Guest Article
Quantum Mechanics, Beyond all Reason
by Paul Ashley *
"God doesn't play dice" were the words voiced by Albert Einstein
in his long running debate with Danish physicist Niels Bohr during the late
1920's. To that Bohr replied, "Stop telling God what to do." The
disagreement over the newly developing theory of quantum mechanics stemmed
from implications of indeterminacy at the most fundamental levels. Later
Werner Heisenberg would formulate his famous uncertainty principle describing
the relationship between inherently unknowable physical quantities. Einstein
was disturbed because he could not reconcile such apparent "chances"
in the nature of the universe. Most other scientists accepted the new theory
and welcomed the discoveries of modern physics including the nature of atomic
spectra, energy distribution, and particle interaction. Such knowledge eventually
led to the development of such technological wonders as transistors and
lasers. But Einstein resisted. Was it really because he believed that this
inference of quantum mechanics threatened the nature of God? Perhaps R C
Sproul in his book Not a Chance admirably refutes chance as a viable
attribute of the universe. He writes, "The mere existence of chance
is enough to rip God from his cosmic throne" (1). As he points out,
some scientists, apparently including Bohr, would come to embrace chance
as a viable explanation. Still others would go further to even welcome the
implications as supportive evidence for a Godless cosmos. Nevertheless,
was as some contend, Einstein's opposing alternative to chance intended
as supportive of the God of the Bible? Einstein could not believe that God
would have created a universe in which if man were smart enough, he could
not figure it out. He once wrote, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals
himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns
himself with the fate and action of men" (2.) Einstein's concept of
the world was one which was apparently totally deterministic and followed
natural laws which with enough knowledge and reasoning man should be expected
to decipher. So strong was that belief that he went against his own admitted
better judgment to introduce a "fudge factor" called the cosmological
constant to his celebrated general theory of relativity (included gravitational
effects) in order to preserve the concept of an infinite universe, a universe
in steady state. One would reckon then that the alternative to chance is
a universe totally determined and free running, governed strictly by laws
of nature, hardly needing God, aside from creation. And if argument prevails
God may not be needed at all. Both alternatives have indeed been used to
espouse a belief in a natural cosmos, one without God. Random chance and
strict naturalism... Two extremes which often lead to the same conclusion.
Is there "per chance" an alternative? One which those like
Einstein may not have considered a suitable refuge. A cosmos not randomly
ruled, though not wholly understandable by human reasoning or definable
by laws of nature, at least not of mortal comprehension. I'm speaking of
a world in which God plays an active and a personal role. A world in which
a violation of the laws of nature does not undermine one's confidence in
reality nor does it otherwise make impotent scientific investigation.
The laws of nature are established principles constructed of prescribed
formalism based upon rules of logic, which are in turn established by reason.
The formalism is conceived of the human mind, the logic is borne of human
intellect, and the reason is bound by human understanding. For the wisest
of men was left to say, "That which is far off, and exceedingly deep,
who can find it out?" (Ecc. 7:24) and the Apostle later concluded,
"Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable are his judgments, and His ways past finding out!"
(Rom. 11:33) Therefore, we can safely apply humanly derived laws of nature
only to that which is subject to the laws of nature. If the Bible is to
be believed, the vast majority of the cosmos is not likely in this category.
That doesn't make the world any less real or unreasonable, only beyond reasoning,
human reasoning that is. I can't understand the power of angels nor do I
ever expect to, but that doesn't make them any less real. I often speak
to non-Christians who possess a scientific background about the things of
God and the first point to get across in order to establish a common ground
for discussion is their realm of reality. Where is your bound of reality?
What do you place inside of it? Does it include only that which is currently
understood? Does it include that which you don't understand or believe to
be understandable by laws of nature? Further, does it also include that
which is not explainable by humanly derived reasoning? Everyone draws the
line bounding reality along some defining course. Where that line is drawn
makes all the difference in the construction of a concept for the cosmos.
