This paper critically examines John Polkinghorne’s Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship, a seminal work that brings into dialogue the seemingly disparate realms of quantum physics and Christian theology. Polkinghorne, with his dual expertise as a theoretical physicist and Anglican priest, provides a unique perspective on the epistemological and metaphysical parallels between scientific inquiry and theological reflection. Through his concept of “critical realism,” Polkinghorne advances a framework for understanding both fields as complementary approaches to the same underlying reality. This review interrogates Polkinghorne’s central thesis, analyzing his use of quantum analogies in theological context and exploring the implications of his claim that scientific and theological methods share a “cousinly relationship” in the search for truth.
In particular, this paper considers Polkinghorne’s proposal of a shared epistemological foundation between science and theology, focusing on the five “cousinly relationships” he identifies: moments of enforced radical revision, periods of unresolved confusion, new synthesis and understanding, continued wrestling with unsolved problems, and deeper implications for understanding reality. Through rigorous analysis of each “cousinly” point of contact, this review evaluates Polkinghorne’s contribution to the discourse on science and theology, assessing its impact on contemporary thought concerning the convergence of scientific and theological knowledge.
In his book, Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship, John Polkinghorne explores the striking similarities and analogies between scientific and theological inquiries, especially as they intersect through quantum physics. This review is authored from the perspective of a theologian with a robust astrophysical background, aiming to shed light on Polkinghorne’s insights while engaging deeply with his thesis on “critical realism.” Polkinghorne, a distinguished mathematical physicist turned Anglican priest, offers a nuanced view on the congruence of science and theology—a theme I have explored in various reviews and academic discourse. He posits that science and religion do not exist in a dichotomy but rather converge in the mutual pursuit of understanding reality. Through a carefully structured analogical framework, Polkinghorne presents an interdisciplinary paradigm where theological and scientific perspectives converge, challenging the perceived boundaries between the two fields.
This review will unpack the main themes of Polkinghorne’s work, analyze its theoretical implications, and examine his analogical approach with respect to both scientific and theological thought. Each chapter builds on this concept by contrasting scientific discoveries with theological insights, underscoring five points of “cousinly relationship,” as Polkinghorne terms them, where science and theology parallel one another.
The Foundation: The Search for Truth
Polkinghorne begins by addressing the fundamental premise of both science and theology: the pursuit of truth. He contends that scientists and theologians alike seek verifiable knowledge, though with differing methods and presuppositions. In physics, theories like quark models and string theory attempt to approximate fundamental truths, yet they remain incomplete, contingent upon future insights and discoveries. This process of verisimilitude, as Polkinghorne calls it, acknowledges that scientific truth can be intellectually satisfying without being wholly absolute. Similarly, theological truth reflects an ongoing process of divine revelation, with human understanding perpetually limited by finite reasoning yet sustained by faith in God’s self-disclosure.
Polkinghorne draws a noteworthy parallel here: just as quark theory provides a provisional but useful framework for understanding matter, theological doctrines like the Incarnation offer a reliable guide to divine reality. Both fields recognize the incompleteness of their frameworks yet regard them as sufficient to address certain aspects of truth.
Divergence and Complexity in Scientific and Theological Inquiry
In his examination of the methodological differences, Polkinghorne highlights four distinctive features that set theology apart from science:
1. Complexity of Tradition: Science, with its cumulative knowledge, progresses without necessarily revisiting past theories except as historical reference. Theology, on the other hand, builds upon a tradition of cumulative understanding. It engages continuously with the past as a living dialogue, reinterpreting and reapplying its insights to contemporary issues. This historical continuity safeguards the wisdom of theological insights, preventing them from becoming obsolete.
2. Divine Initiative: Unlike scientific inquiry, which operates on human-driven exploration, theological truth relies upon divine initiative. Revelation in theology is not something humans can deduce or manipulate; rather, it depends on God’s willingness to disclose divine reality. Without this initiative, theological knowledge remains inaccessible, making the divine-human relationship central to theology.
