Excerpt from “God and the Laws of Physics”
Introduction
The rise of classical mechanics marked the culmination
of a major shift in Western thinking from Aristotle’s idea of the world
as an organism to the conception of the world as a clocklike mechanism
operating according to mechanistic laws.The distinguishing feature of classical
mechanics is determinism—the idea that the history of events for all time
is rigidly determined by the precise material conditions existing at one
time.
Determinism has many profound philosophical implications.
For example, if nature is indeed strictly governed by deterministic laws,
then sentient beings must be pure machines, and the possibility of a nonmaterial
mind that interacts with matter is ruled out. Thus a recent book on the
relation between minds and machines begins with the premise that, “the
price of mind/body interaction is violation of the laws of physics—a price
that few philosophers (or scientists) are willing to pay.”1
Determinism also rules out the idea that God is in direct conscious control of day to day events. Historically, this led to the development of deism, the philosophy that God created the physical laws and initial conditions, and then ceased to play an active role in the universe. According to this philosophy, since God’s only role in the universe is to create it in the beginning and then strictly enforce the deterministic laws of physics, no real exchange can take place between God and human beings through prayer or meditation. Thus if God seems to respond to our prayers it can only be because the initial conditions of the universe determine the later occurrence of both the prayer and the response. The natural conclusion of this philosophy is that we should pay attention only to the laws of nature; whether or not God exists in the background is of little practical significance.
In the twentieth century,
classical physics has been supplanted by quantum mechanics, with the result
that physics ceased to be strictly deterministic. This development led
to a number of attempts by prominent physicists to reintroduce the idea
of conscious volition into our physical world view.2–5
However, the advent of quantum mechanics did more than simply add an element
of indeterminism. In its standard formulation, quantum mechanics requires
us to renounce the idea of forming a coherent theoretical picture of objective
reality. This tends to discourage attempts to harmonize physics with any
worldview that presents God, the material world, and the conscious living
beings as real entities standing in some kind of mutual relationship. Thus,
attempts to relate quantum mechanics to metaphysical ideas have often centered
on the drawing of parallels6 and the use
of physical theories to provide metaphors illustrating transcendental philosophies.7
In this chapter I will discuss a reformulation of quantum
mechanics and classical mechanics which presents both as nondeterministic
theories of an objectively real material energy. Such a formulation can
be of interest in the domain of physics since it suggests new ways of carrying
out calculations, and it may even suggest new avenues of experimental investigation.
But here my main purpose is to explore the relation between modern physical
theories and broader metaphysical and theological ideas. My thesis is that
both classical and quantum physics are compatible with the idea that a
transcendental superconscious being directs the course of events within
a flexible framework of non-deterministic laws. I should stress that this
exercise in philosophical speculation can at best suggest tentative possibilities.
However, it is only by considering possibilities that we can decide which
way to go in the search for truth. . . .
| Buy Book Now | Back to Previous Page |
References
| 1. | Gould, Stephen Jay, 1992, “Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge,” Scientific American, July 1992, p. 119. |
| 2. | Jastrow, Robert, 1978, God and the Astronomer, New York: Warner Books, Inc., p. 138. |
| 3. | Jastrow, Ibid., pp. 141–142. |
| 4. | Hawking, Stephen, 1988, A Brief History of Time, New York: Bantam Books, p. 116. |
| 5. | Gingerich, Owen, 1982, “Let There Be Light: Modern Cosmogony and Biblical Creation,” an abridgement of the Dwight Lecture given at the University of Penna. in 1982, pp. 9–10. |
| 6. | Dyson, Freeman, 1979, Disturbing the Universe, New York: Harper & Row, pp. 251–52. |
| 7. | Dyson, Ibid., p. 249. |
Copyright © 2004 by Richard L. Thompson