Draw the line too broad and random chance makes reality evasive and God
irrelevant. Draw the line too narrow and strict determinism makes reality
subject to natural limitations and makes a personal God unnecessary.
It is easy to lose a proper balance at this point. Herein lies the danger
of both extremes. As Sproul points out chance relegates causality to a relatively
minor role. However, causality, if limited to the natural, oversteps the
bounds of God's transcendent control of the universe. Such natural causality
forms the opposite pole of atheistic argument. Evidence of this may be seen
by noticing that Sproul was able to enlist many quotes from secular atheistic
philosophers and scientists in support of his case against chance. Voltaire,
Hume, Descartes, and Sagan all believed in a strict naturalism. If this seems
a bit unsettling, notice further that one might equally imagine an atheistic
apologist quoting from Not a Chance (out of context, of course) in support
of naturalism. One of the few sticking points would be the question of first
cause. And if one accepts the logical premise which Sproul develops that
the first cause must be self existent and if it is further assumed that
no other attribute is required, then the first cause could just as well
be a blob of matter and/or energy just before the Big Bang. After all, naturalism
does not require intelligent design and neither does a self existent first
cause if causality follows blindly.
You see it is when other attributes are associated with first cause that
the naturalist often objects; when the name God is applied, intelligence
and personality are generally implied. But a pantheistic God without these
additional attributes would be no problem. The Christian theologian would
of course object to such a restricted definition of God, as he should, but
he should likewise also object to totally natural causality, for it leads
to the same end. It should then not be surprising that many of the arguments
of naturalists may be excerpted as strong statements for determinism and
against chance.
Ultimate insight into the nature of the cosmos is not to be found in
chance nor in natural causality alone. The Bible speaks not just of the
natural but of the "super" natural as well. Nowhere is it implied
that if man were smart enough he could figure it out. It is not simply a
lack of knowledge, although that may often times be the case, but it is
a matter of reasoning, "past finding out". The supernatural is
beyond the natural laws as man and science define them. When Jesus healed
the lame, or restored sight to the blind, natural laws were violated. Natural
causality no longer has meaning. Miracles of God's providence may find their
course in natural circumstance and the line between the natural and the
supernatural may not always be fully clear, but what is certain with regard
to the God of history is that there is indeed a distinct difference between
the two. And it is at that line that natural causality ends and supernatural
causality begins. As long as the existence of that line is understood there
is no conflict with the realm of science. It should not be threatened. Quite
the contrary. A realization of that which is beyond the legal jurisdiction
of natural laws, if not also the understanding of human reason, is perhaps
the greatest advantage of insight and lucidity for the scientist who is
also a Christian.
It is here that the road of scientific thought truly diverges. The stepping
stones of chance and strict determinism or natural causality have both served
for paving the path toward naturalism. It is a God both transcendent and
personal, the epitome of first cause, that created both the supernatural
as well as the natural. And the road to true cosmology is paved with sure
and solid stones, both natural and supernatural.
Where does such a concept of the universe leave science and scientific
investigation? Science is clearly defined by rules of logic generally expressed
in mathematical terms. Such formalism is used to describe laws of nature
as they are observed and understood through human reason. These laws to
the extent to which they are correctly understood are dependable and predictable.
They follow rules for natural causality or as commonly referred to, cause
and effect. Within the bounds of the natural, scientific investigation may
find gainful service. But there is another realm of the universe which the
Bible describes that is beyond the natural. Within this realm both science
and the foundations of human reasoning may not be expected to appropriately
apply.
Recognizing this grander picture of the universe can make scientific
investigation much more insightful. But first one must possess a means of
advancement to new knowledge or understanding. In scientific investigation
experimental methodology coupled with a theoretical treatment of laws of
nature constitute the tools of learning. This is called the scientific method.
It is based upon the application of both deductive and inductive reasoning.
By contrast, in the sphere of the supernatural a totally different means
of achieving knowledge and understanding is necessary. Scientific method
obviously no longer applies. But God has provided another method. It is
divine revelation. The Bible is the text book as well as the primary reference.
