The Possibility of Emerging Parallels Between the Paradigms of Quantum Theory and Biblical Creationism
By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God
Hebrews 11: 3 NRSV
It must be admitted straight away that it is only by faith that we can understand God as the creator, since it is inconceivable that we can ever know the mind of God, even though it is in our natures at least to try. No amount of effort can pull from our limited human experiences a full account of all there is to know. We are forever tied to mystery, and in some sense, we are also its victims. We relentlessly push the limits of human knowledge and understanding only to encounter a deeper mystery that continually burdens us with more uncertainty.
The beginnings of science have deepened that mystery even further, while at the same time penetrating and unraveling some of the mysteries of the physical world at an unprecedented pace. Ever since Copernicus (1473-1543) claimed that the earth revolved around the sun science has played the dual role of providing us simultaneously with apparent certainty about the physical world and uncertainty about the nature of ourselves and God, which is why it has not yielded for us a complete knowledge of the universe nor answer questions about the meaning of life.
God has become an anachronism for many people in the scientific community, yet it is my contention that the split between theism and science is coming around full circle, since the discovery of quantum theory. Empirical scientific knowledge may be reaching the end of its ability to explain all things. Our assumptions about the universe since Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1726) have made faith in a theistic God almost untenable. My aim, therefore, will be to argue that what is being called the new physics, particularly Quantum Theory, is challenging the positivistic and materialistic worldview. Therefore, I want to show, at least in part, that there is a parallel between quantum theory and the Genesis account given in the Old Testament, keeping in mind that it is not my intent to use science to prove that "God created" or continues to create. The empirical methods of science can never prove or disprove the workings or the existence of God. It can only tell us things about the physical universe that may in turn change and confirm some of our notions about the nature of God. Regardless, quantum theory has forever changed our view of the universe and given us a new paradigm within which to work. It reveals to us that the ongoing creation of matter is at least not inconsistent with our parallel notion that God is the creator, and is perhaps more in tune with 'God creating' than any other scientific theory.[1]
Additionally, I want to explicate a notion that is being theorized more and more in quantum theory that there is a universal self-aware consciousness that is consciously directing the events of the universe; which would, if it is true, surely be one of the most staggering conclusions ever proposed by science. On a more cautionary note, however, these are the scientific speculations of a few, and I do not want to underestimate the very real difficulties of suggesting that the energy that exists in the subatomic world is synonymous with God and is conscious. While I personally favor some type of explanation that hints along these lines, there are almost certainly problems with this view if we pursue them to their philosophical extremes. However, I think there is some support for this position, which I would like to explore, starting with a preliminary claim that there is parallel between the new physics and the biblical creation account.
My reason for including some of this material is that the very core of quantum theory, unlike any other scientific theory, allows for the possibility of a non-determined non-physical cause for creation, a sort of "quantum cosmology" (Squires, 102). We can only imagine the implication of such a claim, but first some background.
I. Newton: That Imp!
By the mid-seventeenth century, Rene Descartes (1596-1650) was about to turn the world on its head. He devised a method of inquiry that assumed nothing to be true unless that something was self-evident (Descartes, 11). Descartes believed he was giving a rational explanation bridging the gap between the immaterial substances that he thought were representative of the freewill minds of God and humans, and the corporeal world, which he describes as thoroughly mechanistic and determined. For him all knowledge is derived from intuition and deduction by using the four rules described in part two of his Discourse on Method.[2] Ultimately, Descartes' project was meant to preserve humanity's belief in God. He would not have entertained the use of his methodology as a challenge to the existence of God. When taken up by science, rationality took on a new life; where every assertion or claim was tested by this principle of doubt, and all claims that did not stand up to the empirical methods of testing and research were left in serious doubt, this meant the belief in the existence of God as well.
Under Newton's laws of mechanism and gravitation God is reduced only to the possibility of being a temporal first cause. There was a paradigm shift. We shifted from an assumption that God was the source of everything, to a model where everything is in doubt, including the existence of God. The shift occurred because the new knowledge that was being discovered about the physical universe was also becoming increasingly more difficult to reconcile with the older system of thought; consequently, a new paradigm emerges (Kuhn, chapter three). This new Newtonian paradigm operated on the assumption that the universe is a closed and logically determined system, where all its parts operate out of sheer mechanical necessity. As a result, the world ended up with the Big Bang theory, the problem of causation, and the problem of who started what, where, when, and why.
