Conflict of Science with Theocracy

echoboom (#26),

``Believing in Permanence and constancy and consistensy is noble and worth pursuing. It is called religion. Until the doomsday, science would still be trailing religion under the mistaken `belief` that it is leading the way.``


Interesting statement Sir. Can we put this to a test?

Next time you need to cross a road (by walk), ask yourself this question: Shall I close my eyes, pray to my God, and walk across with eyes closed...or shall I cross it like I usually do (look left-right, etc).

If you prefer the latter, you will have proved your above statement wrong in a simple instance in your own daily life...and Science, which includes common sense and logic, will always lead (where it can be applied).

If you prefer the former...then I say, you have proven yourself correct.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

tahmed32 (#25),

Why is everybody obseccessd with Einstein?

Did he build a new kind of airplane, a bridge? Did he live a happy life with healthy relationships? Did he discover the secret to health and longitivity? Did he turn copper to gold? Did he...you get the point?

He failed to secure entrance to the zurich polytech. (another problem he couldn`t solve).
Was an average student (he must have tried to better his grades, but couldn`t).

Finally he got a simple job at the patent office. Here he bent his mind (in a fresh manner) to a few problems of his interest and came up with a new angle which nobody thought of.

Is he really the `most brilliant mind` ever?

Brilliance must reflect in all areas of one`s life. How come he`s just average in all other areas of his life? (nobody called him great musician).

So, why do we place so much weight on what he said about religion or God or whatever (other than relativity) ???

AlephNull #32

Vital correction to third para:

{{... Those statements must be interpreted in a literal-minded fashion to indicate that Einstein, for instance, believed in “the Lord God” (“der Herrgott”).}}

should read

{{Those statements must NOT be interpreted in a literal-minded fashion to indicate that Einstein, for instance, believed in “the Lord God” (“der Herrgott”).}}

---

Those who want to invoke Einstein`s name should realise that his deepest philosophical inspiration appears to have been Baruch Benedictus Spinoza. `Spinoza`s god` is not anthropomorphic or personal - it is `revealed` in the inner simplicity and harmony of the laws of nature. It is utterly indifferent to the lives, thoughts and deeds of humans.

hamidm2 #8

{{and what about book bearing angles, and fire breathing jinns, and the seventy houris ?..........and if you believe in all that than why don`t you believe that a monkey once ruled india ......... }}

As an Indian I`m inclined to regard the last as far more plausible than the rest. Some might argue that monkeys of various species rule in New Delhi to this very day ..... they certainly frequent the environs and corridors of South Block with impunity ... see for instance langurs on GoI`s payroll.

Tahmed #21

{{Religious gatherings and so forth are a characteristic of a Theocracy. Not of Religion.}}

Religious gatherings such as the Kumbh Mela, dips in holy rivers, pilgrimages to famous shrines and sacred lakes, etc. have occurred from time immemorial in India, which is the antithesis of theocracy and has historically had a completely decentralized religious culture. Ditto with reading religious scriptures. I think you are confusing issues or terminology. But that is a digression …

{{However, the fact that Einstein was a deeply religious man is evident from his well-known references to God when discussing his incredibly brilliant theories.}}

You have to be very careful here. Einstein might have said “The lord is subtle, but not malicious” (“Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht”), “God does not play dice with the world”, “When god made the universe, did he have a choice?” etc. Those statements must be interpreted in a literal-minded fashion to indicate that Einstein, for instance, believed in “the Lord God” (“der Herrgott”). See them as verbal shorthand for metaphysical assumptions and speculations about, respectively, the rational intelligibility of nature, determinism as a governing principle in nature, the degrees of freedom in natural law.

{{For example, his famous saying that ``God does not play dice with the universe`` is a clear statement that he understood that the universe just did not ``happen``,}}

Ah the perils of a little knowledge. Einstein was complaining to Niels Bohr about the irreducible probabilistic indeterminism in the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. He was to remain wedded to a metaphysics of strict determinism through his adult life. That statement had nothing to do with the universe “just happening” or not.