The Holy Spirit replaces human reason. The rules of causality apply but
they are not the rules of natural causality or the laws of nature. In fact
the Bible cautions strongly against the practice of relying upon human reason
within this realm. (1 Cor2:10-13)
Respecting this understanding of the world, the domain of the natural
gains a new perspective. With it certain implications are apparent. For
example, the Bible is a book of history. The careful reader will recognize
that it is filled with historical detail to establish context, setting,
and relevance. It's intent for historicity is exhaustive. But the Bible
speaks of supernatural effects of worldwide impact such as the creation,
the flood, and the long day of Joshua. These are pre-historic events by
any other human record. They are beyond observation or laboratory experiment.
If indeed the laws of nature were superseded in such events, then the laws
of nature cannot be used to extrapolate with precision backwards beyond
these particular points in time. And so we would do well to be very careful
in applying the laws of nature, limited by human reasoning, to develop any
natural picture of the pre-historic world or its chronology. This is not
to say that natural laws do not to some extent fill in the picture, but
any postulation based purely upon naturalistic reasoning is in danger of
great error.
Another intriguing inference of this larger world view is that if God
is a personal God involved in history as the Bible says and other supernatural
beings are part of this world, then the realm of the natural must at some
point meet the realm of the supernatural. Furthermore, man is also, as the
Bible describes, more than just a physical body. He has a soul or spirit
beyond the natural. Therefore it should not be beyond conception to expect
a point of departure for the laws of nature. Assuming that point to be observable
it might easily be overlooked if one is not cognizant of such a possibility.
There are many areas of scientific investigation in which unexplainable
phenomena or circumstances have arisen. Throughout history some of these
have eventually been reconciled with further knowledge or reasoning. One
noteworthy example is the development of relativity theory. Eventually,
a number of previously unexplained experimental observations were shown
to support the new concept which then led to a significantly new level of
understanding. In contrast another development, that of quantum mechanics,
led to a circumstance which could not be so easily reconciled. From this
mystery emerged the debate over the role of random chance on natural laws
to which Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein exchanged volleys. The source of
the dilemma was later articulated and formalized by Heisenberg. Reduced
to postulate it became known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, bearing
his name. In simplest terms the principle states that because of the quantized
or discrete nature of energy as presumed by quantum mechanics, the exact
properties of matter and energy cannot at the same time be known completely.
They may be formalized mathematically only by statistical or probabilistic
means.
For example, a particle of matter such as an electron may have its position
known exactly or its velocity known exactly but not both at the same time.
Those who followed Bohr's thinking to its full conclusion would accept that
the natural world was governed on some level by purely random phenomena,
without causal relationship. On the other hand others, including Einstein,
held to the strict belief that there was no place in the universe for non-deterministic
phenomena. Either the theory could be harmonized with determinism or it
was wrong. Einstein chose that it was wrong. Many conservative theologians
and scholars might be tempted to chose the later conclusion also. This would
warrant that Quantum mechanics would someday be proven inadequate or even
wrong subsequently giving way to a more fitting theory to describe this
aspect of the cosmos. And these scholars may well be proven correct. Certainly
the former conclusion is not consistent with the God of the Bible. But consider
for a moment an alternate conclusion lending itself to the recognition that
God made a world of both the natural and the supernatural. Might there then
be a point at which our investigation of the universe at its most basic
level of understanding leads us to the edge of a cliff as it were. A precipice
beyond which we peer, puzzled and confused, not able to apply natural reason
any longer. As we look out over the expanse of the unknown we have a choice.
To the pragmatic scientist randomness is an acceptable description of what
he views. For the pure naturalist his only option is that he cannot yet
see clearly; if he could all would be naturally explained. But perhaps rather
than being just unknown, what lies beyond the ragged edge is actually unknowable
by natural reasoning while still no less causal. The Bible tells us that
man was created in the image of God. It also describes man as having a soul
apart from the physical and a will to choose right and wrong. In these ways
man is distinguished from God's other earthly creatures. Philosophers and
theologians have long pondered the essence of man's freedom of will in a
world of causality.
