Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship
By John Polkinghorne (Part 4 – Conceptual Exploration

We are reviewing the book, “Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship” by John Polkinghorne.  Today we will look at Chapter 4- Conceptual Exploration.  John says continuing conceptual exploration is characterized by increasing subtlety and depth.  The first exploration of a new physical regime often takes the form of theoretical work formulated in close correlation with specific experimental data.  Physicists use models to incorporate what appears to be the principal factors controlling the specific phenomena under consideration.  There is no pretense that the model constructed is totally adequate description of the nature of the system involved; they serve a strictly limited purpose.

For example Einstein’s discussion of the photoelectric effect demonstrated the particle-like behavior of light, without being able to give any account of its wave-like properties.  Bohr’s model of the hydrogen atom simply imposed an ad hoc rule (the quantization of angular momentum) on an otherwise Newtonian account.  Because models don’t aspire to ontological accuracy, it is possible to simultaneously employ a variety of mutually incompatible models in order to advance the understanding of the behavior of some physical entity.  But physicists cannot rest content with mutually contradictory pictures of what they are investigating.  Some more integrated account has to be sought.  The clutch of models has to be replaced by a single over-arching theory.

Niels Bohr once said that anyone who claimed fully to understand quantum physics had just shown that they had not begun to appreciate properly what it is all about.  He was echoing, unconsciously no doubt, a similar remark made earlier by William Temple (W. Temple, Christus Veritas, Macmillan, 1924, 1.139) when he said that “if any man says he understands the relation of Deity to humanity in Christ, he only makes it clear that he does not at all understand what is meant by Incarnation.”

In his book on Christology, Donald Baillie (Baillie, God Was in Christ, p.114) pointed to what he called the ‘Central Paradox’ of the Christian life.  He was referring to the convictions simultaneously held, that we bear a responsibility for our lives and actions, and also that ‘never is human life more truly and fully personal, never does the agent feel more profoundly free, than those moments in which he can say as a Christian that whatever was good was not his but Gods.’  Paul expressed a similar thought when he exhorted the members of the church at Philippi to ‘work out your salvation; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure’ (Philippians 2:12-13).  Baillie went on to suggest that ‘this paradox in its fragmentary form in our Christian lives is a reflection of that perfect union of God and man in the Incarnation on which the whole Christian life depends, and may therefore be out best clue to understanding it’.

Grand Unified Theories (GUT).  John says one could write the history of modern physics in terms of its being a continuing quest for greater generality and deeper unity in our conceptual understanding of the physical world.  It began as early as Galileo’s conviction, contrary to Aristotle’s thinking, that the heavenly bodies are made of the same stuff as those that compose terrestrial entities.  This insight was triumphantly confirmed by Isaac Newton’s discovery of universal gravity, showing that the force that makes the apple fall is the same force that holds the Moon in its orbit around the Earth.  The next unifying steps occurred in the nineteenth century when Øersted and Faraday showed that there was direct connections between electric currents and magnetic fields.  The character if this connection was made clear in 1873 when James Clerk Maxwell published his Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, presenting a unified theory of electromagnetism that has proved of lasting value, and which is one of the most brilliant achievements in the whole history of theoretical physics.

The next step in the great unified advance was the marriage between electromagnetic theory and the weak nuclear forces that are responsible for phenomena such as β-decay, the emission of electrons by radioactive nuclei.  The next desirable step would obviously be a further integration, drawing in the strong nuclear forces, and perhaps also gravitation.  Polkinghorne says such a GUT has so far proved to be difficult to achieve and the attempts to find it have been controversial and not wholly convincing.  John says:

The present favored candidate is superstring theory, but accepting its ideas depends upon believing that theorists, on the basis of mathematical considerations alone, can second-guess the character of nature at a level of detail more than ten thousand million million times smaller than anything of which we have direct empirical experience.  The lessons of history are not encouraging to such a bold venture.  Usually nature has something up her sleeve that only empirical pressure will cause the theorists to think of.

Whatever may eventually prove to be the case, the general hope that some form of GUT will in the end be discovered is one that is entertained by many physicist, myself among them.  A belief in the fundamental unity of physics is one that encouraged by the kind of past experiences that we have reviewed.  It is also supported by a metaphysical conviction of the integrity of cosmic process that is deeply appealing to scientists.  Theologians may well feel that this act of faith by the physicists is a reflection of a trust, doubtless often unconsciously entertained, in the consistency of the one God whose will is the origin of the order of the created universe.