{{and that there is no reason why we cannot conceive of a consciousness that is outside our perceptions that sets certain rules.}}

Down the slippery slope we go. There is no reason why we cannot conceive of a consciousness etc. blah blah. There is equally no reason why we cannot conceive of such a consciousness not existing. Can its existence be empirically tested or refuted if it lies beyond our perceptions? No. Can it be established or refuted deductively? Hasn’t been done to anyone’s satisfaction despite no shortage of effort; doubtful if it’s even meaningful. Then what does such a construct buy us in terms of understanding the causes of, or relations between, phenomena? Nothing. It is a superfluous hypothesis. It is at best an anthropomorphic metaphor.

In fact, Einstein’s interest was in whether the hypothetical rule-setter had any choice in the matter. He absolutely did not believe in the notion of a personal god on the lines of YHVH/Allah etc. His cosmic religiosity, a metaphysical assumption – ‘faith’, if you will – in the existence of all-encompassing natural laws, would provide little satisfaction for theists, and especially from those who search for guidance in chapter and verse of some revealed scripture.

This subject is totally irrelevant in present day context. It was relavant in 17th and 18th century AD when Europeans discarded their religion and they were trying to find a moral compass that did not include any refernece to divinity.

In Islam there has never been a church as compared to the infallible church of christians. Our religion has not disappointed us in any way or form as the christianity did to christians. There hasn`t been inquisitions and infallible popes with words of god, in Islam, ever. Islam has spread thru far reaches of this planet because it is compatible with nature, a religion that proclaims itself to be the deen-e-fitrat i.e. the religion of nature. There are no invasions on Europe and North America yet it is the fastest growing religion there. It is spreading among the people who put the logic and reason before everything and rest of the world tries to follow their lead. As soon as a man is willing to view Islam without contempt and prejudice he finds himself on a one way train. There have never been any invasions on any of the far eastern countries and yet some of the biggest Muslim countries are in Far East.

The closest thing that amounts to a working theocracy ever since the advent of Islam is the constitutional democracy in Iran that slants towards empowering clergy. Even then in the last 24 years there hasn`t been any conflict at the philosophical level between science and theocracy. Iranians on the other hand are making huge strides in nuclear sciences, which has caused quite an unrest among imperialists.

And by the way there is no room for a theocracy in Islam. In Iran the theocracy is backed by the the concept of Waliat-e-faqih (in simple words the concept of waliat-e-faqih demands that the only a person from the household of Holy Prophet (pbuh) has the right to lead Muslims politically and theologically). It is this very concept that created the schism between sunnis and shias and only after 23 years it has created another schism among the shia clergy itself. Lets not forget history that this very concept has always created schisms in shias whenever they got political power whether they were fatmides or the the Ismailis.

.......... i am a very simple minded person and really don`t understand how people can go on believing in religion once it is proven that a virgin cannot have a baby, man cannot walk on water, people cannot travel faster than light to go and talk to god, and a monkey cannot run a kingdom..............in my rather feeble mind, if you can prove even one ayah in the koran to be suspect, illogical, incoherent, or downright stupid, than the whole thing becomes suspect ............ and even i can find dozens, if not hundreds, of these masterpieces!

Quran makes references to principles of creation of life and matter, and the subsequent working of the universe. It does so to emphasize the Unity of the Source of all creation and evolution, while encouraging the reader to discover scientific details and laws of nature through human reasoning and experimentation.

From the very onset, Quran makes it clear that it is a source of guidance for the righteous. This implicitly suggests that those who seek to create mayhem and disorder, cannot be helped by Quran. One’s understanding of the scripture is only as good as one’s own intentions and inclinations.

When Quran is read with an ignorant, dysfunctional mindset, one finds in it stories of holy men, flying above clouds, raising the dead, parting oceans, turning sticks into snakes … and tales of blood-thirsty men of god. Unfortunately, this is how it is understood and presented by the clergy in most of the Muslim world.

Ironiclly, these mullahs do not tire of quoting amazing scientific facts mentioned in Quran 1400 years ago … to support its divine origins! And in the next breath, they claim … that Quran and science belong to two different domains … and should not be mixed. This admission suggests that Quran has nothing to do with human intellect and reasoning … and one should follow it like a donkey carrying a load of bricks … all muscle, no intellect. By no coincidence, this is an accurate description of the ummah of this today. Our resident mullahs on Chowk and local mosques … are good examples of this decay and decline.

echoboom #26 ``I hope Paki englo-slaves get some ghairat``

I will expect all future posts on chowk from you to be in urdu, and using the Pakistani script (you will need to invent it incidentally, since the only scripts in which urdu has been written has been Arabic or, lately, Roman aka English). You will also ensure that you dont use english words when writing in urdu. Also ensure that you will avoid all Arab words, all Turkish words when writing urdu. Being a ghairat-mand man, you do not wish to be seen as being a slave of either the English, or the Arabs, or the Turks. Also, being a ghairat-mand man, you will definitely avoid use of anything from sanskrit and avoid their script as well.