Consider a simple process such as the deliberate moving of the index
finger from left to right. One could explain the physical motion by reference
to the skeletal and muscular anatomy of the hand. Muscle cells contract
on one side of the finger. The muscle in connected to bones which are compelled
to a lateral motion. Continuing the physiological trail one would describe
the nerves which provided electrical impulses to excite the muscle cells.
Along the arm the nerve cells form a chain which sequentially deliver an
impulse by electro-chemical action. The appropriate nerve terminates at
the base of the brain. From there one finds that the nerve is given its
impetus by a further pathway of nerve endings which are connected to tissue
in the brain itself. If it were possible, the originating electro-chemical
stimulus could be isolated to a cell or group of cells in a motor function
area of the brain. Careful investigation might reveal even a particular
chemical process in one or more cells where the original physical stimulus
emerged. But if one continues with such analysis, one of two conclusions
will likely be reached. The first possibility would render the complex process
just described completely deterministic, that is to say if one were able
to, a naturally causal sequence of events could be found to explain even
the origin of the thought process which results in the finger moving from
left to right. The implication being that every human action and thought
is purely deterministic, natural, instinctive, and a fateful consequence
of preceding events. The second possibility would, however, allow that at
some point in the previous analysis of motor actions an autonomous thought
which is not restricted by natural cause or determinism represents the source
stimulus for all further physiological processes. In other words every free
human thought which leads to a physical reaction exceeds the bounds of the
laws of nature as science is able to define them.
What then of the implication of quantum mechanics? No one can be certain.
Just the same it is interesting to consider that the theory of quantum mechanics
appears to lead the thoughtful observer to the unnerving cliff, prompting
the question of the limits to natural scientific thought. It is not in the
question alone but in the possible answers that our concept of the universe
is broadened. Certainly not random chance, but perhaps not total determinism
either would explain the seemingly irreconcilable difficulty of this unknowable
quantum world. It may be at such an end boundary of science where we find
the beginning boundary of divine relationship with the world and with man.
The mysteries of quantum mechanical theory and its concepts have been
characterized both as random chance or inadequate representations of deterministic
reality. What appears to some to be random, to others inconsistent or at
least lacking, may in actuality be a window between the "natural"
and that which is beyond nature, the realm where supernatural causality
finds expression in the natural, where the divine guides the simple, where
freedom of will finds its origin. Such a consideration does not diminish
God's sovereignty. Quite the contrary. Freedom of thought or will is a God
given attribute. He reigns supreme above this or any marvel of human or
even angelic nature. Certainly we will never comprehend, this side of heaven,
the full majesty of God's creation. But He has made clear that He is a personal
God, interactive with and in the creation. Further, He is a God who lives
and dwells within man, "For it is God who worketh in you both to will
and to do of His good pleasure." (Phil. 2:13) However He chooses to
accomplish His work, whether through the laws of nature and scientific formalism,
whether through humanly discernible reasoning, or through divine "causality"
beyond man's ability to apply equation or human reason with "ways past
finding out", God's creation humbles all mortal praise.
References:
1. R. C. Sproul, Not a Chance, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), p.3.
2. Telegram sent to a Jewish newspaper in 1929 as quoted in Einstein's
Universe by Nigel Calder, (New York: Penguin, 1980), p.230.
* Paul Ashley
is a technical manager in a government research laboratory (US Army Aviation
and Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama) where he has worked in the
area of integrated photonics and electro-optical device development for
15 years. He is a graduate of Baylor University (BS Physics 1974) and Washington
University (MA Physics 1976, MS Electrical Engineering 1977, D.Sc. Electrical
Engineering 1978). He also serves as Minister of Education at a local Baptist
Church and has taught courses in Bible Science, Bible History, and Church
History for over 12 years.
Return to Lambert Dolphin's Library