Superpositioned unity of distinct states, entanglement, dual
identity and other concepts associated with the quanta remain more than a
little intriguing. And indeed I have often thought of this realm of science as
a case of science breaking down, even
of a hint of the metaphysical imposing itself on empiricist assumptions. It has
a real value in terms of apologetics – not in what it can say, but in what it
can destroy. It casts doubt on the certainty and epistemological assumptions of
Scientism. It declares not only that there's something more and something
beyond but that these questions end in mystery and incoherence. It painfully
reveals the limitations of human epistemology.
It also therefore eliminates the quest for a Unified Theory,
the dream of Einstein that he was so devoted to he could not bring himself to
accept the mysteries and inconsistencies of the quantum realm. With no unified
theory, science is limited in what it can postulate and as a result it cannot
claim to possess enough data to form a comprehensive worldview – to take
science full circle back into the philosophical realm upon which it necessarily
rests. Yes, science makes philosophical assumptions and is built upon them.
Many scientists don't like this fact and try to deny it, but it's painfully
true. Their claims for 'pure science' are a case of mendacious self-deception.
Induction and empiricism are not supposed to rely on
coherentist-rationalist frameworks and yet they do. In other words science is
built on a less than empirical foundation. And as science reaches certain
limits, this quest for coherence has become all the more obvious. The growing
cadres of celebrity theoretical physicists are more often engaged in
philosophical speculation than anything that smacks of science. Why? They're
attempting to form a coherence, a cosmology, a worldview that can be
comprehensive and make universal claims. It's effectively a religion for the
new civilisation that is being birthed in our time. And yet intellectually it's
failing in its claims and aspirations and the realm of the quanta (I think)
plays a role in that failure. It's one (among others) that we as Christians can
use to deconstruct and invalidate their project.*
As a Biblicist I reject the Thomistic approach of epistemological
synthesis and would rather see science as true in its limited capacity but
always leading to a dead ends and painfully demonstrating man's incapacity to
understand let alone master the intricacies of nature. The failure to form a
unified theory is to me a benefit. Many Christians would differ and instead (in
many ways) share in that larger project and want to form that same kind of unified
theory on a Christian basis. I think this project is doomed and I think the New
Testament (particularly the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians) teaches as much.
As such its pursuit can only bear rotten fruit.
Instead I would argue that the world's wisdom will perish and
there are really only two alternatives – revelation (which for Christians is apprehended
by faith in Christ) and nihilism – the only logical result of a materialist
universe and man's fallen finiteness and its resulting incapacities.
What disturbs me about the Evangelical Focus article is that
the scientist in question (Polkinghorne) is attempting to utilise a Thomistic
approach in his interactions with quantum theory. He's attempting to tease out
some natural theology and I would argue this is epistemologically dangerous and
can in the end only undermine the power and authority of the Scriptures. He
believes he's honouring God. I don't doubt his sincerity but I think he made a
grave mistake.
In the utilisation of natural laws, concepts, and empirically
driven observation, natural theology runs a serious risk of imposing paradigms
on the Scripture that aren't there. In other words it risks eisegetical
imposition and the forcing of Scriptural texts and concepts into a coherent
framework with science-based (philosophical) models.
In addition to being unfaithful to the text there's a real
danger in allowing external extra-biblical epistemologies to affect
hermeneutics. Doctrinal concepts which need to be limited as the Scriptures
reveal only so much (only what is needed) are now subject to speculative inference
and deduction. In other cases doctrines that are revealed mysteries are
de-mystified as they are put under the microscope (as it were) and atomized.
The end result is necessarily some form of reductionism – something we've
already seen in the Scholastic theological tradition and certainly in the
post-Enlightenment milieu. From so-called Common Sense Realism to the Baconian
hermeneutics of Fundamentalism and so-called Creation Science, the Scriptures
haven't been elevated, they've been reduced and curtailed. Instead of revealing
Christ and the glory of God, the Bible is turned into a spreadsheet to be
data-mined.
As Christians it should be obvious to us that empirical
criteria are insufficient for discerning supernatural concepts. Fallen man is
pushed into the transcendent by the wonders of the universe, it vastness, complexity,
and the like. But to then restrict these phenomena and our conceptions of them to
that which we are able to measure and comprehend is to reduce their wonder and
necessarily lessen their magnitude and transcendence. It's a dangerous path
especially when applied to Theology proper – the doctrine of God.
And inference-driven inductive logic as a guiding methodology
is quite different from the humility and brokenness that is the matrix of
faith. I would argue faith necessarily includes epistemological brokenness but
sadly many seem to understand faith as little more than an affirmation of logic
– an exhortation to 'right reason'.
We tend to think of revelation as the Scripture which is true
enough but during and prior to the apostolic age revelation was often in the
form of dreams and visions. Can such forms of revelation be subject to a
paradigm of induction? Reductionist experimentation and theory? Can science
even hope to comprehend such things? It can describe and dance around the edges
in terms of effects on the brain, stimuli and such questions but to actually
get into the heart of the matter as to what it is – I posit is impossible.**
As mentioned, I have long been fascinated by relativity,
quantum mechanics and the like, not because they affirm theology and Biblical
doctrine but because they demonstrate the inability of science and illustrate how
it leads to dead ends. There is no unified theory and this is all the more true
in a fallen world. Or to put it another way, there is no unified theory that is
accessible to us. It exists alone in the mind of God and is necessarily beyond
us as Isaiah 55 makes all too clear. Additionally the fact that Biblical
cosmology is not presented to us in scientific terms ought to tell us something
about the transcendent nature of reality. Relegating such concepts to mere
metaphor won't do.
