolm A. H. MacCallum, “Mixmaster universe problem”, Nature—Physical Science, Vol. 230 (March 1971), pp. 112-113, bibcode: 1971Natur.230..112M, OSTI ID: 4048469. See also here.
9. ↑ John D. Barrow, “Chaotic behaviour in general relativity”, Physics Reports, Vol. 85, Issue 1 (May 1982), pp. 1-49,doi:10.1016/0370-1573(82)90171-5, bibcode: 1982PhR….85….1B.
10. ↑ John D. Barrow and Janna Levin, “Chaos in the Einstein-Yang-Mills Equations”, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 80, Issue 4 (January 1998), pp. 656-659, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.656, bibcode: 1998PhRvL..80..656B. Also at arXiv:gr-qc/9706065, June 20, 1997.
11. ↑ Neil J. Cornish and Janna J. Levin, “Mixmaster universe: A chaotic Farey tale”, Physical Review D, Vol. 55, Issue 12 (June 1997), pp. 7489-7510, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.7489, bibcode: 1997PhRvD..55.7489C. Also at arXiv:gr-qc/9612066, December 30, 1996.
12. ↑ Adilson E. Motter, “Relativistic Chaos is Coordinate Invariant”, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 91, Issue 23 (December 2003), Art. No. 231101, 4 pages, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.231101, bibcode: 2003PhRvL..91w1101M. Mirror link. Also at arXiv:gr-qc/0305020, May 5, 2003.
13. ↑ Troy Shinbrot, Edward Ott, Celso Grebogi and James A. Yorke, “Using chaos to direct trajectories to targets”,Physical Review Letters, Vol. 65, Issue 26 (December 1990), pp. 3215-3218, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.3215,bibcode: 1990PhRvL..65.3215S.
14. ↑ Troy Shinbrot, William Ditto, Celso Grebogi, Edward Ott, Mark Spano and James A. Yorke, “Using the sensitive dependence of chaos (the ‘butterfly effect’) to direct trajectories in an experimental chaotic system”, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 68, Issue 19 (May 1992), pp. 2863-2866, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.2863, bibcode: 1992PhRvL..68.2863S.
15. ↑ Charles W. Misner, “The Isotropy of the Universe”, Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 151 (February 1968), pp. 431-457,doi:10.1086/149448, bibcode: 1968ApJ…151..431M.
16. ↑ Charles W. Misner, “Quantum Cosmology. I”, Physical Review, Vol. 186, Issue 5 (October 1969), pp. 1319-1327,doi:10.1103/PhysRev.186.1319, bibcode: 1969PhRv..186.1319M.
17. ↑ Charles W. Misner, “Mixmaster Universe”, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 22, Issue 20 (May 1969), pp. 1071-1074,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.22.1071, bibcode: 1969PhRvL..22.1071M. Mirror link. Also available as an entry in the Gravity Research Foundation’s 1969 essay competition. Mirror link.
18. ↑ ^18.0 18.1 Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), ISBN 0385467982, LCCN 93045046, bibcode: 1994pimc.book…..T.
19. ↑ Frank Wilczek, “Scaling Mount Planck III: Is That All There Is?”, Physics Today, Vol. 55, Issue 8 (August 2002), pp. 10-11, doi:10.1063/1.1510264, bibcode: 2002PhT….55h..10W. Mirror link; also available here.
20. ↑ Helen R. Quinn, “The Asymmetry Between Matter and Antimatter”, Physics Today, Vol. 56, Issue 2 (February 2003), pp. 30-35, doi:10.1063/1.1564346, bibcode: 2003PhT….56b..30Q. Mirror link; also available here.
21. ↑ Steven Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume I: Foundations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), ISBN 0521550017, LCCN 95002782 bibcode: 1995qtf..book…..W, pp. 499 and 518-519.
22. ↑ John F. Donoghue, “General relativity as an effective field theory: The leading quantum corrections”, Physical Review D, Vol. 50, Issue 6 (September 1994), pp. 3874-3888, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.3874, bibcode: 1994PhRvD..50.3874D. Also at arXiv:gr-qc/9405057, May 25, 1994.
23. ↑ John F. Donoghue and Tibor Torma, “Power counting of loop diagrams in general relativity”, Physical Review D, Vol. 54, Issue 8 (October 1996), pp. 4963-4972, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.4963, bibcode: 1996PhRvD..54.4963D. Also released as “On the power counting of loop diagrams in general relativity”, arXiv:hep-th/9602121, February 22, 1996.