What does all this have to do with my current project? Well, as Newton's classical scientific paradigm took root it was obvious to even the most casual reader that it was inconsistent with the Genesis account of creation, which in turn raises questions about the inspiration of scripture and the standard notions of God's nature. If, as the Newtonian paradigm suggests, we live in a mechanistic universe, then how could God have "separated the light from the darkness" (Gen. 1:4) and created order out of chaos? How could there have been a "formless void" (Gen. 1:2) when a mechanism requires a necessary first cause? How could the notion of a personal God (Ex. 3:14), who interacts with his creation, make sense? What emerged was a serious split between faith and science that still haunts the West to this day.
II. Along Comes Werner Heisenberg
Heisenberg was a physicist in the early part of the twentieth century, who discovered the principle that led to the theory of quantum mechanics. What he discovered was the Uncertainty Principle. It can be paraphrased quite simply as the observation that the accurate measurement of one variable produces uncertainties about the values of other observables. For example, in an atom if one accurately measures the location (in space) of an electron as it circles the nucleus, then the measurement of its velocity is uncertain, and vice versa. What this means, say at the atomic level, is that an orbiting electron's location can never be pinpointed, because as soon as you try to locate the electron in a particular place it disappears out of existence; therefore, the existence and location of a thing can never be taken for granted. The solidity of matter as we understand and experience it at the subatomic level is actually fading in and out of existence on a continual basis. The implications are staggering.
The conventional notion of matter as 'solid' is absolutely shattered (Capra, 76; Davies, 32). What is more important, is that quantum theory allows for an open non-deterministic system for the universe. This point cannot be overstated. Material substances are now in a constant state of potentia; that is, they do not exist in the classical Newtonian sense as we have come to expect, but they are merely the potential outcome of electromagnetic forces (Heisenberg, chapter nine). The entire world around us exists in a continual and constant state of 'flux' between being and non-being. Moreover, quantum theory eliminates the need to rely on a necessary temporal first cause, and at the same time preserves physics unbreakable Law of Conservation, which states that energy can neither be created or destroyed, and matter can neither be created or destroyed in a closed system. Nothing can come from nothing (Ford, 206). The jump from nothing to something would violate the laws of conservation, so 'something' must have always exited.
This is not a theory in the sense that it is a speculative description of something that we currently cannot explain but we hope to be able to explain at some time in the future, it is already a mathematical fact--it is indisputable! Quantum mechanics is a fact of the universe. That is what makes it such a powerful commentator on the nature of the universe. At our level of perception we will continue to describe the events we observe them in dualistic ways, making the distinction between subject and object, but at the subatomic level the physical differences between, say my flesh and the pop can that is beside me on the desk are only apparent. Physicist Fritjof Capra reminds us that there is an underlying "oneness" in the composition of the universe, that for some reason chooses to express itself in distinctive aggregations of form. That is, there is some type of universal energy that expresses itself by coalescing into particular forms that to us look quite distinct and apart as physical entities.
While this explanation of quantum theory may also be at best cursory and incomplete, it gives at once the sense that we are again seeing a shift to another paradigm. Newton's laws of mechanism, while obviously still useful, are giving way to notions of an uncreated universe; that is, one without a first cause that has always existed. This it might seem that quantum mechanics takes us further away from the biblical account, and continue to argue that there is a parallel between the creation account and quantum mechanics. I propose to accept Lewis S. Ford's thesis, that we live in a universe that is in the process of continually creating itself, and God is only partially creating all the time; therefore, we are not committed to the notion of a single "transcendent act" (Ford 208). If I can do that, then we may well be on our way to realizing the possibility of a new paradigmatic way of thinking about the creation account.
One of the signs of a 'good' paradigm is that under it everything that we want to explain can be explained satisfactorily (Franklin, 190). Of course, this remains to be seen, but one of the things that science has not been able to explain, since giving up a God centered paradigm, is the existence and experience of human consciousness. R. L. Franklin, in his article "A Science of Pure Consciousness?" wants to assert that a mind-first paradigm (my term), whether or not it can be explained by quantum mechanics, is a necessary framework for sufficiently explaining both the conscious and physical world. He bases this claim on the understanding that conscious experiences are so powerful they cannot be dismissed or reduced to physical causes. So, does this mean that science has come to an end, as John Horgan would suggest? (Horgan, passim). It is his conclusion that science has reached the end of its ability to make new fundamental discoveries about the nature of the universe, and that science can now only offer technological improvements to what is currently known. While he may be engaged in some hyperbole to stimulate debate, the point we should be recognizing is that paradigms are based on an assumed view of the universe, that are based on our direct physical knowledge of the universe. What is now so exciting is that quantum theory opens up the possibility of exploring the universe in a way that is beyond the constraints of a physical universe. There is more to the universe than what our empirical data tells us.