Those Christians in the Thomistic tradition that are still
questing for a unified theory and who seek to find harmony between revelation
and science are (like the theoreticians who oppose them) actually engaging in
philosophy. There is no such thing as pure science, certainly not beyond the
realm of basic chemical and biological elements and reactions. And even such
basic functions rely upon and assume laws they cannot account for in a
materialist matrix. Materialist Fundamentalist scholars and apologists attempt
to invalidate such questions but such an Ivory Tower approach (in reality a self-defeating
quasi-mystical call to ignore the system's dissonance) will never be able to
function in the real world – let alone convince the masses. This is all the
more true as man is religious by nature and Materialism is a philosophical
system that cannot be lived. No one can look at their child as a mere mass of
cells, nor can they look at life as meaningless random chaos. Try as they might
the Materialist has no good news and as such the model in its pure form will
not appeal beyond academia. And yet it continues to have a corrosive effect and
the bulk of Western and Western-influenced society is drinking at least in part
from its well and being shaped by it ideas. All of the world's philosophies
lead to dead ends and invariably result in forms of idolatry.
Christians had best beware they are not falling into the same
trap. The truth is that most already have.
The Trinity is certainly a wondrous and mysterious doctrine,
one that defies our ability to comprehend – we scarcely can apprehend it. I
will happily admit the Church was derailed early on when it comes to this
topic. I am a firm Trinitarian and am willing to affirm Nicene orthodoxy
however I also lament it and the influence of philosophy early on in the
Church. It came first with the apologists and while many lay blame at the feet
of the Alexandrian School, the truth is Antioch was just as much to blame. It
drank just as deep from the Hellenistic well. After Constantine, the floodgates
opened, all the more as philosopher-theologians ranged far beyond the text in
the quest to create a comprehensive order – a unified theory for a new (and
unbiblical) concept known as Christendom.
The Nicene and post-Nicene episodes demonstrate the
limitations of thought and uninspired language to describe the indescribable.
The Scriptures speak of these things as they are and in terms revealed to us by
the Holy Spirit. As finite and fallen beings we are expected to submit and apprehend,
not comprehend these things. Part of reading the Scriptures faithfully is to
submit to them and their authority. In the case of the New Testament we submit
to the authority of the apostles who were appointed and sent by Christ and the
means employed by the Holy Spirit to give us a New Covenant canon.
The result is not right reason but informed ignorance. Humbling
as that might be, we are given what we need to know to be reconciled with God,
glorify Him, and live our lives. Isn't that enough? We are not told how to fix
the world's ills – for they cannot be fixed. Nor are we called to wield the
reins of power and forge a new culture on a Christian basis. It cannot be done.
Those that have done so have been forced to re-define fundamental Christian
doctrines and the result is not Zion, but Pseudo-Zion. Not the Bride of Christ,
but the Whore of Babylon.
The doctrine of the Trinity antedates Nicaea and I wish the
doctrine had been left in its primitive and undeveloped form. I believe it to
be more Biblically faithful. I am of course fully aware of the history and how
errors and challenges drove the ever-narrowing philosophically-reliant orthodox
formulations. It has always struck me as wrong that the Church allowed itself
to be driven and shaped by error and the tactics of the enemy. What some see as
a case of standing firm and holding ground – I see as continual retreat,
compromise, and acquiescence. I will also freely admit that I wasn't there and
I'm judging these things centuries after the fact. But that said, there can be
little doubt that post-Constantine politics also played no small role in these
questions and that to me is more than a little unfortunate and problematic.
Viewed in that light, Athanasius Contra
Mundum is not quite as impressive.
While there seems to be a resonance between some of the
categories, phenomena, and concepts associated with Quantum Theory and the
mysteries of the Trinity, I believe it is a grave mistake to tread down this
path. As wondrous as the quantum realm is – it's still part of the creation, and
thus limited, fallen and corrupted by the curse of death. It hints at something
more but cannot be used as a baseline for metaphysical predication and
inference. Therefore it is insufficient in its ability to reflect (or for that
matter describe) the wonders of the Godhead – a Godhead we know is there but
without revelation is quickly turned into a condemning idolatry. Natural
Revelation reveals enough to make us accountable and to condemn, but the
age-old quest by Christians to take it and transform it into Natural Theology
has always resulted in grave error and in some cases the gravest of sins.
----
*There's no small irony here as Quantum Theory remains the
field of science that many within the Scientism Cult find the most exciting and
promising. They think it's a stepping stone to greatness, the waited for
watershed, while I would argue it's the very field that can potentially spell
their doom – yea, their Achilles' Heel. One hopes it will lead to the
unraveling of many of their contrived fields and paradigms.
**It is in this limited capacity that Kantian categories can
also be employed in weaponised form. Revelation breaks through the
phenomenal-noumenal divide but the nature of our knowledge at that point is not
philosophical. Nor do we approach revelation via transcendental logic pushing
our knowledge to the point of antinomy and thus engendering an epistemological
crisis. Rather, in our epistemological brokenness we by faith submit to what
God has revealed – always understanding that we apprehend analogically and have
no hope of univocal comprehension. How this changes in the New Heavens and New
Earth is beyond what God has presently revealed.
This is not subjectivism or even mysticism though among some
circles it will be accused of being such.
See also:
https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2020/04/how-should-we-then-live-part-six.html