External links

• Tipler’s Tulane University website. Also available here.
• “The Omega Point Theory”, at Tipler’s website. Also available here.
• Theophysics. A website with information on Tipler’s Omega Point Theory. Mirror site.
• “Tipler, Frank”, Closer to Truth (Public Broadcasting Service [PBS]). Contains a number of video clips of Tipler interviewed by Closer to Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn on the Omega Point Theory.
• Video of a lecture by Tipler on the Omega Point Theory, “Program for 1st Annual Workshop on Geoethical Nanotechnology”, Terasem Movement, July 20, 2005: 56 kbs WMV, Broadband WMV and Broadband MOV. Microsoft PowerPoint file of the topics of discussion.
• Jennifer Mayerle, “Does God Exist?”, CBS 46 News (WGCL-TV, Atlanta, Georgia), November 13, 2008. In additon to video of the television news report, also contains a 1:08:33 h:min:sec video of a lecture by Prof. Tipler on the Omega Point cosmology.

Retrieved from “http://www.conservapedia.com/Omega_Point_Theory”

Categories: Cosmology | Physics | Quantum gravity | Theories of gravitation | Space colonization | Eschatology | Theology |Teleology | Religion and science | Supertasks

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) stands among the very few leaders of thought in this century to integrate pure scientific research with a religious vocation. At an early point in his career this paleontologist and Jesuit priest made it his personal mission to reconstruct the most basic Christian doctrines from the perspectives of science and, at the same time, to reconstruct science from the perspectives of faith. He would do this by overthrowing all the barriers that had been erected between science and religion in the past one hundred years. He would take the lessons learned from the study of nature as the foundation on which to reconstruct the Christian faith. He would single-handedly remake all the dogmas of his own Catholic Church, and he would at the same time remake the world of modern science on the model suggested by his personal experience of God.

Teilhard was seen by the Vatican as a threat to the integrity of the faith. Rome insisted that his religious writings should not be published; he was forbidden to teach or even to speak publicly on religious subjects; he was banished from his native country. Yet his ideas were disseminated informally and sometimes secretly by friends and colleagues in the church. He became a hero and a role model for a whole generation of younger priests and theologians. He set the stage for the renewal movements which finally came to flower in the era of Vatican II.

At the same time he also suggested a program for the reconstruction of science. He put forward a systematic critique of traditional science which was just as radical and just as provocative as his criticism of traditional religion, and he provoked equally extreme reactions in the scientific community. A small number of world-class scientists have taken his ideas seriously enough to structure their own work on Teilhard’s model, but the majority of scientists have reacted as defensively as the Vatican theologians.

It is perhaps not surprising that a leading advocate of Darwinism, Stephen Jay Gould, has gone to work on Teilhard. Writing vehemently and dogmatically, like the guardian of an established religion, Gould asserts that Teilhard’s whole enterprise is illegitimate: Teilhard’s essential insights are incompatible with science. In addition to that, Gould has made it his personal mission to expose Teilhard as being guilty of the most outrageous scientific fraud of modern times.

