PROVIDENCE AND SPACE-TIME: RETHINKING GOD’S RELATION TO THE WORLD THROUGH THE EYES OF JOHN POLKINGHORNE Dissertation Submitted to The College of Arts and Sciences of the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology By John Forrest Birch, M.S., M.A. UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON Dayton, Ohio December, 2020 PROVIDENCE AND SPACE-TIME: RETHINKING GOD’S RELATION TO THE WORLD THROUGH THE EYES OF JOHN POLKINGHORNE Name: Birch, John Forrest APPROVED BY: Daniel S. Thompson, Ph.D. Faculty Advisor Brad J. Kallenberg, Ph.D. Faculty Reader Vincent J. Miller, Ph.D. Faculty Reader Dennis M. Doyle, Ph.D. Faculty Reader Allen J. McGrew, Ph.D. Outside Faculty Reader ___________________________________________________________ Jana M. Bennett, Ph.D. Chairperson ii © Copyright by John Forrest Birch All rights reserved 2020 ABSTRACT PROVIDENCE AND SPACE-TIME: RETHINKING GOD’S RELATION TO THE WORLD THROUGH THE EYES OF JOHN POLKINGHORNE Name: Birch, John Forrest University of Dayton Advisor: Dr. Daniel S. Thompson Recent years have witnessed a greater acknowledgement among physicists and theologians that theology and physics have something to say to each other with regard to the endeavor to better understand God’s relationship to the world. Modern physics has been led by contemporary scientific pioneers who saw unique ways to solve problems that began to arise as more and more aspects of physical reality were investigated and required explanation. The insights arising from these physicists served to banish the older traditional scientific view of the universe as a “grand machine”. One of the results of this modified scientific view of the nature of the universe has been renewed dialog between physics and theology in a new with a whole new set of challenges to longstanding questions about God’s relation to the world. One of the major participants in this discussion is John Polkinghorne, a high- energy particle physicist and Anglican priest, who approaches the pursuit of knowledge by beginning with physics and proceeding to examine the realm of natural phenomena for evidence of agreement and consistency with the claims of religious faith. Polkinghorne’s view seems to offer promise because of 1) his effort to remain true to the tenets of the Christian faith, and 2) his reliance on sound modern science and mathematics (in iii particular quantum indeterminacy and chaos theory). The promise Polkinghorne offers is the use of intellectual pursuit, by way of modern physics, in order to facilitate faith’s search for understanding with regard to the question of God’s relationship with the world. This can have implications not only for academic theology, but also for Christians’ grasp of various religious concepts such as creation, prayer, miracles, and the nature of God, all of which are key doctrines believers deal with each day. Polkinghorne has said of his own endeavors in this area “My concern is to explore to what extent we can use the search for motivated understanding, so congenial to the scientific mind, as a route to being able to make the substance of Christian orthodoxy our own.”1 During my research I found that one of the key criticisms of Polkinghorne is that determinate rules underlying chaos theory undermine his reliance on indeterminacy for his view of divine interaction with the world. I am not convinced that the way he uses chaos theory undermines his reliance on indeterminacy, since indeterminacy is built into the warp and woof of reality according to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, my concern here is not to argue for the particular way he uses chaos theory but rather to argue that the criticisms of his use of chaos theory can better contribute to the discussion of God’s relation to the world were they to refocus their attention on the relationship between the quantum and macroscopic levels of physical reality. With the increased research efforts of modern physicists to better understand the quantum level of reality it seems that this is the area that goes most directly to the heart of the question of God’s interaction with and influence in the world. 