Volume 21 – Physics and Theology

The advances in science during the last two centuries challenged some basic Christian doctrines – in particular, the doctrine of creation. Many Christians in the Western world engaged actively in development of “scientific apologetics”, i.e. apologetics in the field of science, and initiated debates on the fundamental theories of contemporary cosmology (the Big Bang theory) and biology (evolution of life). What are the key positions of scientific apologetics now, as the frameworks of these theories seem to be experimentally confirmed and established in the scientific communities worldwide? I argue that a consistent scientific apologetics shall not take a side in the disputes on the purely scientific problems of theories but rather focus on the worldview questions which these theories lead to. As examples, I will briefly review two issues in astrophysics that raise in-depth worldview questions: the beginning of the Universe and its fine tuning (“anthropic coincidences”). Also, a worthwhile for a scientific apologist is to elucidate the common historical roots of science and theology (in the prescientific era) and to show that they are not only of historical interest – indeed, their interaction and complementarity allow for building up a holistic, deeply satisfying view on reality.

A personal introduction

My personal struggle with the supposed contradiction between science and Christian faith was initially internal: I became a Christian believer as being a second-year university student in Physics and desperately needed a clear understanding whether of my new faith is compatible with a scientific career. People who know life under Communism from experience and the propaganda images of religion as incompatible with science, can imagine what kind of processes took place in me.

This article explores how Orthodox Theology (OT) and QM could benefit from each other in contributing to a fruitful interplay between theological and scientific cultures. One can refer to such interplay as a process of cultural translation which refers to the act of describing for members of one cultural community how members of another interpret the world and their experience within it. The specific focus is on the apophatic attitude to language and reality. While apophaticism has been a key characteristic of OT, it is a relatively new thing for QM. The article will specifically focus on discussing QBism – a most recent interpretation of QM – and use the discussion to illustrate how OT and QM could enrich each other by engaging in a fruitful dialogical interaction. It will also discuss a similar ongoing translation between quantum physics and the human sciences which is currently taking place with the emergence of a quantum social science.

Introduction

The title of this text refers to the role apophaticism plays in two very different contexts—Orthodox theology and quantum mechanics. Why apophaticism, why in these two specific contexts? Discussing apophaticism seems to be naturally related to theology and religion. Does it need to be? Not necessarily, since the topic has been discussed extensively, for example, in literature.

Introduction

This paper is devoted to the dialogue between physics and Christian theology, through some new ways to think about reality that have been introduced by quantum physicists during the first part of the twentieth century. In fact, quantum physicists experience a kind of incompleteness with respect to reality, which is close to that of the well-known philosopher Kant who claimed that science cannot reach the ultimate reality.{1}

In a completely different field, the theologians facing God’s mystery also face a kind of incompleteness which requires the adoption of the well-known apophatic approach.{2} Thus, the aim of this paper is to show how the mystery of knowing, and the corresponding attitudes of research, emerge as very relevant epistemological mediations for the dialogue between physicists and theologians. The objective is then to show how we can articulate the theology of creation by Trinity (creation by relationships) with the new scientific view of the relations between the physical substances that reveals quantum physics (particularly through the concept of non-separability) and more generally with the sciences of complexity.

1.For a detailed analysis, see Max Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (New York, J. Wiley and Sons, 1974); Lena Soler, ed., Philosophie de la Physique (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2006).

2.For a detailed analysis of the corresponding attitudes between the physicists and the theologians, see Thierry Magnin, Le scientifique et le théologien en quête d’origine (Paris: Desclée de Brower, 2015).

I should like to name here another perspective for (bio)Technology, a theologically-inspired one. I would call it Dialogical (Bio)Technology, in consideration of the fact that its fundamental characteristics, internally interdependent, would be the initial orientation towards what I have called the ‘dialectical composition of created nature’; thereafter the overthrow of the enforced homogenisation of people which is brought about by their being reduced to their psycho-biological elements through the promotion of a genuine dialogical society of real people, in which people do not dictate their existence to others; and the creation, in the end, of precisely that analogical identity which is expressed as imitation of the unifying, agapetic energy of God –of the will to consubstantiality rather than the will to power. These three principles would have the power to make (bio)Technology in general, and Artificial Intelligence in particular, dialogical, constantly reviewing the words, the actions and, in the end the purposes of God among his creations: wise, moderating and beneficial, with the sense of boundaries always present.

Every modern discussion on technology has already been embedded within the domain of its power and speaks in its defence. Everything is now all about technology, and this is very disturbing for the very existence of us humans and of the world. It is not only yet another, historically fleeting, trope, because, as Heidegger showed, it will never collapse and never be surpassed{1}. It is also a lecture by Heidegger, from 1955, which will be used to start our discussion.

1.Martin Heidegger, Die Frage nach der Technik, trans. William Lovitt, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1977), 39.