I guess that will leave you with no words to construct your sentences with, and no script with which to write even if you had any words left. But you will retain your ghairat.

PS: Also, please rid yourself of your absurd moniker (echoboom), since it clearly indicates you are apeing american slang. Who ever heard of a ghairat-mand ape?

#22:ironman


``.........cornerstones of atomic physics today. ``

---

Everything can change tomorrow, and that itself might change the next day. The more things change , the more they remain the same.

Religion means to seek permanence an an ever-changing material world. Western/`modern` science disavows religion. Religion (Islam) never disavowed science. Science is the handmaiden of religion. It is a mistress. A servant. Someone to be ordered around and never ever to be entrusted with the whiff of leadership.

Believing in Permanence and constancy and consistensy is noble and worth pursuing. It is called religion. Until the doomsday, science would still be trailing religion under the mistaken `belief` that it is leading the way.

For in refuting something, one already believes in it.

The religion for the entire mankind ( Al-Islam) is holistic. It does not comparmentalise Life. It does not believe in separation of this and separation of that from any endeavour in life.

PS: Einstein was a very deeply religious. His letter to an Arab, written in Yiddish because he did not know english well--( I hope Paki englo-slaves get some ghairat)--, is an ample testimony to that. If one never seeks the ``purpose of Life`` and where we came from & where we are heading then one can only become a scientist ( a pitiable situation indeed ) but never a learned religious person ( a very enviable situation, for sure). The former is reactive whereas the latter is pro-active.

ironman #22 Einstein`s theories remain intact. Some counterintuitive things he predicted (e.g. bending of light by gravity, slowing down of time by motion) were proven decades ago by actual experiments (e.g. through comparing passage of time in atomic clocks placed inside a globe circling aeroplane vs. one on the ground). What has happened is that they have been further extended - thus black holes were envisaged theoretically in the 1960`s by building on Einstein`s constructs (and have been indirectly located since then). There is no doubt that Einstein`s theories will gradually be replaced with a deeper understanding of nature, but rest assured that (to use his predecessor Newton`s famous phrase) ``We stand on the shoulders of giants who came before us``.

You make, imho, a glib point when you say that einstein`s phrase that ``God does not play dice with the universe`` is replaced because we cannot predict many things with certainty. As our circle of knowledge widens, so does the perimeter of that circle, and thus we become increasingly aware of what we do not know. Only ignorant people (Theocrats, Atheists) are 100 percent that what they know is the ultimate truth. Religious people and scientists recognize that we can never know everything - there will always be unpredictabilities, and the more we know the greater will be our awareness.

Long post, sorry.

Alephnull #17 You quote me as follows: ``Religion is about the awe and love for creation (the vastness of space, the subtlety of life, the mystery of the sub-atomic particle) by the individual.``
In response you write ``That is a description of a denatured neutered utterly innocuous kind of diffuse oceanic feeling that even depraved atheists and other unspeakable perverts might find unobjectionable. ``

I would not characterize such inspiration as being a ``denatured neutered...`` feeling. On the contrary, this feeling has been the engine of that has allowed mankind to progress from berry-eating apes to becoming discoverers of objects that are billions of light years away. By curbing freedom of human thought, theocrats, on the other hand, have historically served to put hurdles in the path of such progress.

While theocrats (and many people on chowk) get their jollies by emphasizing differences between people based on religion, the truly religious person gets his or her jollies by nurturing exactly the feeling you characterize as being ``neutered``. And he or she sees all religions as pointing exactly to this feeling (Brahma in hinduism, Allah in Islam, the Source of Knowledge for the scientist).

It is exactly this feeling that has caused copernicus to overthrow the established ``order of the world`` whereby the earth was the center of the universe; and it was exactly this feeling that led darwin to overthrow man`s conceit of being created in God`s image. The Quran fittingly says, in effect, that if mankind does not get its act together it will be replaced by another species. Thus: there is plenty to get excited, and one need not simply fling insults at other communities of people in order to get excited by religion.