Partly as a result of these defensive and dogmatic reactions to Teilhard, he is today tragically underestimated in both the religious and scientific communities. While many of his ideas have worked their way anonymously into currency and have been widely accepted, still Teilhard’s innovative thinking has been taken seriously only by a minority of thinkers who see science and religion entering into a new era of cross-fertilization and creativity. For the vast majority, Teilhard’s thought seems marginal at best, and his insights are not studied in the depth they deserve. This is partially explained by the active suppression of his ideas by the church and the suspicion of his ideas within the scientific community. Teilhard’s obscurity is also to be explained, however, by his own style of writing and his tendency to wander into the realm of pure speculation. His fertile imagination sometimes led him into a fantasy world foreign to scientists and theologians alike. Yet even in the face of Teilhard’s most serious mistakes I believe his initiatives should be pursued. When one cuts through his sometimes lurid prose, one encounters a series of highly imaginative and suggestive proposals for the reunion of research and religion. The questions raised by his work cannot be avoided. Anyone interested in extending the search for truth beyond the traditional frontiers of knowledge must wrestle with his basic affirmations.

Can science and religion be successfully remarried? Can a reunion of these old lovers infuse new vitality to the whole of western culture, as Teilhard passionately asserted it would, or, as his critics suggest, does Teilhard accomplish the reconciliation of science and religion at the expense of both partners to the marriage? Does he fatally compromise both sides in forcing an alliance which should never have been attempted in the first place?

It was at the height of his career in paleontology while he was studying bones and fossils in northern China (in 1927) that Teilhard wrote what he called “a little book on piety” designed to convey both the sincerity and the orthodoxy of his faith to his superiors in Rome. In this book Teilhard speaks of The Divine Milieu and by its very title suggests his theme: the whole material world as the setting for a profound, mystical vision of God. It is in the world itself, as it is seen through the eyes of science, that the workings of God are most apparent. Teilhard’s writing is graphic and unrestrained:

Needless to say writing like this did not reassure the religious authorities in Rome, for Teilhard affirmed the material world as a source of mystical illumination. Though Teilhard did not directly criticize any specific doctrines of the church in his little book of piety, this work constitutes an assault upon the skeletal supports of traditional theology. Teilhard was just as provocative when he was trying to reassure as when he was trying to stir up debate. Early on, he describes his book in two sentences which were intended to convey the modesty of his position but in reality contained a theological time bomb:

Teilhard says that he intends no more than to “recapitulate the eternal lessons of the Church,” but he goes on to assert that he is actually teaching the church how to see! As a scientist and an individual thinker, he is suggesting that the primary source of religious truth is to be found in the material world rather than in the magisterium of the church. In a real sense, it shall be science which shows theology how to see; it shall be the personal experience of a single priest which will indicate to the highest ecclesiastical authorities what is essential in Catholic teaching (as, by implication, he will show what is not essential).

As Karl Marx turned the world of philosophy upside down by revealing the foundations in society for every human theory, Teilhard tried to accomplish the even more difficult task of turning theology downside up. He tried to demonstrate that the material world, the world of rocks and trees, stars and planets, plants and animals, rather than being the neutral subject of scientific investigation, was in fact the soil from which would spring a new vision of the holy. The very subject matter of pure science was nothing less than a mirror in which one could see reflected the face of God. Hence Teilhard did not succeed in calming the anxious theologians at the Vatican, and they were rightly worried. He had raised the material world to a level of importance it had seldom held for theologians, Catholic or Protestant. In a more candid statement of faith written at the request of his confidant and colleague, Bruno de Solages, rector of the Institut Catholique in Toulouse, Teilhard put the issue on a personal, even confessional plane:

We must now ask what led Teilhard to believe so deeply in the world, or , putting it another way and reflecting the deep skepticism of our own era, what in the world is worthy of belief in the first place? For the vast majority of us, the material world provides the raw material for scientific research, not mystical illumination. Yet here is a professional scientist working at the frontiers of research, part of an international team of geologists, paleontologists, and anthropologists, and writing from an outpost of science in northern China, who boldly asserts:

One can easily see why Teilhard raised cries of alarm within the hierarchies of both the church and the academies.