This paper explores the way in which two aspects of patristic thinking seem to have parallels with understandings to be found within the philosophy of science of the present time, especially as it has developed through reflection on the physicist’s understanding of the world. The first of these aspects relates to the concept of apophaticism, which in recent decades has been made more prominent in theological discussion through the influence of Vladimir Lossky’s focus on the ‘mystical’ nature of Orthodox theology. Here, insights into physics within the philosophy of science – exemplified by the work of Mary Hesse and Rom Harré – are presented as particularly relevant to exploring this concept. The second of these aspects of patristic thinking relates to the philosophical concept of idealism, often associated with the understanding of the eighteenth-century Anglican bishop, George Berkeley, but in fact to be found in a comparable form in the patristic era. The relevance of the ancient Greek philosophical concept of the nous – often used by patristic authors – is emphasized in relation to both topics.

The Eastern Orthodox tradition is based on the consensus developed within the Christian community of the patristic period, but it is not something that can be adhered to simply through familiarity with the patristic writings and professing loyalty to their content. For one thing, the writings of the Fathers sometimes reflected the mistaken secular ‘knowledge’ of the period in which they lived,{1} which means that there is sometimes a need for the process that Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia has called separating ‘Patristic wheat … from Patristic chaff.’{2}

1.Basil the Great, for example, illustrated a (legitimate) theological understanding through the mistaken science of his time, in which it was believed that not all animals are produced by existence spontaneously from the earth (Basil the Great, Hexameron IX.2). parents; he cites grasshoppers, small insects, mice, frogs and eels as creatures that come into existence spontaneously from the earth (Basil the Great, Hexameron IX.2).

2.Timothy Ware [later Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia], The Orthodox Church (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1957), 212.

The article analyzes the interpretation of the nature of time according to the view of Byzantine philosophers, highlighting its receptive distance from the Hellenic tradition and its significant divergence from Western Christian philosophy, as well as from the Descartes-Newtonian concept of time. The definition of time that forms the core of Byzantine philosophical thought on the temporal and trans-temporal dimensions of being was coined by Basil the Great: time is an interval (or extension – διάστημα) coextensive with the existence of the cosmos. Crucially, time is not necessarily tied to motion, there is no causal connection between time and movement. Time and aeon, with all the differences between them, are diastemic, but eternity is not. However, they are not simply parallel and distinct, but genetically related. The beginning (ἀρχή) of time itself has an adiastemic character. It includes in itself significant properties of the aeonic and the eternal. The dynamic interaction of time, aeon and eternity is still found in Jesus Christ himself and in the topoi of the divine actions in the world. Time, aeon and eternity form a network in which they work and are together in a common dynamic. It is the network of world history which will be removed only after the end of the world.

In posing the question of the interpretation of the nature of time according to the view of the Byzantine philosophers, it should be noted that they determined themselves as Christian philosophers.{1} Their pre-predicative basis is the Christian worldview. Their concepts of time, however, differ in significant ways from the understanding of Western Christian philosophy and already decidedly from the Descartes-Newtonian concept of time.

1.Cf. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromateis, VI, 8, 67, in Clementis Alexandrini Opera, vol. III, ed. D. Wilhelm, Oxford, 1869, 177,16; Gregorius Nyssenus, De vita sancti Gregorii Thaumaturgi, in: PG 46, 905C; Maximus Confessor, Mystagogia, 5, in PG 91, 673B. Already Paul actually writes about a φιλοσοφία κατὰ Χριστὸν, which is opposed to the φιλοσοφία κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου – Colossians 2. 8.

In just a few centuries, physics has established itself as the most fundamental and, arguably, the most powerful of all sciences, able to explore and reveal facts at the smallest to largest scales of nature, from quarks to galaxies, and at the shortest to longest times (billions of years and beyond). It has also come up with and established bewildering theories, from quantum mechanics to inflationary cosmology. And with all this, it has largely changed people’s view of nature and the universe, perhaps even their ‘worldviews’, their understanding of their place in the universe. On the other hand, it is difficult to describe religion’s trajectory over the last few centuries, even if one can delineate general features of religion, partly due to its huge spectrum of forms as well as the wide variety of beliefs, acts, and codes of behaviour that members and practitioners of various religions adopt. In this paper, I attempt to outline the main characteristics of both physics and religion in order to highlight the similarities or close concepts that can help each learn from the other, but also the ideas or positions that we may find in each and which can sometimes lead to conflict, opposition, and rejection of the other side. In particular, I focus on the concepts of ‘truth(s)’, ‘explanation’, ‘interpretation’, ‘reality’, ‘complementarity’, ‘humility’, and others, dissecting them in an attempt to draw lines of convergence or divergence between physics and religion.

Introduction: Delineating physics and religion first; can they be related at all?

Physics can be defined as the study of material (almost always non-living) objects and their phenomena (including, and especially, changes) and laws (relations between physical factors that describe how the phenomena occur, under what conditions, to what extent, etc.). Laws can be formulated in various ways, empirically (directly from observations and experiments), analytically, semi-analytically, etc.;