Dark Matter
The Shadow Matter Universe Theory
Points Regarding Dark Matter
What Do Muslims Believe?
Prophet Suleiman (pbuh)
The Omega Point
Expansion of the Universe
Summary


Dark Matter

Physicists have found out that over 90% of the mass of the universe is in the form of invisible matter. This matter does not interact with light or rather does not radiate light and hence can not be detected directly, but does have a gravitational effect. Therefore it is called ``dark matter``.

It is indeed, a strange form of matter/energy. The remarkable thing is now, physicists have come to the conclusion that there is a great Unseen World that we do not have access to.

Physicists theorize that perhaps there is a whole universe out there, coinciding exactly in time and space with our own, but different and not physically interacting (but may be in other ways, strange ways of course).

The Shadow Matter Universe Theory

This theory is known as The Shadow Matter Universe theory, and some theoretical physicists argue that it is likely that this universe has its own rules of physics that would appear strange to us, and that there are probably people and civilizations dwelling in this universe, maybe similar to our own. Of course these creatures would be strange and be able to do things we can`t do, as their universe follows some different laws from our own. Whether they can see us, is of course an unanswerable question at the moment.

Points Regarding Dark Matter:

1.There is an imbalance in the equations of the ``big bang``, and this can be solved by postulating that just before the splitting of the singular mass that caused the ``big bang``, there was an earlier splitting, that created the dark matter. That is to say that dark matter had to be created before our own form of matter came into existence. This is required by the equations of relativity and the big bang.

Hence, if dark matter came into existence before our own matter, it is conceivable that the shadow matter universe developed earlier than ours and is far more ancient.

Interestingly, Allah [swt] tells us in the Quran that the jinn were created before mankind.

2.Also, if the dark matter actually exists, then this universe will ultimately collapse because of the gravitational effect caused by the presence of this extra mass.

Imagine a small child sitting on a chair. The chair is strong and won`t collapse. But what if there was a heavy set invisible man also sitting on the chair ?

Sooner or later it is bound to collapse...

ie IF dark matter exists THEN the universe will END.

What Do Muslims Believe?

We, as Muslims, all believe that this universe will ultimately come to an end. This is one of our fundamental beliefs.

One of my own ideas about why dark matter is dark is that this form of energy is made of super luminal waves (ie moves faster than light, hence light cannot interact with it, ie light is always trying to catch-up but cannot...?).

Prophet Suleiman (pbuh)

Interestingly, when Prophet Suleiman [pbuh] asks the jinn to accomplish a task, the jinn says that he will do it

QUICKER THAN THE TWINKLING OF AN EYE, OR RATHER

QUICKER THAN THE LIGHT WILL REACH HIS EYE...or something very close to that effect.

And Allah swt says in the Quoran:

``Said one who had knowledge Of the Book :
`` I will Bring it to thee within
The twinkling of an eye ! ``
27:40

This means that the jinn are not bound by the same laws that we are, and can move very, very fast, perhaps faster than light. And when matter (if matter) can move faster than light, many strange things can happen.

It seems that our histories and futures with this universe are very intimately intertwined...

The Omega Point


The ideas for dark matter and shadow matter universe are explained in renowned Astrophysicist John Gribbin`s book, THE OMEGA POINT. There are quite a few books now available on dark matter.

Though at the moment some are saying that the scientists have found out that the universe is flat and will expand forever, and never collapse....however there are a lot of camps and schools of thought and we haven`t heard the last of this story.

Expansion of the Universe

``And the universe, we constructed with power and skill and verily we are expanding it.`` (51:47)

What struck me though, was the remarkable similarities between the basic Islamic concept of Jinn and this Dark Matter Universe

Summary:


1 They live in the Unseen World.

2 They can move very fast...

3. They were created before mankind...

4. Their existence is predicted in the ``big bang`` theory and

5. Their presence ultimately is required for the end of the universe,etc...

Tahmed,

``Einstein: For example, his famous saying that ``God does not play dice with the universe`` is a clear statement that he understood that the universe just did not ``happen``...``

Well, Einstein had to eat crow...because probability and statistical mechanics are the cornerstones of atomic physics today.