Teilhard was born and reared in an eighteenth-century manor house located in the barony of Sarcenat near the provincial capital, Auvergne, France. The windows and terraces of the manor house look out upon the plain of Clermont, the rounded hillsides, and sleeping volcanoes that form the foothills of the Puy mountains. Growing up in a family of eleven children, Teilhard was reared in an atmosphere of discipline and devotion. In this highly structured family setting, Teilhard learned from his father, Emmanuel Teilhard de Chardin, the love of nature and natural history which later became so important to his spiritual life as well as to his science. The countryside was rich in rocks and minerals, animal life, and flowers, and Teilhard spent many hours with his father exploring, climbing the mountains, riding, fishing, hunting, and collecting outstanding examples of the local mineral, animal, and vegetable stock. Most of all he was attracted to the minerals, to the rocks, and to items of metal. He began a collection of shell casings and other metal objects. He seemed to be attracted to these objects because of their durability. He even called them his “idols.” In his autobiography he records this memory of the earlier years:

From that moment forward, Teilhard did not stop looking, searching, and exploring every corner and dimension of the natural world for his consolation.

Pierre’s mother, Berthe Adele, seemed to have more immediate influence upon the child’s religious life. “I was an affectionate child,” he writes, “good, and even pious.” Teilhard lovingly attributes to his mother, whom he referred to as my “dear, sainted maman,” all that was “best in his soul.” It was the influence of his mother which he looked upon to “rouse the fire into a blaze.” The fire of which he speaks here is that of a mystical illumination from within. “And the spark by which my own universe . . . was to succeed in centering on its own fullness, undoubtedly came through my mother.”⁽⁶⁾Teilhard’s life spins itself around these two poles of thought and feeling: his sense of fascination and wonder about the natural world and his sense of God’s presence welling up from within the world. As he told the story much later:

At the age of twelve Pierre was sent as a boarder to the Jesuit school ofNotre Dame de Mongre at Villefranche. He was popular among his peers and was eventually elected president of the student body. He achieved a respectable academic record in religious studies and a superior record in science. At eighteen he entered the Jesuit novitiate at Aix-on-Provence, and, when the religious orders were expelled from France in 1902, he traveled with the community to their refuge on the Isle of Jersey. While studying with the Jesuits, he was introduced to the rigors of a scholastic theology which he later so violently rejected, and he had the opportunity to pursue his primary interest in geology and the natural sciences. Physics, in particular, opened a new dimension in his thinking. In the laws of physics he saw a verifiable basis for the unity that he had sensed in the natural world. In this “world of electrons, waves, and ions” he felt “strangely at home.” The “mysterious” laws of motion and the electromagnetic forces of the physical world seemed to suggest a secret, “that at twenty-two,” he vowed to himself, “I’d one day force.”⁽⁸⁾

In 1905 Teilhard was sent to do his teaching internship at the Jesuit college in Egypt and then in 1908 to England to finish his theological training at Hastings in Sussex on England’s southeast coast. It was here that Teilhard’s own thinking began to develop in its full originality. Critical to his intellectual development was a reading of Henri Bergson’s Creative Evolution,which raised the theory of evolution to the level of a cornerstone in a fully developed philosophical system. Teilhard found in Bergson a theoretical basis for his personal feeling of intimacy with nature and the material world. For Bergson saw a force at work across the whole face of this planet as life evolved from the most simple and original forms to the most complex. More important still, Bergson’s work suggested to Teilhard that the theory of evolution might be the precise theoretical tool that was necessary to bring together the world of modern science and the ancient teachings of the church. 

Meanwhile Giuseppe Sarto was elevated to the papacy as Pius X. Both devout and reactionary, the new Pope was committed lo lead Christ’s church away from the corrupting influence of such “modernist” opinions. An elaborate spy system, complete with underground periodicals and secret codes, was devised in the process of seeking out and eventually bringing under discipline the church’s errant, younger priests and scholars. The Pope set up committees of censorship in every diocese, and reports of heretical thought were sent directly to Rome. Catholic scholars and teachers were required to sign an antimodernist loyalty oath.