III. A Mind-First Paradigm
How has all this come about? David Chalmers is a philosopher who has written extensively on the mind-body problem, but his article in the magazine Scientific American sums up nicely his whole concept. He wants to maintain a physical-first paradigm claiming that we should not wonder about the nature of consciousness anymore than we would about the nature of electricity. We should just accept it as a universal and foundational fact of the universe. Of course, I think this is to say nothing about how consciousness came about, and means, strictly speaking, that we have stopped doing investigative science, but more importantly it is the kind of thinking that reflects the difficulty and the resistance current physical scientific models have in accepting a mind-first paradigm. Chalmers' idea is not unique in that he, like others, is realizing that our present material view of the universe is not satisfactory.
It is an accepted mystery as to what causes electromagnetic forces (EMF) that only have a potential to form substances, to become 'localized' and take on an aggregate form. The tendency of the EMF should be to remain in its present state, which is essentially Bell's theory, has been shown to be experimentally (Squires, 98). The tendency of the EMF should be to remain in its current state of potentiality. Very briefly, in Amit Goswami's book The Self-Aware Universe, he exemplifies one possible way in which we can understand this unsolved aspect of quantum theory. According to Goswami's, Capra's, and Squires' explanation, locality--that is, the ability of EMF to appear as a particular substance--is that the energy of the EMF is conscious, and therefore chooses its physical appearance. If this view of the universe is correct, then the world is a single substance locked in a "dynamic web of relations" (Capra, 353). In more religious language, it means that it makes perfectly good sense to say that there is only the One, and there exists within it multiplicity.
By creating a mind-first paradigm using quantum theory, can put a whole new spin on the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"[3] We no longer need a mechanistic reliance on first and necessary cause. There is 'something' because a universal conscious mind is choosing to create. And even if we reject the view from quantum theory that there is no mind within the space-time continuum that chooses to create as many scientists do, we can still legitimately speculate that there is a conscious mind behind quantum theory, and the theory itself would still stand as the most empirical explanatory model of the universe.
IV. The Parallel
Now that I have described the basics of quantum theory, I think the case can now be made that Creatio Ex Nihilo is not a requirement of Scriptural integrity and that what we see in quantum theory is consistent with the first day of the creation account (Gen. 1:1-5). If that is successful, then quantum theory and the creation account can reasonably be thought as parallel each other--one describing empirical observations and the other supplying meaning to what has been observed. The notion of partial creation has its roots in the process metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead and espoused in his magnum opus Process and Reality (1929), that was subsequently used by process theologians to reconcile the observed characteristics of the universe with some of the attributes of God.[4]
Traditionally, the Thomistic account has been to say that God must be that necessary Being that has always existed, and is the focus of the first three of his Five Ways (McDermott, 9-14). 'Necessary,' in the Thomistic view, means that God must exist as a logical outcome of the belief that every effect has a cause, and that as the first cause, God's own existence is without cause. As we have already seen this led to a Newtonian paradigm, but now our knowledge of the natural world is quite different. Creation from absolutely nothing is now thought to be nearly impossible.
At this point it would be an extreme over-generalization to claim that Scripture's account of creation is wrong. It just needs to be read more intelligently without resorting to literal interpretations. Although it lacks the detail of a scientific account, its details, when viewed through the lens of quantum theory is not entirely wrong and resonates strongly with Heisenberg's thought that "The Holy Scripture had been written by man and was therefore subject to error, while nature was the immediate expression of "God's intentions" (Heisenberg, 195). However, for a non-scientific account it is remarkably accurate, but more importantly the first Genesis account (Gen. 1:1-2:4) is detailing the process of creation. It is not saying that God spoke and a complete functioning universe sprang into existence. There was a process then, and there is a continuing unfolding of creation in which God is still an active participant.
