The model of special divine action based on quantum randomness tends to get more attention than the rest. In the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, some events are not merely unpredictable but also truly indeterministic. This would allow God to work within such ontologically random events without violating any laws of nature. An unappreciated weakness of the model is that quantum fluctuations are not readily amplified into the macroscopic realm. Dynamical systems theory, continuum mechanics, and condensed matter physics show that such fluctuations are prevented from bubbling up within macroscopic systems. While some look to chaos theory for help, chaotic systems are not nearly as prevalent as the popular literature indicates. Once all the relevant physics is considered, models of divine action based on quantum randomness and chaos are far more limited than they are generally assumed to be. Unless some sort of new physical mechanism is discovered, the amplification problem cannot be solved. This means that there is little that God can accomplish by way of quantum randomness.
The model of special divine action based on quantum randomness tends to get more attention than the rest. In the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, some events are not merely unpredictable but also truly indeterministic. This would allow God to work within such ontologically random events without violating any laws of nature. An unappreciated weakness of the model is that quantum fluctuations are not readily amplified into the macroscopic realm. Dynamical systems theory, continuum mechanics, and condensed matter physics show that such fluctuations are prevented from bubbling up within macroscopic systems. While some look to chaos theory for help, chaotic systems are not nearly as prevalent as the popular literature indicates. Once all the relevant physics is considered, models of divine action based on quantum randomness and chaos are far more limited than they are generally assumed to be. Unless some sort of new physical mechanism is discovered, the amplification problem cannot be solved. This means that there is little that God can accomplish by way of quantum randomness.
For quantum mechanics to form the crux of a robust model of divine action, random quantum fluctuations must be amplified into the macroscopic realm. What has not been recognized in the divine action literature to date is the degree to which differential dynamics, continuum mechanics, and condensed matter physics prevent such fluctuations from infecting meso- and macroscopic systems. Once all of the relevant physics is considered, models of divine action based on quantum randomness are shown to be far more limited than is generally assumed. Unless some sort of new physical mechanism is discovered, the amplification problem cannot be solved.
This paper attempts to review the theories of quantum divine action and to construct a panentheistic approach to noninterventionist divine action. After reviewing various interpretations of quantum mechanics, I have suggested how the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most fruitful place to focus this discussion because of the ontological openness it incorporates. In order to elucidate the relationship between divine action and quantum theory, it is necessary to consider the different understandings of God that have been presupposed by these discussions. I have examined the arguments of four of the major proponents of quantum divine action. I have argued that the panentheistic understanding of God and God's relationship to the universe offers the most promising avenue to a noninterventionist account of God's direct action at the quantum level. After assessing and responding to some of the problems associated with quantum divine action, I have shown that quantum chaos is an attractive prospect since with this proposal it is not necessary for God's action at the quantum level to have macroscopic effects.
Abstract The world picture disclosed by classical physics, beginning with Kepler, Galileo, and Newton and continuing until the early part of the twentieth century, was increasingly deterministic. The prevailing metaphor was that of a clock: as a clock is wound up and runs in an entirely predictable way which can be known from its initial conditions, so the universe unfolds according to a deterministic plan. Such a universe, unfolding under the influence of forces so absolute they were called ‘laws’, appeared to have limited opportunity for divine action. The theological response to this world picture was deism: God created the world but it runs on its own. This world picture collapsed in the early twentieth century as quantum mechanics was discovered and developed into a central, if not the central, part of scientific understanding of physical reality. The quantum-mechanical world picture cannot be modelled after the gears, pulleys, and levers of the classical world: its irreducible constituent parts are more like tiny clouds than tiny gears. Furthermore, the behaviour of these smallest parts was discovered to be indeterministic, and eternally so until observed by a mind. The mysterious behaviour of quantum particles, which compose all reality, and the puzzling role of minds invited speculation that God may be acting through the natural order to influence events. Such divine action could exist entirely within the envelope of possibilities possessed by quantum particles and thus not require any disruption of the natural order.
This essay explores quantum physics and theology to propose that ontological randomness does not exist, but divine Providence does. Some interpretations of quantum physics that involve mathematical formalism and observational phenomenology are deterministic (de Broglie-Bohm, many-worlds, cosmological, time-symmetric, many-minds), while others are non-deterministic (Copenhagen, stochastic, objective collapse, transactional). Yet, quantum events are merely epistemically indeterminable by us, but actually do have a fundamental cause. Compatibilism best describes the teaching of the Bible. Humans possess free agency, and are determined by their desires and values. Hence, they can be said to have “free will,” because they do what they want. The fundamental cause, as understood by Compatibilism, is God’s Providence, defined as God’s continual involvement with creation through keeping it existing, cooperating with creation in every action, and directing it to fulfill His purposes. The interaction between quantum physics and Providence suggests methodological parallels between science and theology in a quest for synthesis.
It has been suggested that God can act on the world by operating within the limits set by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP) without violating the laws of nature. This requires nature to be intrinsically indeterministic. However, according to the statistical interpretation the quantum mechanical wavefunction represents the average behavior of an ensemble of similar systems and not that of a single system. The HUP thus refers to a relation between the spreads of possible values of position and momentum and so is consistent with a fully deterministic world. This statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics is supported by reference to actual measurements, resolves the quantum paradoxes, and stimulates further research. If this interpretation is accepted, quantum mechanics is irrelevant to the question of God's action in the world.
I present results of recent work in the field of quantum optics and relate this work to discussions about the theory of quantum mechanics and God's divine action in the world. Experiments involving atomic decay, relevant to event uncertainty in quantum mechanics, as well as experiments aimed at elucidating the so–called Schrödinger’s–cat paradox, help clarify apparent ambiguities or paradoxes that I believe are at the heart of renewed attempts to locate God within our constructed physical theories and tend to narrow the gaps proposed as an opening for divine action. Some problems arise because of imprecise use of nonmathematical language to force quantum mechanics into an intuitive “classical” framework.