Can We Know?: Postmodernism (Part 2)
In Part 1 of our discussion of twentieth-century physics and postmodernity, we tackled the shift from modernism to postmodernism; how the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen Interpretation, fits into that shift; and how many science and religion theologians embrace critical realism as a response to this movement. In this post, we’ll pick back up with critical realism, CI, and the foundations of science, before moving on to offer some other viewpoints and some closing thoughts. Settle in-- there's some more quantum coming your way. Here's a picture to whet your whistle:
All right, let's dig in!
Realism
As we talked about previously, critical realism is the idea that there is a fundamental reality out there and that, though in constant need of revision as we better understand reality, our theories do in some way describe that reality. This is in contrast to strong postmodern thinking, which rejects the idea of a fundamental truth or reality. Some Christians, in their defense of realism, contribute to the pushback against the broadening of morality to accommodate the diversity that comes with postmodernity. Truth (or the lack thereof) sloshes over from physics to ethics and back again and people’s lives get caught in the crosshairs-- think of all the discussions about religion, feminism, gender and sexuality, and racial discrimination that are completely derailed because of one side’s strict adherence to what they understand to be a universal Truth and the difficulty we experience in trying to hold so many individual truths in tandem. We can see in these discussions the continued use of modernist principles like the natural fallacy we’ve mentioned before which says that what is natural is good, used alongside postmodern truth claims. The end result is that both sides of ethical debates today argue over data, trying to use it to make claims one way or another. (For an explanation of the natural fallacy, along with other examples of ways our discussions take a turn for the less-than-logical, check out this site. It’s a good time).
While modern and postmodern ways of thinking continue to critique and criticize each other, it can be helpful to note that there are reasons why the natural fallacy and other ideas haven’t fallen by the wayside. We haven’t gotten away from this kind of thing partly because the denial of a reality from the basis of science undermines its own scientific argument. It is odd that CI should be the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics because science has historically operated and succeeded on the premise that reality is indeed knowable. (1) To become concerned only with the measureable, with a reality constructed by such measurements, would be to deny the fundamental motivation of science. (2) "This realist view is certainly the way scientists in general view their activities and their discoveries,” Holder explains. “It is supported by the success of science, and the way in which the world has a habit of surprising us (not least through quantum phenomena) speaks against it being merely constructed by our minds." (3)
Responses
While it is of the utmost importance to discern how to love best in our postmodern era, theologians like Nancey Murphy who stress the importance of a shift toward postmodernism receive pushback because of the tendency of postmodern theories to become idealist and detached from material reality. (4) That is, with the rejection of a Truth, of a physical reality we all have access to, postmodern theories tend toward the realm of ideas and the ideal and, as we have seen in the previous post, "it is the very reality of the object that is at issue in faith." (5) But the attempt to adopt some facets but not others of CI is a conflicted move to at once affirm critical realism and ontological indeterminacy. This is a place where a middle way is not the best solution to the problem and as a result, Christian critical realism has earned itself a reputation amongst some as “intellectual backwater.” (6)
But the Copenhagen Interpretation is not the only valid quantum metaphysic available. David Bohm’s ideas, though not universally accepted by the scientific community, are particularly interesting because he is described as a critical realist. Bohm’s theory was developed in the mid-1950s based on de Broglie’s concept of a pilot wave (which we’ll come back to in a second). This was several years after the publication of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen’s famed paper in 1935 meant to refute CI by pointing out a paradox at the heart of the interpretation, but which actually had an opposite effect, strengthening the acceptance of CI as the standard theory. Undeterred by this blow, Bohm took up the realist cause himself.
So what are Bohm’s ideas? Essentially, Bohm posits that quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of reality and that underneath apparent indeterminacy is an underlying objective foundation. (7) Think of the universe as one chaotic mess on the quantum level, with particles popping in and out of existence and being everywhere and nowhere at all, which is a strawman explanation of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Bohm suggests that sure, indeterminacy in the wavefunction (that is, the idea in CI that a particle can be in all possible states at once, like Schrodinger’s cat) is something that occurs, but that a pilot wave propagates throughout the universe, essentially guiding particles into the state the we find them in now.