John then says the counterpart in Christian theology of the physicists GUT is the doctrine of the Trinity.  The Christians of the first centuries came to recognize they had known God in three fundamental ways.  There was the heavenly Father, Creator of the universe and the One who had given the law to Moses in the clouds and thick darkness of Mount Sinai.  God above us. There was the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, sharing in and redeeming humanity, and making God’s will known in the plainest and most accessible terms through His life in Palestine.  God alongside us.  There was the Holy Spirit, that divine presence at work in the human heart, bestowing gifts that matched individual personality and need.  God within us.  Yet those early Christians knew that they must hold on to the conviction that they had inherited from Judaism, that God is one.

Polkinghorne says it is important to recognize that belief in the Holy Trinity was motivated by Christian experience and not rash and ungrounded metaphysical speculation.  He says what was predominantly involved was engagement with what the theologians call “the economic Trinity”, and evidence-based argument from below.  He says:

The adjective derives from the Greek word oikonomia, whose root meaning concerns the order of a household, in this case the household of the divinely created world. The experience that the Fathers relied on did not only come from the great revelatory events of Creation, Incarnation, and Pentecostal empowerment, but it also arose from the ordinary worshipping life of the Church, which prayed to the Father through the Son and in the power of the Spirit, and whose characteristic acclamation of praise was, and remains, ‘Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit’.

“Reality is relational” is an insight that certainly accords with increasing scientific recognition of the relational character of the physical universe.  The old-fashioned atomism of isolated particles rattling around in the otherwise empty container of space has long been replaced by General Relativity’s integrated account of space, time, and matter, understood to be combined in a single package deal.  The physical world looks more and more like a universe that would be the fitting creation of the trinitarian God, the One whose deepest reality is relational.  John believes that the true “Theory of Everything” is not superstrings, as physicists are sometimes move to bombastically to proclaim, but it is actually trinitarian theology.

Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship
By John Polkinghorne (Part 3d) — Lessons from History

We are reviewing the book, “Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship” by John Polkinghorne.  Today we will look at the fourth part of Chapter 3- Lessons from History.  John continues his comparative study of science and Christian theology with some additional historical examples of how the discovery of further truth proceeds in these two disciplines.  Last time we looked at: (3) Tides of fashion.  This week we look at:

(4) The role of genius.  Advance in understanding owes much to the insights of small number of exceptional people.

(a) The founders of quantum theory.  Certainly a great deal of development in science stems from the labors of the honest toilers in research and Polkinghorne would never fail to acknowledge that.  Still in the case of quantum theory, especially in the formative years of the mid-1920s the exceptional insights of Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and Dirac laid the foundation of modern quantum theoretical understanding. Of course the name Einstein is now synonymous with the word genius, although poor Niels Bohr doesn’t get the credit he deserves except by actual physicists.

(b) Apostolic insight.  Polkinghorne asserts that the writings of the New Testament are dominated by the profound insights of three particular authors, Paul, John, and the unknown person who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.  He believes that the depth of theological reflection found in their writings has meant that all subsequent generations of theologians had to engage with them.  He says their brilliant insights have shaped the form of Christian theology in a manner that the believer will see as the result of providential inspiration by the Holy Spirit, guiding the use of individual human gifts.  However, I’m not sure how that squares with Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 1:26-29

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

And Polkinghorne doesn’t mention Jesus here.  Was Jesus a genius?  This section makes me think about how history seems to be a celebration of great men (and rarely great women—which may be telling in itself).  Is this an all too human propensity to hero-worship?  Is the Enlightenment/Modern Project notion of “the progress of humanity” a real increase in human flourishing?  To a certain extent it is, of course; I love me some modern sanitation, I have a stent in my left circumflex heart artery—otherwise I’d be dead, slavery is universally condemned in theory if not always in practice, and so on.

