Quantum mechanics (QM) is a favorite area of physics to feature in “science and religion” discussions. We argue that this is at least partly because the arcane results of QM can be deployed to make big theological claims by the linguistic sleight of hand of “register switching”—sliding imperceptibly from technical into everyday language using the same vocabulary. We clarify the discussion by deploying the formal mapping of QM into classical statistical mechanics (CSM) via the mathematical device of “Wick rotation.” This equivalence between QM and CSM suggests caution in claiming distinctiveness for quantum theologizing. After outlining two areas in which quantum insights nevertheless resonate with longstanding themes in theological reflection (hiddenness and visualizability), we suggest that both QM and CSM point to a theology of science in which scientists participate in the divine gaze on creation as imago Dei.
Quantum mechanics (QM) is a favorite area of physics to feature in “science and religion” discussions. We argue that this is at least partly because the arcane results of QM can be deployed to make big theological claims by the linguistic sleight of hand of “register switching”—sliding imperceptibly from technical into everyday language using the same vocabulary. We clarify the discussion by deploying the formal mapping of QM into classical statistical mechanics (CSM) via the mathematical device of “Wick rotation.” This equivalence between QM and CSM suggests caution in claiming distinctiveness for quantum theologizing. After outlining two areas in which quantum insights nevertheless resonate with longstanding themes in theological reflection (hiddenness and visualizability), we suggest that both QM and CSM point to a theology of science in which scientists participate in the divine gaze on creation as imago Dei.
Quantum mechanics (QM) is astonishingly successful as a theoretical framework, underpinning countless scientific areas and providing the impetus behind entire technologies. Many scientists suspect that physical reality is fundamentally quantum in nature, even if we perceive little of this in our everyday human experience. This is the viewpoint of “quantum fundamentalism.” Yet, the conceptual implications of QM defy common sense, to such an extent that popular culture largely perceives of QM as a source of counterintuitive weirdness. At the same time, bestselling self-help manuals portray QM as a source of hidden healing power within, while spiritual readings invoke QM as a bridge to the divine, or as a source of theological analogies. Scientists often denounce these mystical approaches as “quantum quackery,” but I examine their serious side. I argue that, for quantum fundamentalism to function as a worldview, it should inform a sense of human purpose, something for which theological analysis is well equipped.
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.
The main idea consists in researching the existence of certain characteristics of nature similar to human reasonability and purposeful actions, originating and rigorously inferable from the postulates of quantum mechanics as well as from those of special and general relativity. The pathway of the “free-will theorems” proved by Conway and Kochen in 2006 and 2009 is followed and pioneered further. Those natural reasonability and teleology are identified as a special subject called “God” and studyable by “quantum theology”, a scientific counterpart of classical theology as far as the latter endeavors to justify rationally God (without quotation marks) postulated by religion, but meaning in the present study, first of all, Christianity. The suggested “quantum theology” is situated in the historical opposition and conflict of science and religion in Modernity and its reflection in Heidegger’s conception of “ontotheology”. The conception of “ontomathematics” introduced in previous papers to unite and unify physics, mathematics, and philosophy is reinterpreted in the present context to be conservatively generalized in a way to include “quantum theology”. Two conceptions, “locality” and “nonlocality”, originating initially from physics and especially, from theory of entanglement and quantum information, are also generalized ontomathematically, and thus in relation to the newly introduced “quantum theology”. The “quantum theology” subject of “God” is juxtaposed with God of religion and billions of believers all over the world. Husserl’s conception of “philosophy as a rigorous science” is considered to be generalized now to theology as quantum theology, particularly by the phenomenon (in the sense of his “phenomenology”) of “God”, or by an “epoché” to whether God exists or not. The research of the phenomenon of “God” is extended to the conception of the “totality” being inherent for philosophy, especially for classical German philosophy preceding Husserl’s phenomenology. Those sequences for philosophy implied by the introduction of quantum theology are investigated further, on the pathway of ontomathematics, also in relation to what “God” should mean for today’s physics and mathematics. The option and research field of “experimental quantum theology” is discussed as a direct corollary from quantum theology though being sacrilegious as for classical theology. The concluding section reflects in a more loose way on the relation of “God” for quantum theology to God for religion and billions of believers all over the world.
The main idea consists in researching the existence of certain characteristics of nature similar to human reasonability and purposeful actions, originating and rigorously inferable from the postulates of quantum mechanics as well as from those of special and general relativity. The pathway of the “free-will theorems” proved by Conway and Kochen in 2006 and 2009 is followed and pioneered further. Those natural reasonability and teleology are identified as a special subject called “God” and studyable by “quantum theology”, a scientific counterpart of classical theology as far as the latter endeavors to justify rationally God postulated by religion, but meaning in the present study. The suggested “quantum theology” is situated in the historical opposition and conflict of science and religion in Modernity and its reflection in Heidegger’s conception of “ontotheology”. The conception of “ontomathematics” introduced in previous papers to unite and unify physics, mathematics, and philosophy is reinterpreted in the present context to be conservatively generalized in a way to include “quantum theology”. Two conceptions, “locality” and “nonlocality”, originating initially from physics and especially, from theory of entanglement and quantum information, are also generalized ontomathematically, and thus in relation to the newly introduced “quantum theology”. The “quantum theology” subject of “God” is juxtaposed with God of religion and billions of believers all over the world. Husserl’s conception of “philosophy as a rigorous science” is considered to be generalized now to theology as quantum theology, particularly by the phenomenon of “God”, or by an “epoché” to whether God exists or not.
Mark Harris has developed a new research program at the intersection of theology and quantum physics, centered on two coordinated commitments: quantum fundamentalism, the claim that quantum mechanics has a unique standing within the sciences, and Christological fundamentalism, the claim that the divine Logos is the source and ground of the created order. I make the case that Harris’s program, while rejecting naïve versions of reductionism, is still structurally reductive. I then develop an alternative framework based on emergence, which is intrinsically non-reductive. A theology of science based on emergence would proceed in a distinctive manner compared to fundamentalism.
This paper examines complementarity, a concept introduced by Niels Bohr for interpreting quantum mechanics (QM). I will explain that QM has three basic features: the event, the correlations, and the dynamics. These features stem from the nature of quantum information, which is a general paradigm (far more general than classical information) covering the emergence of any dynamic system. It can explain the arising of classically physical systems, but also the emergence of life. If these features of QM are so general, we may ask how philosophers may perceive them. Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Sanders Peirce took this path. Dynamics can be understood as a trade-off between local events and “non-local” quantum correlations, results that were partly anticipated by Peirce and Whitehead. Moreover, according to Peirce, the reason why the three features of QM are so general is that they are imago Dei; that is, they show a Trinitarian structure. I will also briefly consider some consequences for natural theology.