Atheism Cosmology Intelligent Design News

Peer review and atheism: “These men and women have built their entire worldview on atheism,” says physicist Frank Tipler

Spread the love
Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing

About ideas rejected in the academy, a most unorthodox physicist writes,

The most radical ideas are those that are perceived to support religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity. When I was a student at MIT in the late 1960s, I audited a course in cosmology from the physics Nobelist Steven Weinberg. He told his class that of the theories of cosmology, he preferred the Steady State Theory because “it least resembled the account in Genesis” (my emphasis). In his book The First Three Minutes (chapter 6), Weinberg explains his earlier rejection of the Big Bang Theory: “[O]ur mistake is not that we take our theories too seriously, but that we do not take them seriously enough. It is always hard to realize that these numbers and equations we play with at our desks have something to do with the real world. Even worse, there often seems to be a general agreement that certain phenomena are just not fit subjects for respectable theoretical and experimental effort.”

I have now known Weinberg for over thirty years, and I know that he has always taken the equations of physics very seriously indeed. He and I are both convinced that the equations of physics are the best guide to reality, especially when the predictions of these equations are contrary to common sense. But as he himself points out in his book, the Big Bang Theory was an automatic consequence of standard thermodynamics, standard gravity theory, and standard nuclear physics. All of the basic physics one needs for the Big Bang Theory was well established in the 1930s, some two decades before the theory was worked out. Weinberg rejected this standard physics not because he didn’t take the equations of physics seriously, but because he did not like the religious implications of the laws of physics. A recent poll of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, published in Scientific American, indicated that more than ninety percent are atheists. These men and women have built their entire worldview on atheism. They would be exceedingly reluctant to admit that any result of science could be valid if it even suggested that God could exist.

– Frank J. Tipler, “Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?”, Uncommon Dissent, pp 123-24.

2 Replies to “Peer review and atheism: “These men and women have built their entire worldview on atheism,” says physicist Frank Tipler

  1. 1
    Collin says:

    It is very hard to confront the weaknesses of one’s worldview. It’s like jumping into a very cold lake. But you have to do it or someone will do it for you. And if you don’t do it, then you’ll end up aggressively defending your worldview at the expense of truth. Your defense will start to include offensive attacks on competing theories. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t defend your ideas or beliefs, but that you should carefully examine them periodically. I’m preaching to myself as much as anybody.

  2. 2
    Axel says:

    It’s strange, isn’t it, they see themselves as paragons, the very personification of reason, yet they represent, not merely unreason or irrationality, but absolute unreason, total irrationality.

    Another irony is that this unreason prompts them to reject paradoxes (while forced to use them), preferring to believe in the fabled “promissory note, that one day Science will explain everything. They don’t have any sense of what Aldous Huxley described as the “unitive intelligence”; for them, the analytical intelligence is all there is.

    Faith, however, is a free gift of God. It just so happens that God made the universe intelligible to the Christian by design (sorry to use that word….!).

    Atheists are basically freeloaders, stumble-bums. All the great paradigm changers, without exception, believed in Intelligent Design.

    It seems a particularly beautiful dispensation of Divine Providence that the proper functioning of the analytical intelligence should depend upon the wisdom of a person’s assumptions, the integrity of his character through the proper formation of his world-view.

Leave a Reply