DIALOGUE IN THE CRISIS OF REPRESENTATION Dialogue in the Crisis of Representation Realism and Antirealism in the Context of the Conversation between Theologians and Quantum Physicists in Göttingen 1949-1961 Stefan Djupsjöbacka ÅBO 2005 ÅBO AKADEMIS FÖRLAG – ÅBO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY PRESS CIP Cataloguing in Publication Djupsjöbacka, Stefan Dialogue in the crisis of representation : realism and antirealism in the context of the conversation between theologians and quantum physicists in Göttingen 1949-1961 / Stefan Djupsjöbacka. - Åbo : Åbo Akademi University Press, 2005. Diss.: Åbo Akademi University. ISBN 951-765-228-3 ISBN 951-765-228-3 ISBN 951-765-229-1 (digital) Åbo Akademi University Printing House Åbo 2005 DIALOGUE IN THE CRISIS OF REPRESENTATION. Realism and Antirealism in the Context of the Conversations between Theologians and Quantum Physicists in Göttingen 1949 – 1961. Stefan Djupsjöbacka 2005 374 pages ABSTRACT The aim of this study is to analyse the content of the interdisciplinary conversations in Göttingen between 1949 and 1961. The task is to compare models for describing reality presented by quantum physicists and theologians. Descriptions of reality in different disciplines are conditioned by the development of the concept of reality in philosophy, physics and theology. Our basic problem is stated in the question: How is it possible for the intramental image to match the external object? Cartesian knowledge presupposes clear and distinct ideas in the mind prior to observation resulting in a true correspondence between the observed object and the cogitative observing subject. The Kantian synthesis between rationalism and empiricism emphasises an extended character of representation. The human mind is not a passive receiver of external information, but is actively construing intramental representations of external reality in the epistemological process. Heidegger’s aim was to reach a more primordial mode of understanding reality than what is possible in the Cartesian Subject-Object distinction. In Heidegger’s philosophy, ontology as being-in-the-world is prior to knowledge concerning being. Ontology can be grasped only in the totality of being ( Dasein ), not only as an object of reflection and perception. According to Bohr, quantum mechanics introduces an irreducible loss in representation, which classically understood is a deficiency in knowledge. The conflicting aspects (particle and wave pictures) in our comprehension of physical reality, cannot be completely accommodated into an entire and coherent model of reality. What Bohr rejects is not realism, but the classical Einsteinian version of it. By the use of complementary descriptions, Bohr tries to save a fundamentally realistic position. The fundamental question in Barthian theology is the problem of God as an object of theological discourse. Dialectics is Barth’s way to express knowledge of God avoiding a speculative theology and a human-centred religious self-consciousness. In Barthian theology, the human capacity for knowledge, independently of revelation, is insufficient to comprehend the being of God. Our knowledge of God is real knowledge in revelation and our words are made to correspond with the divine reality in an analogy of faith. The point of the Bultmannian demythologising programme was to claim the real existence of God beyond our faculties. We cannot simply define God as a human ideal of existence or a focus of values. The theological programme of Bultmann emphasised the notion that we can talk meaningfully of God only insofar as we have existential experience of his intervention. Common to all these twentieth century philosophical, physical and theological positions, is a form of anti-Cartesianism. Consequently, in regard to their epistemology, they can be labelled antirealist. This common insight also made it possible to find a common meeting point between the different disciplines. In this study, the different standpoints from all three areas and the conversations in Göttingen are analysed in the framework of realism/antirealism. One of the first tasks in the Göttingen conversations was to analyse the nature of the likeness between the complementary structures in quantum physics introduced by Niels Bohr and the dialectical forms in the Barthian doctrine of God. The reaction against epistemological Cartesianism, metaphysics of substance and deterministic description of reality was the common point of departure for theologians and physicists in the Göttingen discussions. In his complementarity, Bohr anticipated the crossing of traditional epistemic boundaries and the generalisation of epistemological strategies by introducing interpretative procedures across various disciplines. Keywords: antirealism, complementarity, dialogue, epistemology, ontology, realism, representation, semantics PREFACE As a young student in biology, I took an interest in the questions concerning the relation between religion and science. At those times, it primary dealt with the problem of how the Biblical creation narratives could be read in a time when the evolution theory had the last word. Soon I realised that the problem had far- reaching consequences for the way in which Christian faith as a whole could be interpreted in an age of science. I found both religious fundamentalist and atheist scientism explanations too narrow-minded and exclusive. I was more and more convinced of the opinion that there ought to be at least one middle way between the two opposites. As a confessing Christian it was important for me to express my faith in God as Creator of heaven and earth and simultaneously articulate credible scientific statements concerning the origin of the visible empirical reality. I was convinced that truth never can be one-eyed and one-dimensional. Consequently, it pleased me to find that the Danish physicist Niels Bohr had said that the opposite of truth is not necessarily a lie but another profound truth. When I recognized that Bohr inspired scientists and theologians in the search for a common truth, I decided to study those interdisciplinary conversations in more detail. The starting point for my project was set. The result of an almost twenty year long exploration is now in your hands. Sometimes the process has been intensively creative, sometimes characterised by long periods of hibernation. The process would not have been possible to conclude without study leave and financial support during the past decades. The first steps were taken in the Department of Systematic Theology of the University of Helsinki under the supervision of Professor Simo Knuuttila to whom I wish to express my thanks. After my transfer to Turku (Åbo), my tutors were Professor Hans-Olof Kvist and later, and principally, Professor Tage Kurtén. Prof. Kurtén, in particular, has given me continuous support and encouragement. During the last months of 2004, Professor Kurtén offered me so much of his time and labour, that, at times, I had the impression of being his only research student. I want to thank him for his patience, carefulness and excellent eye in discriminating between vital points and unnecessary details. I also want to express my gratitude to Professor Eeva Martikainen for membership and support in her interdisciplinary project “Theology and the Concept of Reality” in the Academy of Finland. Financial support from Academy funds facilitated my work. Other financial support has been given from the Foundation of the Research Institute of Åbo Akademi (Stiftelsen för Åbo Akademi forskningsinstitut), the Church Research Institute (Kirkon tutkimuskeskus), the Foundation of Oskar Öflund (Oskar Öflunds stiftelse), the Fund of Ingrid, Margit och Henrik Höijer (Ingrid, Margit och Henrik Höijers donationsfond), the Foundation of Leo och Regina Wainstein (Leo och Regina Wainsteins stiftelse) and the Foundation of Waldemar von Frenckell (Waldemar von Frenckells stiftelse). I also want to thank lecturer, Mr. Christopher Grapes, for his help regarding the English language. I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Tarja Kallio-Tamminen who kindly has read and commented on the chapter concerning quantum physics. One thing is certain: I would not have succeded in finishing this lengthy process without the support of my wife Helénè Liljeström. In times when I have almost given up hope to complete my efforts, she has encouraged and supported me. She has also helped me to see that there are other important things in life than academic research. I dedicate my book to her and to our children Sebastian, Simon, Viktor and Aurora, in the hope that our children have seen another side of their father than a post-graduate student with mind and nose in some all too interesting books. Sibbo, Hilarymas Day 2005 Stefan Djupsjöbacka CONTENTS 1 THE GÖTTINGEN CONVERSATIONS 1949 – 1961. AN INTRODUCTORY SURVEY. 1 1.1 Aim of the Study 1 1.2 The great turmoil 1 1.3 Göttinger Theologen-Physiker Gespräch 6 1.4 Former Studies concerning the Relation between Science and Theology 15 1.5 The Course of the Study 16 1.6 Material and Method 23 2 THE CRISIS OF REPRESENTATION 25 2.1 Introduction 25 2.2 René Descartes 32 2.3 Immanuel Kant 34 2.4 Epistemological problems in science and theology as expressions of the Crisis of Representation 40 3 REALISM AND ANTIREALISM 42 3.1 Science and the Philosophical Realism/Antirealism Discussion 43 3.1.1 Ontological Realism and Antirealism in Philosophy and Science 44 3.1.2 Epistemological Realism and Antirealism in Philosophy and Science 49 3.1.3 Semantic Realism and Antirealism