Had Teilhard believed his primary calling to be a theologian, he might have seen in these developments a direct threat to his own future, but at Hastings his creative energy was moving still deeper into the realm of science. A chance meeting with the lawyer and amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson led to an association which was much later to present as great a threat to Teilhard’s reputation as immediate events at the Vatican. At the time, though, Teilhard’s association with Dawson contributed immensely to his progress within a scientific profession. Dawson introduced him to the prominent Arthur Smith Woodward, keeper of paleontology at the British Museum. Smith Woodward opened doors to the scientific establishment that would otherwise have been closed to the young Jesuit seminarian. In fact, Dawson and Smith Woodward were to become collaborators in one of the great events of paleontology, the “discovery” of the famous Piltdown Man, which they presented as an important missing link in the evolution of the human species. Teilhard participated with the two Englishmen in their excavations at Piltdown, and in the process his own standing as a promising young paleontologist was established in scientific circles far beyond the precincts of the church. When Teilhard left England to begin his doctoral work, he was to become a student and eventually a colleague of Marcellin Boule, the greatest physical anthropologist in France. Thus were the foundations laid for Teilhard’s long and successful career as a paleontologist.

In 1953, however, Piltdown Man was exposed as a deliberate hoax, perhaps the most astounding fraud in the history of modern science. Until recently Charles Dawson was believed to have acted alone in the Piltdown affair, but in August 1980, a quarter-century after Teilhard’s death, Stephen Jay Gould put forward his own view that Teilhard was a coconspirator in the original fraud. Gould first published his accusations in Natural Historymagazine and repeated his case with additional argument and discussion in Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes. Though his “evidence” is entirely circumstantial, Gould accusations are tightly reasoned, as are the arguments of Teilhard’s defenders who have written and published their own views in reply to Gould. The briefs for and against Teilhard are too complex to review here. Suffice it to say that the reconstruction of events that originally took place in the years 1908 -1914 is difficult in itself. To draw firm conclusions based upon circumstantial references in letters and remembrances stretching across seventy years is almost impossible. Gould speculates wildly as to why Teilhard might have been drawn into the conspiracy. His tentative conclusion is that Teilhard thought he was involved in little more than a practical joke.

The great Smith Woodward took the forgery and unwittingly presented it as a major event in paleontology, but then World War I erupted and Dawson died in 1916, leaving, as Gould argues, Teilhard as the lonely keeper of the conspiracy. By war’s end Teilhard was irrevocably committed to his own career as a paleontologist; he had seen his own mentor Marcellin Boule openly praise the Piltdown “discoveries.”  If he now confessed, his own future might be ruined. In these circumstances, what is a guilty coconspirator to do? Either he would confess his guilt and place his scientific career in jeopardy or he would keep silent on the whole subject and move on to build his career upon a more legitimate foundation.

In fact, Teilhard took a most implausible course of action were he in fact guilty as Gould charged. In 1920 Teilhard published his own scholarly article on the Piltdown findings. Thus Gould would have us believe that Teilhard drew himself still more deeply into the web of lies, implicating himself far beyond the scope of a practical joke in a premeditated crime against the very scientific profession to which he was in the process of committing his life. Was the same man who made it his personal mission to show scientific endeavor to be a sacred calling capable of such duplicity? With such a serious potential for self-destruction? I doubt it.

