Within contemporary scientific and science‐adjacent communities, it is generally accepted that quantum physics is our best theory. For this reason, it is understandable—and laudable—that scholars interested in questions at the intersection of science and theology wish to meaningfully engage with this physics. Recent work in foundations of physics has, however, importantly altered the landscape of quantum theory; in this article, my goal is to introduce these advances, then make an argument within this new landscape that I hope will be useful for certain theological inquiries. Specifically, I shall argue from grounds of the physics itself that one may, with clear philosophical conscience, access the majority of quantum theory's tools, models, and explanations while maintaining an interpretation‐neutral yet realist stance toward this physics.
Within contemporary scientific and science‐adjacent communities, it is generally accepted that quantum physics is our best theory. For this reason, it is understandable—and laudable—that scholars interested in questions at the intersection of science and theology wish to meaningfully engage with this physics. Recent work in foundations of physics has, however, importantly altered the landscape of quantum theory; in this article, my goal is to introduce these advances, then make an argument within this new landscape that I hope will be useful for certain theological inquiries. Specifically, I shall argue from grounds of the physics itself that one may, with clear philosophical conscience, access the majority of quantum theory's tools, models, and explanations while maintaining an interpretation‐neutral yet realist stance toward this physics.
Theological engagement with quantum physics has, to this day, been dominated by the Copenhagen interpretation. However, philosophers and physicists working in the “quantum foundations” field have largely abandoned the Copenhagen view on account of what is widely seen as its troublesome antirealism. Other metaphysical approaches have come to the fore instead, which often take a strongly realist flavor, such as de Broglie‐Bohm, or Everett's “Many‐Worlds” interpretation. In the spirit of recent quantum foundations work, this article introduces a collection of studies aimed at taking quantum theology “beyond Copenhagen.” The present article advocates a commitment to “quantum fundamentalism,” which could resolve some of the enduring ontological problems faced by existing theological work with quantum mechanics, especially in discussions of quantum special divine action. Taking quantum fundamentalism literally would mean a departure from the Copenhagen interpretation, and the article suggests the need for a new research program to lay the groundwork in the natural theology of quantum foundations.
In light of recent scholarly dissatisfaction with ‘science and religion’ as the preferred nomenclature for an international research discipline, I explore the terminology of ‘theology of science’ as a way of clarifying the problems and aims. I engage with other recent proposals for theology of science, especially with their Christological interests. I suggest that theology of science explores what it means to hold Christ the Logos as fundamental to natural philosophy. In this light, I discuss the physical worldview of ‘quantumfundamentalism,’ and I examine realist quantum interpretations to see how theology of science might adjudicate between them. I conclude by addressing the question, ‘What was God thinking when he created the quantum world?’ ---------------------------------------- Received: 18/08/2025. Reviewed: 15/10/2025. Accepted: 18/11/2025.
Scientific realism has traditionally maintained that our best scientific theories can be regarded as more or less true and as representing the world as it is (more or less). However, one of our very best current theories—quantum mechanics—has famously resisted such a realist construal, threatening to undermine the realist stance altogether. The chapters in this volume carefully examine this tension and the reasons behind it, including the underdetermination generated by the multiplicity of formulations and interpretations of quantum physics, each presenting a different way the world could be. Authors in this volume offer a range of alternative ways forward: some suggest new articulations of realism, limiting our commitments in one way or another; others attempt to articulate a ‘third way’ between traditional forms of realism and antirealism, or are critical of such attempts. Still others argue that quantum theory itself should be reconceptualised, or at least alternative formulations should be considered in the hope of evading the problems faced by realism. And some examine the nature of these issues when moving beyond quantum mechanics to quantum field theory. Taken together they offer an exciting new set of perspectives on one of the most fundamental questions in the philosophy of modern physics: how can one be a realist about quantum theory, and what does this realism amount to?
