It seems we have a disciple of Frank Tipler here.
From Wikipedia…
Tipler’s Omega Point theory has been highly controversial. In the past (1997), physicist David Deutsch defended the physics of Omega Point cosmology, although he was highly critical of Tipler’s theological conclusions and what Deutsch stated were exaggerated claims (that caused other scientists and philosophers to reject his theory). However, Deutsch has since rejected the theory, referring to it as “refuted” and “ruled out by observation”.
Which is exactly what we have been saying to James Redford.
it is really a theology or metaphysics principle made to sound plausible to laypeople by using the esoteric language of physics. Martin Gardner dubbed the final anthropic principle the “completely ridiculous anthropic principle” (CRAP).
George Ellis, writing in the journal Nature, described Tipler’s book on the Omega Point as “a masterpiece of pseudoscience… the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline” and Tipler himself as ‘the ultimate reductionist’, citing Tipler’s argument that ‘religion is now a part of science’.[24] Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating what he thought to be flaws in Tipler’s thesis.
John Polkinghorne described Tipler as having “extreme reductionism” and building a “cosmic tower of Babel”. He also mentioned that Tipler’s book “reads like the highest class of science fiction”. Polkinghorne himself asserted that the hope of resurrection “lies not in the curiosity or calculation of a cosmic computer, but in the personal God who cares individually for each of His human creatures”.
What has been brought to us here by this disciple of Tipler is certainly neither science nor Christianity. It reminds me of scientology in flavor if not in the actual beliefs it is proposing.
I thought better of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s religious ideas which these are supposedly based upon, not that I have subscribed to such personally. He was certainly a real scientist and I can sympathize with his attempts to harmonize science with Christianity as he understood them. And we do see some changes in his thinking as he accepted some of the findings of science. But the final verdict on much of his thinking is not kind and the best we can say is that he did his best with the ideas and understanding of things in his times with a some bad influences.
James Redford’s reference to my “position” and/or philosophy is absurd since he clearly has made no effort to discover anything about it. He labeled it “fideism” which is not something I have ever supported. I thought responding in kind by labeling his position “rationalism” would make him rethink such a black and white approach but it appeared to go completely over his head – demonstrating that he really doesn’t have much depth of understanding in philosophy, theology, or science.