The question which this entire episode raises in my own mind are Gould’smotives in acting as accuser, prosecuting attorney, and presiding judge in the case of Teilhard vs. the truth. One suspects that there is more to Gould’s motivation than a straightforward desire to solve a crime against science committed more than seventy years ago. Does Gould have an animus against Teilhard? Obviously he has, for Gould is a leading advocate of scientific atheism. Gould has made it his avowed intention to keep God, together with all superstition, racism, chauvinism, and other lies, out of science. Gould’s books and articles argue eloquently for the integrity of science. Gould insists that real science can only operate with integrity if God remains shut out of it completely. In marking out the course of natural history one must look at the actual processes of nature, not impose upon nature any grand theory or design. Gould recounts horror story after horror story from the history of science showing how the preconceptions of scientists have meant in effect that their research was being put in service to a lie. He shows scientist after scientist fabricating results in support of the most pernicious superstition and simple prejudice. Gould is rightly concerned and angered by scientific creationists who lift his own words out of context to show that Darwinism is in a state of disarray or that the science of evolution is about to self-destruct. Gould is so rightly angered by such false science and has suffered so many examples of religious superstition and stupidity that he can imagine no positive role for religion whatsoever. Since it has done and is still doing so much damage to science, it seems only prudent to separate science from religion completely. Given that conclusion, however, what does one do with the work of Teilhard de Chardin? Teilhard argues that the sciences of nature validate the fundamental affirmations of the Christian faith. While Gould is committed to shutting God out of science completely, Teilhard asserts that the only way to save science from self-destruction is to place God back in, at the very heart and center of  scientific endeavor. To scientists as well as to theologians Teilhard said, in words that hang fire, “Surely the solution for which modern mankind is seeking must essentially be exactly the solution which I have come upon”⁽¹⁰⁾

In a highly suggestive essay written in 1939, Teilhard traces the development of science from its earliest beginnings as a mere hobby to its present state as “the solemn, prime and vital occupation of man.”⁽¹¹⁾Teilhard follows science from its origins in the cultures of the ancient world through its period of expansiveness in the nineteenth century when it began to take on all the aspects of a substitute religion. Crucial in this period was the theory of evolution. Teilhard argues that the greatest single consequence of Darwinism was the “discovery of time.”

Teilhard points out that Darwin changed our understanding of time in much the same degree that Galileo transformed our sense of space. In both cases the boundaries of the universe were extended to infinity. As astronomy has exploded the geocentric universe in which earth sits in its fixed place at the center of all things, with the heavens above and hell below, so geology and biology have pushed the horizons of time backwards into the remote past and forwards into the far distant future. Also, as life came to be seen as evolving across the millennia in a gradual succession of living forms, suddenly a notion of progress was born. With this new sense of moving forward in time from the simplest life forms to the most complex, from the animal to the human species, from the most basic colonies of bacteria to the highest civilizations, science became much more than a method of collecting and classifying the facts of life. Increasingly science was seen as the specific means by which humanity would move forward into the future. Teilhard writes:

In the nineteenth century science enjoyed such success at explaining so many of the mysteries of life that it appeared to many as if all the mystery could one day be explained away. In physics one could penetrate to the heart of matter and develop a clear understanding of that fundamental building block, the atom. In biology, the evolution of life forms could ultimately be explained through competition of the various species across vast distances of time. By the same token, intelligence could be understood as a function of the circuitry in the brain and consciousness could be reduced to a complex series of chemical reactions, etc., etc. In other words, argues Teilhard, the mysticism of discovery was fast deteriorating into the mere “worship of matter.”⁽¹⁴⁾ The religious corollary of this trend was the death of God. For, if all the important processes of life could be understood through the tools of analysis just recently developed by science, what further need remained for faith in God?

In Teilhard’s view the situation has changed dramatically in the twentieth century. In physics, the atoms themselves were broken up and broken down into innumerable subparticles infinitely more mysterious than the alchemists ever imagined. In Teilhard’s own words:

Similarly, in biology, chemistry, and sociology the important phenomena could not be reduced to the simple mechanisms that were once thought to lie at the heart of all things. Far from continuing to explain away the remaining mysteries, science in this century has exposed still deeper mysteries at the very heart of matter itself. At a more mundane level science did not prove to be the unmitigated blessing it was once believed to be. Teilhard lived long enough to witness the explosion of the world’s first atomic weapons, and with these weapons the fatal blow was delivered against the nineteenth century idea of progress. If the science of Darwin, Marx, and Freud seemed to make certain the death of God, the nuclear arms race secured the death of science as a substitute religion.