This issue of Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science offers a podium for deep reflection on the state-of-play in “quantum theology”: theological reflection that is related to the physical theory of quantum mechanics. The thematic section has been guest edited by Mark Harris. His opening article—which in its introductory section also refers to all the other articles in the section—highlights that theological engagement with quantum physics has been dominated by the so-called “Copenhagen interpretation”; he argues for a commitment to “quantum fundamentalism,” which resolves some enduring ontological problems and takes quantum theology “beyond Copenhagen.” Shaun Henson, in dealing with Everett's “Many-Worlds Interpretation,” focuses on the status of scientific terms; he shows that the extent to which belief in Many-Worlds (which is metaphysically challenging) is believable depends on several dynamic socially oriented categories. Emily Qureshi-Hurst addresses some implications of the Many-Worlds Interpretation that are particularly relevant to theism; she argues that taking seriously the radical consequences of this interpretation means facing at least three major worries for theism pertaining to personal identity, the problem of evil, and salvation. Elise Crull offers what she calls an “interpretation-neutral yet realist” stance towards quantum mechanics; she illustrates how her interpretation-neutral take on quantum mechanics that includes the notion of “decoherence” can helpfully reframe accounts of divine action. Wilson Poon and Tom McLeish warn that one should be cautious in claiming distinctiveness for quantum theologizing (versus, for instance, theologizing classical statistical mechanics); they posit that both quantum mechanics and classical statistical mechanics point to “theology of science in which scientists participate in the divine gaze on creation as imago Dei.” And Ernest Simmons utilizes the concept of quantum decoherence, augmented by the novel theory of quantum Darwinism, to understand the transition from the quantum to the classical worlds; from his reading of quantum biology, he distills some theological metaphors for articulating divine presence at the level of life in theistic evolution. This issue also contains four articles from the 67th Annual Summer Conference of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS), entitled “‘We’ & ‘They’: Cross-Cultural Conversations on Identity,” which was held at Star Island, NH, USA from June 26 to July 3, 2022. Anindita Balslev highlights in her article why cross-cultural conversation is important; that conversation has the potential to give a new direction to the dynamics between “the self and the other.” CJ Love argues in her article that unraveling the complex notion of “self” and “other” necessitates a layered approach that explores genetics, phenomenology, and religion; she emphasizes the need for forming a holistic picture of body, mind, event, memory, and morality. Andrew Newberg expands in his article on the role of the brain and the biological basis of the self; he argues that the self and self-consciousness is one of the most mysterious aspects of the human being, but also that to some degree we are trapped within our brain and our consciousness, which represent our own identity. And Calvin Chatlos, in his article, applies his “Framework of Spirituality” to the identity of adolescents; he makes clear that an alternative approach to adolescent development is needed that does not reinforce a fundamental experiential separateness of “me” and “other,” but that instead promotes a spiritual transformation process that is inclusive of the “other.” The Articles section contains four articles. In the first article, Gabriel Fernandez-Borsot contributes to philosophical reflection on the role of technology in society, particularly on the intersections between spirituality and technology; in his analysis, spirituality appears as an essential dimension to cultivate in technological societies, while he argues that technology might actually reveal spirituality as richer and deeper than has been apparent in traditional settings. In the second article, Yong Sup Song and Robert Geraci study the interactions between spirituality and technology in the specific context of Korea; they consider the themes of marginalization and transcendence in transhumanism and minjung theology and reflect on the exclusion of some from the benefits of technological society and on living in the context of multiple dimensions of oppression. In the third article, Kevin Ndereba addresses the nonreligious identity formation among male Kenyan Youth, which is increasingly common; he shows how youth social groups provide spaces for wrestling with the intellectual questions raised by religious faiths and argues that nonreligious communities could benefit from moving beyond the usual caricature of strong incompatibilism that is part of popular atheist literature. Finally, in the fourth article, Eugenia Torrance revisits Newton's theology by questioning whether he promulgated a “God of the gaps” argument; she thinks that he did not and uses some of his letters and drafts to suggest that any gaps in mechanical were filled by Newton with nonmechanical natural causes and argues that Newton wanted readers to marvel at humans’ inability to fully understand his scientific system. The Articles section is followed by a reflection from Josh Reeves on Peter Harrison's “After Science and Religion” project, to which Peter Harrison offers a response. The issue ends with a book review. Ron Cole-Turner reviews Victoria Lorrimar's Human Technological Enhancement and Theological Anthropology.
A recent approach towards the foundation of quantum mechanics is described in some detail. This requires some mathematics, but it is claimed that this approach is easier to understand than the usual formal quantum foundation. Several consequences of the theory are described, consequences that for example also lead to a simpler and deeper understanding of Quantum Decision Theory, which has bearings both on our daily decisions and on the decisions made by political leaders. Another consequence is in the form of arguments for the existence of God, a God that is perfectly rational and has infinite knowledge. To understand these consequences, it is not necessary to understand all the mathematics, but simply to appreciate the fact that the theory is derived from 6 postulates, postulates that can be interpreted in several different directions. Two of these postulates, when interpreted in a very general setting, form the basis for my theological arguments. Finally, it is a hope that by reading this article, and then further discussing the mentioned consequences with other people, one may contribute to a better understanding between groups of people, groups that partly may have their basis in different cultures. These cultures may be of many kinds, also based upon different scientific communities. Or upon different religious groups.
An understanding of quantum theory is manifested by the ability successfully and unproblematically to use it to further the scientific goals of prediction, explanation, and control of natural phenomena. An Interpretation seeks further to formulate or reformulate it as a fundamental theory that provides a self-contained description of the world. I critically review three prominent but radically different Interpretations of quantum theory (Bohmian mechanics, non-linear theories, Everettian quantum mechanics) and give my reasons for rejecting each as a way of understanding quantum theory. These include problems associated with non-locality, failure of relativistic invariance, empirical inaccessibility, and decision-making. We can achieve a satisfactory understanding of quantum theory and how it successfully advances the goals of science without providing an Interpretation of the theory.