To use precise language about the benefits of the idea, it has a holistic element to it that claims that this multidimensional ground of being is a unified wholeness that is present in each explicate part. (8) The ground of being is not created by the observer, instead, the object projects its traits and determines the way in which it is seen. In other words, "Entities are known only in ways that correspond to their idiosyncratic identities". (9, 10) In this way, Bohm’s hidden variables, those yet undiscovered operations that connect the implicate order to the observed explicate order, defend notions of both objective reality and causality. Basically, Bohm doesn’t reject the mathematics behind quantum mechanics; he introduces the pilot wave which “tells” the particles what state to be in, giving us the reality we observe.
Bohm has been largely ignored by theologians, and really, by academia in general. But dig into it and you may find that, despite its criticism, Bohm’s theory is slowly making a return as an empirically equivalent alternative to CI (11) and for being “just as good at accounting for the observed phenomena as its better-known rival.” (12) Bohm, in providing a theory that is at once critically realist and holistic, represents a much more workable interpretation for, say, Polkinghorne’s idea of a relational ontology or for Pannenberg’s eschatology in which every part of reality finds its meaning in the whole. (13) Moreover, such a holistic focus is actually characteristic of postmodernism, which values the progressiveness of a theory, its ability to generate further research and realize new connections. (14)
While this is all very academic, it does come out of a heartfelt desire on the part of science and religion thinkers to meet people where they are: to engage with the implications of ideas and schools of thoughts like postmodernism and quantum mechanics on their own turf. These efforts can come to fruition none too soon. As theologian Ted Peters explains: "When postmodernity finally does begin to draw the belated attention of the church, we can expect that one of the first things systematic theologians will do is search for a philosophical system that is both authentically postmodern and potentially compatible with the Christian faith. At that time Bohm's scientific theory will quite likely be considered as an aid to theology in a manner parallel to the roles played by the systems of Aristotle and Whitehead." (15) Theology has always tried to grow in understanding just as humanity itself has grown over the centuries and millennia. Tackling these ideas, while it may seem abstract, is just another branch of our efforts to better understand what we see in the world.
Conclusion
It is important to remember that postmodernism, like every other movement before it, is just that: a movement. Even though it’s the most recent line of thought we’ve embraced, it’s by no means the final one. If you will, we should be a little postmodern about postmodernism-- once we’ve let go of the certainty of our truth, it makes it easier to listen to the truths being spoken by others and maybe even come closer to the Truth, if it’s out there. Even those of us who live with the certainty of an honest-to-God truth out there would benefit from these words of Christian philosopher Keith Ward: “There is, no doubt, only one way in which things are…[but the worst thing to do] is to dismiss the views of others as ridiculous, being blind to the limitations of our own”. (16) When you have conversations about truth, it is worthwhile to honestly consider the opinions of those who disagree with you. Ask questions to get at why they believe what they do, what makes one thing more true than another, because while there may be truth and we may know truth, we are all limited by our own perspectives and information.
Some sources, for your viewing pleasure:
1. Norris, Quantum Theory and the Flight from Realism, 32.
2. Holder, “Quantum Theory and Theology,” 224.
3. Ibid., 225.
4. Ted Peters, “David Bohm, Postmodernism and the Divine,” in Science, Theology, and Ethics, Ashgate Science and Religion Series (Aldershot, Hants, England ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003), 97; Nancey C. Murphy, Theology in an Age of Scientific Reasoning, n.d., 201.
5.Southgate and Brooke, God, Humanity and the Cosmos, 110.
6. McGrath, A Scientific Theology: Volume 2: Reality, 208.
7. Southgate and Brooke, God, Humanity and the Cosmos, 136.
8. Peters, “David Bohm, Postmodernism and the Divine,” 97.
9. McGrath, A Scientific Theology: Volume 2: Reality, 285.
10. Ibid., 108–109.
11. McGrath, A Scientific Theology: Volume 3: Theory, 270.
12. McGrath, A Scientific Theology: Volume 3: Theory, 270.
13. Peters, “David Bohm, Postmodernism and the Divine,” 115.
14. Ibid., 97; Nancey C. Murphy, Theology in an Age of Scientific Reasoning (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993), 201.
15. Peters, “David Bohm, Postmodernism and the Divine,” 116.
16. Ward, 187