1 John Polkinghorne, Faith of a Physicist (Minneapolis Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1994), 1 iv Finally, in making this argument I hope that it will be apparent why it is so important for the physicist, theologian, or any believer to have a better understanding of God’s relationship with the world. I believe the fact that this question has long been pondered is evidence enough that it is fundamentally important. Contemporary challenges to models of understanding the relationship of God and world have sometimes resulted in flawed ways of trying to arrive at answers, such as the "God of the Gaps" approach of using epistemological gaps as a warrant to argue for the presence and work of God. In particular, by exploring Polkinghorne's view and how he is criticized, I hope to show that his approach helps to avoid such pitfalls, which is crucial for articulating a better understanding of the question of divine interaction with the world that is faithful to the claims of modern physics as well as Christian belief. v Dedicated to my parents and those drawn to the grandeur of the universe, and the glory of the One who made it vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend my deep appreciation to Dr. Daniel S. Thompson, my dissertation advisor, for his patient guidance and advice throughout the writing of this dissertation. His guidance in helping me to keep from straying too far from my topic has been invaluable. I am also indebted to Dr. Terry Tilley for his guidance and direction as my original advisor prior to his departure for Fordham University. He helped me immensely as I worked through my general exams on my way to the qualifying exam. Also, I wish to thank Dr. Bad J. Kallenberg for his advice and guidance as one of my professors when I first entered the program leading to the Ph.D. in theology here at the University of Dayton. Special thanks must also be extended to my wife Debbie, and my immediate family members for their patience and support during the hours that I remained “sealed away” in my office reading and writing. I am forever grateful to my parents who always supported me in my academic pursuits, and gave me the encouragement unique to loving parents who believed that I could do anything that I set my mind to. I miss them every day of my life. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT iii DEDICATION vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii CHAPTER 1 THE BIRTH OF MODERN SCIENCE AND THE QUESTION OF GOD’S RELATION TO THE WORLD 1 1.1 Viewing Physical Reality as a Great Machine 10 1.2 Losing the Mechanical View of Physical Reality 14 CHAPTER 2 MODERN PHYSICS’ VIEW OF REALITY – NEW CONTEXTS FOR OLD QUESTIONS 23 2.1 The Loss of the Constancy of Space and Time in Physics 28 2.2 The Loss of Determinacy in the Fabric of Space-Time 33 2.3 God and Quarks 38 CHAPTER 3 APPROACHING A VIEW OF GOD’S RELATIONSHIP TO THE WORLD 44 3.1 Theological Models of God’s Relation to the World 48 3.2 John Polkinghorne and the Communicator of Information Model 56 CHAPTER 4 CRITICISMS OF POLKINGHORNE’S “COMMUNICATOR OF INFORMATION” MODEL 82 4.1 Wildman’s Criticism of Polkinghorne 83 4.2 Saunders’ Criticism of Polkinghorne 91 CHAPTER 5 EVALUATING CRITICISMS OF POLKINGHORNE 102 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS 124 BIBLIOGRAPHY 132 viii CHAPTER 1 THE BIRTH OF MODERN SCIENCE AND THE QUESTION OF GOD’S RELATION TO THE WORLD2 Generally it is recognized that while roots of physics, once referred to as natural philosophy, can be traced back into antiquity, the advent of modern physics occurred in the seventeenth century. By this time Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) had introduced the world to a heliocentric (sun-centered) solar system in his published work De Revolutionibus. The research of Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) and Galileo Galilei (1564- 1642), based on empirical information, led to statements of physical principles governing the motion of objects. This included those objects of the celestial realm, a topic of particular interest to humanity. Galileo’s use of scientific reasoning was regarded by Albert Einstein (1879-1955) as “…one of the most important achievements in the history of modern thought and marks the real beginning of physics.”3 Galileo’s approach demonstrated that intuitive conclusions drawn from immediate observation are not necessarily trustworthy. Rather than relying on questions of purpose and final cause, his approach involved determining measurable relationships between observable phenomena in nature. This approach was contrary to that of Aristotle (385-323 BC). Galileo effectively overthrew a long held notion that with respect to the laws governing natural phenomena one should rely on the intuitive explanation as being he correct one. As an example, with regard to motion he concluded that it is not a body’s velocity that indicates 2 I use the term “world” herein to refer to nature or the universe. This is in keeping with terminology used in various scientific and theological texts. 3Albert Einstein, Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta (New York, London: Simon and Schuster, 1966), 6. 1 whether or not external influences, or forces, act on that body (the traditional intuitive perception), but rather it is a body’s change in velocity, or acceleration. This was articulated later by Isaac Newton (1642-1727) in his first two laws of motion. Also during this time Galileo’s contemporary, Francis Bacon (1561-1626), proposed a revised system of thought with regard to the scientific endeavor.