Ryan Rogers Class of 2009 Stetson University Frank Tipler’s “The Physics of Immortality”: A Question of Method Religious Studies Mathematics (double major) April 2009 Pledged: Ryan Rogers (Signature) Approved: D. Dixon Sutherland, Faculty Advisor Mitchell Reddish, Chair, Religious Studies 2 Abstract Throughout history, science and religion have had major problems with one another. As science is able to explain and model more of the universe, religion seems to be able to explain less. Could science, specifically physics, eventually absorb theology? This is the argument that Frank Tipler advocates in his book entitled The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead . This research analyzes Tipler’s methodology for making his claim. It will be argued that contrary to Tipler’s assertion, “immortality” is still a theologically dependent concept that reaches beyond the proper scope of physics. In fact, Tipler’s physics is actually dependent upon theological assumptions. Describing the end of the cosmos, Tipler’s physics leaves too many gaps between physical laws and mathematical principles, which urges theology to step in. Furthermore, the assumptions from which Tipler starts, have no firm scientific groundings. In essence, science seems to rely on the validity of theology. Tipler’s work supports the “immortality of theology” over science. In his case, his theology absorbed his physics. 3 As a major in both Mathematics and Religious Studies at Stetson University, I have sifted through both fields in an effort to find if there might be pathways in one discipline that lead to insights involving the other. After searching for four years, my opinion remains that neither discipline could ultimately be a superior authority with regard to the other. Mathematics works from the most fundamental and agreed upon axioms in the world; it is the universal language, but what makes math possible? Why have so many prominent mathematicians contributed to spiritual or religious thought? For my senior research in Religious Studies, I have chosen to pursue these questions by a critical inquiry into a book that suggests science, specifically physics, will overcome theology, namely, Frank Tipler’s The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead .1 Being interested by the possibility of both physics’ dependency on mathematics and mathematics’ intriguing relationship with religion, I will undertake an analysis of Tipler’s claims to see how he arrives at his conclusions. Tipler’s physical eschatology depends on the hegemony of physics over theology. Has science evolved so fast as to actually compete with millennia of progress in religion in modeling the human experience? According to Frank Tipler’s Physics of Immortality , theology will be or already has become a part of physics. With such a far-reaching conjecture, an analysis of Tipler’s methodology must be conducted. Also Tipler’s method must be compared to others’ methodologies of how to approach the relationship of science and religion. After this analysis, Tipler’s argument will be shown to actually support the opposite of Tipler’s theory; science may be overcome by theology. The main support for this claim lies in the need of theology for science and the scientific method to 1 Frank J Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead, (New York: Anchor, 1997). 4 exist. Both science and religion have the ultimate concern to model the human experience and overlap in forming explanations of how life and the universe may ultimately end. What happens at the end? “The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.” 2 “There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.” 3 The notion of the universe ending at a certain point appears to be inevitable. If humans do not kill themselves off with nuclear bombs, pollution, or overpopulation, other threats to the earth—man-made or natural—such as asteroids or space debris collisions, could do the job quite nicely. Assuming the earth manages to avoid these catastrophes, the sun is still projected to use up all its energy and expire in another five billion years. The death of the sun would kill off any and all life that may have managed to take refuge on other planets in our solar system. Still, this is a distant prospect, and considering what people have accomplished in far less than a million years, the demise of the sun may not spell the doom of humans. One can conceive that humankind or any evolved form of intelligent beings may one day possess the capability of moving to and inhabiting other planetary systems in sufficient time to miss the death of the sun. Nevertheless, there are indications that even the known universe will come to an end in the far distant future. Intelligent life would have no place to hide; it would simply 2 Matthew 24: 29 3 Revelations 22: 5 5 end. If the universe does come to an end, no matter how far into the future, what does this mean for humanity or intelligent life? John Polkinghorne claims that “as cosmologists peer into the future, their story is one of eventual futility rather than one of fulfillment.” 4 What role does intelligence play in the cosmos if it only ends in total vainness? Despite these gloomy ideas about the end of the universe, science also includes other theories that would allow intelligence to last indefinitely. In accord with these optimistic scientific theories, some religious traditions tend to talk about the end of time, filling people with hope of immortality or other eschatological scenarios. This begs the question; do these optimistic scientific theories have religious foundations? Can religion inform science in any way? In order to see if religion can in any way complement physics, one must be aware of the different scientific views of the end of the universe. Before theories about the Big Bang began to form, many scientists deeply believed that the universe followed the second law of thermodynamics (see Appendix), which meant that the universe was “running into disorder,” which provided a dreary outlook for the future. 5 Today, two major theories exist regarding how the universe could end. These two theories correspond to the Big Bang theory and paint a picture as pessimistic as the earlier theory. They are called the open and closed theories of the universe. One suggests a universe that is forever expanding, while the other claims that the universe’s expansion will end, and the universe will start contracting. 6 If the universe continues to expand forever, as the open universe theory contends, “the galaxies will continue to move apart forever, at 4 John Polkinghorne, “Eschatology,” The Ends of the World and the Ends of God, eds. John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker, (Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 2000), 29. 5 Fraser Watts, “Subjective and Objective Hope,” The Ends of the World and the Ends of God, eds. John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker, (Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 2000), 47. 6 Willem B. Drees, Beyond the Big Bang , (Lasalle, Ill: Open Court Publishing Company, 1990), 122. 6 the same time condensing and decaying into themselves into ever-cooling low grade radiation.” 7 Because the universe will continuously expand, it will eventually become so cold that life would not be possible, ultimately leading to extinction (this is also known as the “Big Freeze” theory). The closed universe theory suggests that the universe is finite and will eventually contract into an infinitesimally small ball from the forces of gravity; “the universe will eventually collapse upon itself into the fiery melting pot of the big crunch.” 8 There are suggestions that perhaps after the “Big Crunch” there will be another Big Bang and the whole process of the universe will continue again, also known as the Eternal Return. Despite the universe being created and destroyed indefinitely with this view, human life would be lost and there would be no signs of intelligent life from each prior oscillation after each Big Crunch and Big Bang. The universe could continue to exist without end either by expanding forever or expanding and contracting forever. However, with either of these views, life appears to be headed towards extinction and humanity would be lost along with all its achievements. There would be no link between each succession of intelligent life. This futility of the universe’s destiny leads Steven Weinberg to state, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless.” 9 There must be a more optimistic view of how human life or simply intelligence can survive in an infinite universe. F. J. Dyson presumes that if the universe follows the open scientific hypothesis and “cycles of activity and hibernation are chosen well” by intelligent beings, then 7 Polkinghorne, “Eschatology,” 31. 8 Polkinghorne, “Eschatology,” 31. 9 John Polkinghorne, Beyond Science , (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 95. 7 “survival might be possible for an infinite time with a finite total energy.” 10 This would allow intelligent life to persist even under the monotonous outlook of a forever- expanding universe. Willem B. Drees claims that Dyson’s theory implies that there is more than enough energy in the universe for humanity; “an organization as complex as the human species today needs, from now till eternity, the amount of energy that the Sun radiates away in eight hours.” 11 Dyson was able to come to this conclusion because he made the essence of being human not the body, but “the program which controls the body.” 12 This theory makes life and processing information to be one and the same thing.