It looks like God does indeed play dice!!!

Azure #18 you write that Einstein was ``least interested in Religion and never bothered freqenting religious gatherings or reading the Talmud.``

My point exactly: Religious gatherings and so forth are a characteristic of a Theocracy. Not of Religion. Thus, you too are using Religion and Theocracy interchangably - which is exactly the reason for the confusion that I pointed to in my previous post.

Einstein shunned religious gatherings. He even turned down an invitation to become President of Israel. However, the fact that Einstein was a deeply religious man is evident from his well-known references to God when discussing his incredibly brilliant theories. For example, his famous saying that ``God does not play dice with the universe`` is a clear statement that he understood that the universe just did not ``happen``, and that there is no reason why we cannot conceive of a consciousness that is outside our perceptions that sets certain rules. Indeed, a major scientific theory nowadays is that the entire universe as we perceive it is a reflection of knowledge that resides beyond the dimensions that we perceive.

Let me hasten to emphasize again that in order to see how religion and science are two aspects of the same thing, we must first understand religion in a very specific and simple way (the way Einstein perceived it). Religious rituals (including muslim rituals like prayer) are by no means central to religion - indeed, they are often the antithesis of religion. e.g. when we pray for some favorable outcome, we are begging God to bend his rules on our behalf. Religion means being grateful for what he have. Theocracy means asking for more. I could go on on this subject, but I think you see what I mean.

Romair & Naqshbandi:
You might enjoy this.

Ther Physicist got this stuff published in the highest scientific journals, hitherto a NO-NO OR ``KUFR`` to bring in religion into a `science`.

Islam, as a religion of Adam to Abraham, Moosa, Eesa, and Ahmed (muslims all--according to Quran al-Hakeem) has never considered science to be not-holistic to human nature. This ka-ka about separation of this and separation of that is the ultimate stupidity thrust upon mankind by the western and westernised baboons.

The slaves of satan will always use whatever argument to rationalise their incestous, drunken, and hedonistic ways. The nine-hole golf-course is their only theology.
``Summun Bukkmun Ummun

---

`.

Ignore!


The Omega Point Theory

I have presented and defended my Omega Point Theory at length in my book The Physics of Immortality (Doubleday, 1994), which is available from Barnes and Noble or Amazon. As science, the Omega Point Theory makes five basic claims about the universe:

(1) the universe is spatially closed (has finite spatial size and has the topology of a three-sphere),

(2) there are no event horizons, implying the future c-boundary is a point

---

the Omega Point,

(3) Life must eventually engulf the entire universe and control it,

(4) the amount of information processed between now and the final state is infinite,

(5) the amount of information stored in the universe diverges to infinity as the final state is approached.

I can show that these five basic claims directly follow from the most fundamental laws of physics: unitarity, general relativity with attractive gravity, and the Bekenstein Bound (aka the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). An outline of my proof is given on this web page.

I also argue that the ultimate future state of the universe, the Omega Point, should be identified with God. I have presented my argument in detail in my book The Physics of Immortality, but a main reason for my identification Omega Point = God, comes from Exodus 3:14. In this passage, God is speaking to Moses from the Burning Bush. God gives Moses His Name: EHYEH ASHER EHYEH (in Hebrew, of course). God`s Name is best translated into English as I SHALL BE WHAT I SHALL BE. In other words, God is telling Moses that His essence is future tense. If we regard God as something Ultimate, then He is telling us that He is the Ultimate Future. Hence my identification Omega Point = God. My translation of EHYEH ASHER EHYEH is taken from the Oxford University Study Bible (Revised Standard Version), but the great German religious leader Martin Luther translated EHYEH ASHER EHYEH the same way into German: ICH WERDE SEIN, DER ICH SEIN WERDE. Luther`s translation of the Bible was to the German language as the King James version was to the English language.

I am also including on this web page two critical defenses of both my scientific argument and my theological argument.

My science is defended by Dr. David Deutsch, a physicist at Oxford University. In January of 1998, Deutsch was awarded the Dirac Medal for his invention of the quantum computer. Deutsch`s defense of my science is taken from his brilliant book The Fabric of Reality (Penguin Books, 1997). This book is available from either Barnes and Noble or Amazon. I can strongly recommend this book for its presentation of the Many-Worlds Interpretation, the physics upon which the quantum computer is based. In fact, I agree with almost everything Deutsch says in his book. Where we disagree, I believe it is only because Deutsch has rejected his own theory! I shall reproduce here (with permission) most of the 14th Chapter of Deutsch`s book.

