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.
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.
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.
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.
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 author identifies and explores key similarities in quantum physics and Christology. Among the many parallels he identifies are patterns of historical development in quantum physics and in Christology; wrestling with perplexities such as quantum interpretation and the problem of evil; and the drive for an overarching view in the Grand Unified Theories of physics and in Trinitarian theology. Both theology and science are propelled by a desire to understand the world through experienced reality, and Polkinghorne explains that their viewpoints are by no means mutually exclusive. --from publisher description