It is easy to become enthralled by the language of the Bible. It is highly persuasive, and its opening lines are as sublime as any lines written in any language, "In the beginning when God created . . ." (Gen. 1:1), although it can be equally misleading if interpreted too narrowly. Unfortunately, what "In the beginning when . . ." implies is a temporal cause that follows a specific time-line, thus creating most of the difficulty that showed up in Newton's Paradigm, but this only reveals a limitation of language. What does it mean to ask: 'what was before God created?' This is Dietrich Bonhoeffer's observation when he wrote, "No question can penetrate behind God creating, because it is impossible to go behind the beginning. From there it follows that the beginning is not a temporal distinction" (Bonhoeffer 17). Here he is affirming the claim that "God creates," while not limiting himself to some temporal motion of "In the beginning . . ." Likewise, Quantum theory, quite naturally alleviates us from this prior constraint also, and it does not conflict with any notion we have of God being in charge and doing the creating. God's creative act is still a powerful motif permeating all scripture. Scripturally, it should not matter whether God created in time and from nothing, or God creates and continues to create on an ongoing basis. However that argument is settled, it does not detract from the Scriptural claim that God is the source of all creation. Bonhoeffer's notion that a beginning in time is irrelevant to understanding the first verse of Genesis is an important opening, because then the scientific reality of quantum theory no longer conflicts with the Biblical account of creation.
The first mention in Scripture of creation coming out of nothing occurs in the dueterocanonical book of Second MacCabees, which reads: "I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. And in the same way the human race came into being" (2 Mac 7:28). However, this passage should not pose a problem, since there are many passages that use temporal expressions as a way of expressing the mystery of God's creation (Ps. 102:25; Job 36:26). This is the nature of our experience, it is finite (Ps 89:47), and God's existence is everlasting and unlimited (Is. 57:15). There is a distinction to be made between time having a beginning and there being a direction to time; that is, chronological. All passages that refer to time should be interpreted as an expression of our finite experience in the light of an everlasting God without doing harm to the overarching notion that God is the creator and acts in time.
Second, God could not bring order to a universe had it not already existed. Otherwise what would it mean to say that there was a "formless void" from which he "separated the light from the darkness" (Gen. 1:2,4). Quantum theory would say that 'something' has been in existence for all time, and that it is transforming itself under the strict principle of conservation. God must have been the 'formless void' as well or else why not ask who created the 'formless void?' Jayant Narlikar alludes to this problem in his article "The Concepts of "Beginning" and "Creation" in Cosmology [sic]." He says, we can never say that something existed from which something else is then created because then it is legitimate to ask: What came before that? In fact, he says, that the mathematical possibility of their being a single creative act is "vanishingly small" (Narlikar, 369). Moreover, given the fact of quantum theory, that is, that there is a continuing creative process, it will be near impossible to establish a single act of God given our present knowledge of a quantum universe (Narlikar, 369).
Clearly, the Genesis account emphasizes the notion that creation is an ongoing process. God continues to create by transforming creation, by imposing order in the midst of chaos.
Third, by relying on creation ex nihilo as a requirement for creation puts God in a very awkward position: "Why didn't he create the universe exactly the way he wanted it from the start" (Ford, 206)? This question is a very powerful question that cuts right to the heart of at least two other theological problems: The problem of freewill, and the problem of evil. To oversimplify two very complex issues, we can at least acknowledge as a possible solution that a creation that is in progress is an open-ended non-deterministic system (see page 5); therefore, human beings are free to act from moment to moment; likewise with the problem of evil, in an unfolding creation it is much fairer to say that evil is a result of human acts of free will in an unfolding universe. The alternative is to say that God created ex nihilo, which is closed and deterministic system (see page 4), where we can have no freedom and evil still exists.
Furthermore, a theory of a partial unfolding creation (Ford, 211) appears to be much more in-line with the bigger picture of Scripture; God is the sole creator and he creates in stages. One Jewish commentary found in the Talmudic texts even goes so far as to say that after twenty-six failed attempts at creation, he created again, and this time he uttered to himself: "Lets hope it works" (Qtd. in Prigogine and Stengers, 313).
V. Conclusion
In the proceeding section, I have made three smaller arguments that support the notion of a partial creation, so that I can make my larger claim that quantum theory is not inconsistent with the first creation account of Genesis. Never before, has our scientific view of the natural world been as consistent with Scripture as it is now. Even if, one was to reject all the points of my argument, what cannot be changed is that quantum theory is an open and non-deterministic process, which something all other preceding scientific models have not been. This single point is essential to a person of faith, if they want to maintain a freewill relationship with a personal God.