My theology is defended by Professor Wolfhart Pannenberg, a theologian at the University of Munich, Germany. Professor Pannenberg has been called ``the most brilliant living theological mind``. He has been termed ``one of the three great theologians of the 20th century``. He holds five honorary doctors of divinity degrees. He is eminently qualified to judge theology. Professor Pannenberg`s paper, which I reproduce here (with his permission) was originally presented at a conference on my book, held in June of 1997 in Innsbruck, Austria.

Amusingly, the theologian Pannenberg is dubious about some of my physics, and the physicist Deutsch doesn`t like my theology! As you will read, Pannenberg does not like the Many- Worlds Interpretation (which Deutsch

---

and I

---

believe in because it is required by quantum mechanics). Deutsch defends the MWI in his book. I am placing on this web page another defense of the MWI, entitled ``Quantum Nonlocality Does Not Exist,`` which shows that locality

---

a fundamental fact of relativity

---

is restored to physics by the MWI. I might add that most of the great physicists

---

Richard Feynman, Murray Gell-Mann, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, for examples

---

have publicly announced their support for the MWI.

I have included my replies to Deutsch`s criticisms of my theology in the excerpts from Deutsch`s book. Deutsch does not like the idea of God as the Ultimate Future, but Pannenberg many years ago concluded, as I have, that the Bible says God is the Ultimate Future.
Book Review
Frank Tipler, The Physics of Immortality,

Doubleday, New York, 1994; 528 pp., MR 29.90.


The author of this highly exciting book, subtitled ``Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead``, is an American professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University, Florida, U.S.A. He should know what he is taking about when he sets out to scientifically prove in this book that God exists and that man will be resurrected after death to live an everlasting life, just as the great world religions have asserted. It might be puzzling to many that he describes himself as an atheist and traces his line of thinking from scientific materialism, particularly of the Marxist John Bernal. However, a good book is a good book, whoever writes it. It is extremely well-researched, packed with information from wide-ranging sources, interspersed with keen insights, and written in a surprisingly objective and readable style in spite of its heavy and sensitive theme as well as its technical nature. Anyone to whom the problem of life’s meaning is important must read this book.

To give readers an idea of its tremendous scope, I should tell them that it consists of thirteen chapters that include such breath-taking titles as ``Determinism in Classical General Relativity and in Quantum Mechanics``, ``How Free Will Can Arise from Quantum Cosmological Mechanism``, ``The Physics of Resurrection of the Dead to Eternal Life``, ``What Happens After the Resurrection: Heaven, Hell and Purgatory``, ``Comparison of the Heaven Predicted by Modern Physics with the Afterlife Hoped for by the Great World Religions``, ``The Omega Point Theory and Christianity``, and ``Theology as a Branch of Physics``. The notes and bibliographical list are very useful and there is also a long Appendix for Scientists who require more technical details.

For many people and for far too long, religion and science have been kept apart. The two cannot be linked, much less equated, according to them. No less than the Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences decreed in a Resolution dated 25 August, 1981 as follows: ``Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief.`` On the religious dogmatic side, let me quote this rather representative view: ``In many respects and on many points, the presuppositions of modern science concerning man, the universe and reality can very well undermine the Islamic belief system. If one really understands the meaning of each of the six articles of faith and all their philosophical and scientific implications, then one cannot at the same time be a defender of the philosophy of modern science without falling into philosophical and logical contradictions or without sacrificing one’s intelectual honesty.``

Of course, in all the great religions, there have been philosophers and theologians who argued for the congruence of religion and science: Maimonides in Judaism, Acquinas in Christianity, Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rush in Islam and modern Hindu, Buddhist and Coficiuan reformers. But modern European civilization after Issac Newton, Charles Darwin and other materialist philosophers who seemed to have disposed of a just and good God from the universe appeared to have embarked on the road to everlasting atheism. However, this is not to be. The relativity theory of Einstein and the quantum physics of Max Born, Werner Heisenberg, Louis V. de Broglie, Erwin Schrodinger and others have displaced the the mechanical block universe of earlier centuries with a less deterministic and more ``spiritual`` universe with a possible creator who has created it. The twentieth century has also come with two terrible wars that completely upset the simple optimistic progressivist world-view of the eighteenth century. Mankind is now less certain about the ability of science to lead it to uninterrupted progress, thus giving way to a renewed interest in religion in general. But that is only one side of the picture. The other is that modern quantum science are fast approaching the time when it will be able to endorse the essential teachings of the great religions, i.e. the existence of God and of an infinite afterlife. This is precisely what Prof. Tipler has done in this book.