In reaction against a naive, anthropomorphic religion, science, in its century of triumph, had turned increasingly against any theory which cast nature into a human mold. Paradoxically, in this century, scientists have recognized that no clean line of demarcation can be drawn between the observer and the observed. The scientist, like the theologian, cannot take a completely “objective” position separate and apart from the phenomenon being studied. One inevitably sees the world through human eyes and conceives of the world in human images. Even when one makes every effort to avoid doing so, one still tends to make the world into a mirror.

A majority of scientists have dealt with this situation (as does Stephen Jay Gould) by opting for a militant skepticism. Not only has God been shut out of science but also any attempt to see in nature evidence of a final plan, purpose, or design is rejected out of hand. As Gould puts it succinctly in specific reference to Teilhard, “Perhaps the problem with all these visions . . . is our penchant for building comprehensive and all-encompassing systems in the first place. Maybe they just don’t work.”⁽¹⁶⁾ This criticism completely misses the mark. Teilhard does not attempt to build an “all-encompassing system” and impose it upon nature. Teilhard looks to the natural world for signals of its inherent purpose, and he sharply criticizes Gould’s brand of skepticism as narrow and debilitating. Writing much earlier than Gould, Teilhard anticipates his criticisms and answers his challenge:

Teilhard asserts that nature is moving, erratically and haltingly perhaps, but nonetheless moving, towards higher and higher forms of consciousness. This movement is most apparent in the evolution of the human species. It is humanity in particular which has a clear concept of nature and nature’sinner workings. Teilhard quotes Julian Huxley approvingly: humanity is “nothing else than evolution become conscious of itself.”⁽¹⁸⁾

The specific insights that come into the foreground of awareness as one reflects upon the ascent of this species are both its uniqueness and its relatedness to the whole of the natural world. For Teilhard the most sublime product of evolution is the human person, the individual uniquely aware of itself as a person, yet also aware of its interdependence with the whole. Teilhard would agree with Gould to a point. One cannot talk scientifically about the superiority of the human race; one cannot separate the creation of humanity from the creation of other life forms. Humanity did not emerge by fiat of an all-powerful God. On the contrary, our origin and ascent follow the same path taken by all the creatures of the natural world. Human consciousness (including a consciousness of God) is the culmination of nature’s own movement through time. Far from being imposed upon the formless face of the natural world, God emerges from nature as its final goal and purpose. Thus, science and religion are brought together in a direct, dialectical relationship. Teilhard states his argument most succinctly in the closing chapter of The Phenomenon of Man.

A science “tinged with mysticism and charged with faith.” Are these words simply rhapsodic and metaphorical? Not for Teilhard. As a practicing scientist he saw the evolution of human personhood, not as an exception to the general rules of nature nor as a freak occurrence without relevance to other living things. He saw the “phenomenon of man” as an “arrow” pointing to the final goal and purpose of the universe itself.⁽²⁰⁾

As science in this century has emphasized the interrelationship and interdependence of all things, religion affirms that the unity of all things is itself the most solid evidence of a God who embraces all. Growing from the same soil that has given rise to all other phenomena of life, human consciousness and the human personality appear to stand at the very top of the tree of life. If one were to project the forward edge of evolution into the future, especially as it falls increasingly under human direction and control, then it makes increasing sense to talk of a higher consciousness as being the inherent end and purpose of evolution. If evolution itself points toward a form of conscious life which has personality, perhaps God is the goal toward which this universe is moving after all. Hence the deep affinity which Teilhard felt between science and religion. “There is less difference than people think between research and adoration.”⁽²¹⁾ ”Religion and science are the two conjugated faces or phases of one and the same act of complete knowledge “⁽²²⁾ Teilhard illustrates these concepts in the clean and simple image of the cone:⁽²³⁾