Quantum theory is a scientific theory that shows that everything in the universe is a complete and separate act of creation, while in the larger sense creation is unfolding as a continuous event. At every moment of time there is quantum activity that is being held together by a cosmic electromagnetic force, which some say is itself conscious. Either way, quantum theory is consistent with the model of partial-creation that Lewis Ford presents in his article, which he admits is mostly a brief overview of Whitehead's philosophy on creation taken from his book Process and Reality.
Clearly, any of us need to be leery of accepting science at face value. To accept science at face value is tantamount to committing epistemological suicide. Science is essentially a progressively descriptive process that describes causal events. To believe it to the exclusion of our subjective experiences is to say nothing about what is most important to our lives. Equally, it is silly to succumb to fideist temptations and insulate our notions of God to the exclusion of our growing knowledge of the world. If a person believes in a relational God that is creator, then it is absurd to think that he has nothing to say through his own creation.
What is important to remember from this presentation is that I have not generated any definitive answers about the nature of the universe through quantum theory, and nor was it my intention to do otherwise. What I hope I have done is to lay claim to the idea that it is possible for faith to embrace science, instead of confronting it out of the fear that it will destroy faith itself. To me the parallel between Scripture's first creation account and the open non-deterministic science of quantum theory couldn't be clearer; however, I should caution myself in pursuing that parallel too enthusiastically, remembering what Heisenberg said, that "it will never be possible by pure reason to arrive at some absolute truth" (Heisenberg 92). We can never know the mind of God.
Endnotes
[1] Obviously I will not even attempt a detailed presentation of quantum theory. My goal is to rely on the learned conclusions of others and show that their conclusions are consistent with my own aim of showing that in principle they are not inconsistent with a non-literal interpretation of the Biblical notion of creation.
[2] His method proceeds accordingly (1) never accept anything as true unless it is self-evident, (2) divide each problem into its smallest part, (3) start with the simplest problem and progress to the more difficult ones, and (4) omit nothing from explanations.
[3] Clarke, S. (1705). The question is derived from his Argument from Contingency.
[4] For a more accessible account of process thought see Nicholas Rescher's book Process Metaphysics: An Introduction to Process Philosophy (1996).
Bibliography
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Creation and Fall: A Theological Interpretation of Genesis 1-3; and Temptation: Two Biblical Studies New York: MacMillan, 1959.
Chalmers, David. "The Puzzle of the Conscious Experience." Scientific American: Mysteries of the Mind March 1997: 30-37.
Davies, P. and John Gribbin. The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoveries that challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992.
Descartes, Rène. Discourse on First Method and Meditations on First Philosophy 3rd ed. trans. Donald A. Cress. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993.
Ford, Lewis S. "An Alternative to Creatio Ex Nihilo." Religious Studies 19.2 (1983): 205-213.
Franklin, R. L. "A Science of Pure Consciousness?" Religious Studies 19.2 (1983): 185-204.
Fritjof, Capra. The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism 3rd ed. London: HarperCollins, 1991.
Goswami, Amit. The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World New York: Tarcher/Putnam Books, 1993.
Heisenberg, Werner. Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science New York: Harper & Row, 1958.
Horgan, John. The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age New York: Broadway Books, 1996.
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 3rd ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 1996.
McBrien, Richard, P. Catholicism New ed. San Francisco: HarperCollins. 1994.
McDermott, Timothy ed. Summa Theologiae: A Concise Translation Westminister, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1989.
Narlikar, Jayant V. "The Concepts of "Beginning" and "Creation" in Cosmology." Philosophy of Science 59 (1992), 361-371.
Prigogine, Ilya and Isabelle Stengers. Order out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature Bantam Books, 1984. 313.
Squires, Euan, J. "Quantum Theory--a Window to the World Beyond Physics." Philosophy, Mathematics, and Modern Physics: A Dialogue ed. Rudolph, E. and I. O. Stamatescu. Heidelberg: Springer--Verlag, 1994. 92-103.
The Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. The Holy Bible with Apocrypha, The New Revised Standard Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989.
Whitehead, A. N. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology New York: MacMillan Co. 1929.