Is the story of the Church one of progress? It certainly does not seem to be a progress that can be measured by worldly standards. Father Stephen Freeman said:

I often see examples of what I would describe as “comparative denominationalism.” It is the comparison of one Church to another (yes, I know that Orthodoxy is not a denomination). Indeed, the drive for a “better Church,” a “more authentic Church,” the “true Church,” the “New Testament Church,” is little more than a game invented in America during the 19th century. It is post-Reformation and represents the rise of Christian consumerism… Particularly after the Reformation, the notion that correct doctrine would produce a correct Church gained increasing acceptance. However, history has repeatedly proven this to be a false idea. No matter the corrective measures, Christianity, as Church, remains flawed. Apparently, allowing sinful people to be part of the Church ruins its excellence, and, even the most excellent people are revealed to be broken.

I’m inclined to agree with Father Freeman here, but I wonder if there is a counter-argument?  Polkinghorne’s final comparison is:

(5) Living with unresolved perplexities.  While the ultimate aim is a coherent and fully integrated scheme of understanding, it may be necessary to tolerate living with not all problems fully solved.

(a) Quantum problems.  John asks, how does it come about that the apparently reliable Newtonian world of everyday experience emerges from its fitful quantum substrate?  Almost a hundred years after the initial discovery of modern quantum theory, it is embarrassing to physicists to have to admit that there is no comprehensive and universally agreed answer to that reasonable question.  The theory enables us to calculate with impressive accuracy the probabilities of obtaining these different answers, but it is unable to explain how it comes about that a specific answer is obtained on a specific occasion.  John says:

No one rejoices at these perplexities in physics, and all physicists hope for their eventual resolution.  Meanwhile the subject is not paralyzed in its search for understanding.  Scientists can live with partial knowledge and a degree of intellectual uncertainty.

(b) The problem of evil.  Polkinghorne asserts the most perplexing problem that theology faces is the problem of evil and suffering.  If God is both good and almighty, whence come the disease and disaster, the cruelty and neglect that we observe in creation?  If God is good, surely these ills would have been eliminated.  If God is almighty, there is surely divine power to do so.  Polkinghorne believes a partial answer can be held to lie, not in qualifying divine goodness, but in a careful analysis of what is meant by ‘almighty’.  Almighty means that God can do whatever God wills, but God can only will that which is in accordance with the divine nature.  Christians believe that nature to be love. He says the God of love could not be a cosmic tyrant, whose creation was simply a divine puppet-theater manipulated solely by the divine Puppet-Master.  The gift of love is always the gift of some kind of due independence to the object of love.  This is basically the Free Will Defense of Alvin Plantinga.

The bigger problem is physical evil, disease, and disaster that seems to be much more the direct responsibility of the Creator.  Chaplain Mike has called this “surd evil”, and revisited the subject again this Monday with Richard Beck’s essay.

Riffing off of Plantinga, Polkinghorne suggests there is a kind of “free-process defense” paralleling the free-will defense:

All parts of the created order are allowed to act according to their varied natures, being themselves and—through the evolutionary exploration of the potency with which the universe has been endowed—making themselves. In a non-magic world (and the world is not magic because its Creator is not a capricious magician), there will be an inevitable shadow side to fruitful process.  Genetic mutation will produce new forms of life, but other mutations will induce malignancy.  Tectonic plates will enable mineral resources to well up at their edges to replenish the surface of the Earth, but they will also slip and induce earthquakes and tsunamis.

Although I provisionally accept answers like Polkinghorne’s and Beck’s as probably the best we can do, as I get older, I have left off expecting easy answers anymore—or any answer at all.  The Christian God is the crucified God, truly a fellow sufferer who understands.  As Dorothy Sayers said:

“For whatever reason God chose to make man as he is— limited and suffering and subject to sorrows and death—He had the honesty and the courage to take His own medicine. Whatever game He is playing with His creation, He has kept His own rules and played fair. He can exact nothing from man that He has not exacted from Himself. He has Himself gone through the whole of human experience, from the trivial irritations of family life and the cramping restrictions of hard work and lack of money to the worst horrors of pain and humiliation, defeat, despair and death. When He was a man, He played the man. He was born in poverty and died in disgrace and thought it well worthwhile.”

I really think this insight touches the problem of suffering at the deepest level at which it can be met.  In fact, I no longer conceive of God as anything other than “Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2).  John 1:18 says, “No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”  That word “declared” in Greek is where we get the word “exegete”.  So “The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has exegeted Him”.  Christ is how we “read” God. We cannot get behind Christ to speak about God as though we knew anything of God apart from Christ.  Therefore, the crucifixion and the resurrection are the answer and there is no answer apart from them.