On this relation between religion and science, the author says:

The Omega Point Theory allows the key concepts of Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition now to be modern physics concept: theology is nothing but physical cosmology based on the assumption that life as a whole is immortal. A consequence of this assumption is the resurrection of everyone who has ever lived to eternal life. Physics has now absorbed theology; the difference between science and religion, between reason and emotion, is over.

I began this book with an assertion on the pointlessness of the universe by Steve Weinberg. He repeats this in his latest book, Dreams of a Final Theory, and goes on to say ``... I do not for a minute think that science will ever provide the consolations that have ever been offered by religion in facing death.``

I disagree. Science can now offer precisely the consolations in facing death that religion once offered. Religion is now part of science. (pp. 338-39)

The author also gives three very interesting reasons for the divorce of science and religion, namely: (1) the continuing influence of classical (Greco-Roman) metaphysics on contemporary (Western) theology and religion and its separation from modern science, modern science being nearer to the true understanding of reality than medieval or ancient science;(2) general religious opposition to the atheism of modern science (actually some modern scientists); and (3) the difficulties inherent in the transmitting and understanding by human beings of the Book or the Word of God.

Thus, according to Prof. Tipler: ``The only book which does not suffer from these limitations is the Book of Nature, the only book which God wrote with His/Her own hand, without human assistance. The Book of Nature is not limited by human understanding. The Book of Nature is the only reliable guide to the true nature of God.`` (p. 337) In other words, there are two books, the Written Book and the Unwritten Book, and the two must agree. In this sense, science, i.e. the study of nature, cannot but come to the same conclusions as the teachings of a true revealed religion.

Being a book of physics, Prof. Tipler’s contains much technical language. The Omega Point Theory, standing for reality, the ground of Being or simply God, is such a technical term. What actually is Omega Point Theory? Let me try to explain it briefly. Since, if God exists, He must be in or part of the universe, knowledge of the universe must include knowledge of Him. That is to say that God is immanent in the universe. Since God created the universe, God must be other than the universe, i.e. that He is transcendental. Science has discovered that the universe and all it contains are evolving towards a point where God’s power is fully manifested, i.e. God’s Kingdom where complete justice prevails and everything submits to His commands. This is the Omega Point. Before the Omega Point is reached, life would have engulfed the whole universe and universal as well as individual resurrection would have taken place through computer simulation. At that time, in the future, probably in the far future, computer capacity will reach a stage capable of such performance.

Tahmed #9

{{ Religion is about the awe and love for creation (the vastness of space, the subtlety of life, the mystery of the sub-atomic particle) by the individual.}}

That is a description of a denatured neutered utterly innocuous kind of diffuse oceanic feeling that even depraved atheists and other unspeakable perverts might find unobjectionable.

It does not however capture the reality of a great deal that goes under the heading of religion: no mention of a transcendent realm beyond the material world; no notion of a supreme being, let alone a jealous personal god who demands exclusive fealty and cares about human thoughts, words and deeds; no divine fiats concerning proper human conduct, right and wrong, crime and punishment, family law, gender relations, sexual morality, diet, or personal hygiene.

Nor is there any mention of revealed truth, of duly accredited divine messengers, of heaven and hell, of a day of judgment, all of which are hallmarks of a well-known family of religions.

In short, that description seems to omit the central characteristics of some of the most common occurrences of the phenomenon it seeks to capture. I suggest that it is of questionable utility.

{{It is no wonder that Einstein, arguably the greatest Scientist the world has seen, was a deeply Religious man.}}

Only in the weak sense of “awe and love for creation”. He was most certainly not a Talmud-thumper or religious dogmatist or conventional believer in a personal god. The only Revealed Book he was interested in was the Book of Nature.