3. Fragmentation in Belief: Scientific consensus, while not immune to shifts, generally achieves broad acceptance among the scientific community, especially in areas of settled science. Theology, however, is marked by diversity and division, reflecting the personal and cultural dimensions that influence religious belief. This theological plurality underscores the complex, multifaceted nature of religious truth, suggesting that it cannot be reduced to a single, universal formula.
4. Consequential Belief: Whereas scientific truths about particles or waves may have little impact outside the laboratory, theological truths carry profound existential implications. Belief in Christ, for example, influences ethical and personal decisions, shaping lives in ways that scientific knowledge rarely does.
The Cousinly Relationship Between Quantum and Christological Insights
In exploring the analogies between scientific and theological revelations, Polkinghorne draws on five points of connection:
1. Radical Revision: The advent of quantum theory marked a radical shift in physics, challenging classical assumptions and revealing the dual nature of light as both wave and particle. Similarly, the New Testament writers grappled with the paradox of Christ’s divine and human natures, leading to a theological revolution. Just as scientists accepted quantum duality despite its counterintuitive nature, early Christians embraced the mystery of the Incarnation, setting the stage for future theological development.
2. Periods of Confusion: Both fields experienced periods of conceptual ambiguity before new frameworks emerged. In physics, the paradox of wave-particle duality persisted until quantum theory matured. In theology, the early Church wrestled with the language of Christ’s divinity, balancing belief with intellectual coherence. These periods of unresolved tension highlight the process of intellectual humility, as practitioners in both fields waited for deeper understanding to emerge.
3. New Synthesis and Understanding: Just as quantum theory was formalized through the principles of Heisenberg and Schrödinger, the early Church synthesized its beliefs through the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. Polkinghorne quotes Richard Feynman to emphasize that certain mysteries in quantum mechanics are better accepted than explained—a sentiment that resonates with theological formulations at Nicaea and Chalcedon, where the boundaries of orthodox Christology were set.
4. Unresolved Problems: Both science and theology face persistent questions that defy complete resolution. Quantum theory, for instance, cannot fully explain why a specific measurement yields a specific result, highlighting the limits of scientific determinism. Likewise, theological concepts such as the Trinity and the problem of evil remain partially veiled in mystery, challenging theologians to engage with the ineffable aspects of divine reality.
5. Deeper Implications: Polkinghorne explores how theories in both fields yield further insights beyond their initial scope. Quantum entanglement, for example, challenges classical notions of causality and locality, suggesting that the universe may be more interconnected than previously assumed. Theologically, the concept of a suffering God, as proposed by Jürgen Moltmann, provides a profound response to the problem of evil, portraying God as a co-sufferer in creation’s pain.
Conclusions and Future Research
Polkinghorne’s interdisciplinary approach encourages a reevaluation of traditional boundaries between science and theology. His analogical framework provides a compelling basis for further research, suggesting that both fields can benefit from each other’s insights. While his analogies may not resolve all tensions between science and theology, they offer a valuable model for dialogue, fostering mutual respect and understanding.
In conclusion, Quantum Physics and Theology serves as a testament to the possibility of reconciling scientific and theological perspectives. As someone who shares Polkinghorne’s commitment to critical realism, I find his work a commendable example of interdisciplinary scholarship. His analogies invite both scientists and theologians to embrace intellectual humility, recognizing that reality transcends any one discipline’s capacity for comprehension. Through continued dialogue, science and theology can both contribute to a richer, more nuanced understanding of truth, reminding us that “all truth is God’s truth.”
Footnotes
1. John Polkinghorne, Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), 5.
2. Ibid., 7.
3. Ibid., 10.
4. Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1965), 133.
5. Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 219.
6. Niels Bohr, “The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory,” in Quantum Theory and Measurement, eds. John A. Wheeler and Wojciech Hubert Zurek (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), 103.
7. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956), I/1, 346.
8. Thomas F. Torrance, Theological Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), 75.
9. C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: HarperOne, 2001), 90.
10. Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 102.