Polkinghorne on the Nature of the Universe
20 February 2007 by Gil
They say you shouldn’t post on things you don’t understand but, what the heck… I’ll trust those who know better to correct me if what follows is wrong.
Lately I’ve been reading a lot of John Polkinghorne, a particle physicist turned theologian who is interested in the integration of these two fields of knowledge. He’s written a couple of interesting books: Belief in God in an Age of Science, The Faith of a Physicist and The God of Hope and the End of the World are a few that are seen as influential. It took a while to understand what he was trying to do, especially with all of the scientific jargon he uses, but I think he makes some very important contributions to this whole conversation.
He makes the point that the scientific world has made some significant shifts in its understanding of the nature of reality. He points to quantum physics and chaos theory as evidence that the universe has the property of ‘becoming’ (as opposed to older views that were much more deterministic in nature). The future of the universe is much like the future of an individual, it is open within certain constraints (like growth and ultimate decay).
Chaos theory, for example, holds that cause and effect are not as rigidly connected as was once thought. There may be a range of potential outcomes that emerge from a certain cause and these outcomes are not always entirely predictable. The theological connection here is that God allows for ‘becoming’ within his world in a way that is somewhat analogous to our experience as human beings. Just as our lives are characterized by freedom within certain parameters, so also are things like the atmosphere and our solar system characterized by a certain level of ‘openness’.
So the scientific consensus is changing (or has recently changed, I have no idea on the timing of these ideas). A couple of generations ago it would have been taken as self-evident that the universe operated something like an elaborate machine. The natural laws ensured a fixed outcome and the universe was basically conceived as moving along a predetermined path. The widespread rejection of this view of reality is, if nothing else, a good reminder that all knowledge is partial and contingent upon an openness to further discovery and exploration.
It seems that Pokinghorne’s theory would leave more room for humans being co-creators with God. I think it is fairly evident, for those that believe in God at any rate, that one of the dominant characteristics of God is that he is a creator. And as we are, in turn, created in God’s image, I believe it is in our very nature to continue creating this world. The machinistic view of the universe would tend to dictate against that it seems.
I also sense there may be some linkage in thoughts between this post and the one previous. If the cause/effect theory is not so tight, what does that do for how we understand the meaning of events in our lives? Are we called to create said meaning by living out a faithful response to events that may or may not fit a meaningful scheme in and of themselves? Can causes, effects, and their ultimate meanings rest (at least in some degree) on our choices? Just a few questions that your post have stirred for me.
I am excited about the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. How do you think Christian theology juxtaposes with that? Do you think Christ existed in the same way in every other universe out there?
I don’t know much about physics. I don’t believe I ever took a class on it in my entire education. I watched ‘what the bleep do we know’ and it totally turned me off to at least what some people are getting out of quantum theory. I don’t know enough to say why I don’t believe in quantum theory so I will just appeal to Einstein’s authority. I am aware that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Andrew,
I think that is a logical extension of what Polkinghorne is saying and I fully agree that part of being in the divine image is a role as co-creators. I hadn’t considered the connection to the previous post but I think it’s a good one. I resist the idea of a world in which all events are the result of the direct action of God (it raises too many questions about evil for me) so it is helpful to say that meaning emerges out of ‘faithful responses’ to events that are not transparently meaningful. I would still hold out hope that God does act in direct ways at times but I would believe these to be the exception. I like the way you framed this - our choices, our responses are where meaning is to be found. Ultimately I believe that God is to be found in the midst of that process as well.