When human beings turn their powers of analysis upon the diversity and multiplicity of life (at the base of the cone), that is pure science. However, when humanity turns its powers of synthesis towards the summit, towards the totality and the future (at the pinnacle of the cone), that is theology. Yet science finds its fulfillment only as it turns from investigation and analysis towards synthesis: that is to say, seeing the totality of life and weighing its character, testing the relationship of the part to the whole. Likewise, those who engage in the search for God find their fulfillment only as they see the God who is available in the material world. A faith which is cut loose from the world is likely to be illusory and unreal. Conversely, the faith that truly counts is the faith which takes science as a fellow traveler in the final search for God.

In the past, Teilhard argues, theologians tended to see God as a supreme being standing over and apart from the material world. In this view God dwelt upon the high and remote plane of pure spirit, and therefore the way to salvation was to be lifted above the contradictions of the material realm onto a high spiritual plane. Teilhard writes, “Since Aristotle there have been almost continual attempts to construct ‘models’ of God on the lines of an outside Prime Mover.”⁽²⁴⁾ The high and all-powerful God of traditional theology can influence the world only by intervening in its natural processes and contradicting its natural laws. In fact, many theologians delineate a crystal-clear line of demarcation between the natural and the supernatural. The chief signs of God’s action in the world are taken to be those otherwise inexplicable events, apparently contradicting all reasonable explanation. Obviously this concept of God is still very much with us. In popular conception the most sure and certain sign of God’s presence is to be found in those startling and unusual occurrences that seem to defy all understanding. A cancer victim suddenly goes into remission despite a clear indication from the medical authorities that death is imminent. The popular imagination has been trained through centuries of religious instruction to see God’s appearance in the world as, by definition, a most un-natural and unusual event. Correspondingly, all hope for full and complete communion with God lies in the escape from the world which is possible only at death.

Thus one looks for a closer understanding of God by moving in a vertical dimension. One does not progress in life by moving forward in time but by escaping the contradictions of time and history in the eternal. It is precisely such a notion of salvation which has been seen as completely antithetical to science. A supernatural God can only be understood, in scientific terms, as arbitrary and capricious. It is not so much that scientists have locked God out of history; the breach has resulted as much from the sincere attempt of religious people to see God as perfect both in power and in love. Yet only a God who is removed from the ambiguities of life, as we know it, can be perfect. As Stephen Jay Gould rightly insists, such a perfect God could not have created an imperfect world. Such an act would have been completely out of character!

In the meantime, as theologians tended to define God more and more in terms of the supernatural, science has taken its stand in nature. In the years since Darwin scientists have seen human life evolving in a linear march through time. As the theologians defended God by building walls around the domain of the spirit, so science dug its trenches in the world of matter. Marx’s dialectical materialism and his atheism are together the logical consequences of supernaturalism in religion. Scientific atheism is in fact the inevitable consequence of a theology which insists that knowledge of God must defy human understanding. When theologians insist that knowledge of God can only come through a miraculous act of divine revelation, rather than being discovered by reason, or that sinful humanity has no hope of salvation except by fiat of an all-powerful and all-loving God, then the dialogue between science and religion is interrupted prematurely. Moreover, religion has no role to play in a world which is committed finally and forever to science. That, Teilhard argues, is the greatest theological tragedy of our modern age.

Teilhard’s modest proposal for the resolution of this dilemma is to chart a new course for both theology and science. If religion has seen its purpose as raising human life to higher consciousness in a vertical dimension and if science has seen its purpose in moving humanity forward on a horizontal plane within the boundaries of the material world, the obvious frontier of consciousness involves a movement both upwards and forwards. Again Teilhard offers a simple image to depict his agenda for the evolution of human consciousness.⁽²⁵⁾