The Bottom Line
Pros
- A clear, accurate explanation of a wide range of quantum physics principles.
- An intriguing analysis of the rational study of "Christology"
- Systematic correlations between the methodologies used in these two fields.
Cons
- Does not address skeptical counterarguments.
- Reader needs some basic familiarity with Christianity and quantum physics before reading.
Description
- 2007, Yale University Press
- 112 pages, including index
- Five chapters + preface, acknowledgements, and index
Guide Review - Quantum Physics and Theology by John Polkinghorne
This book came to me by chance, as I noticed it sitting on a shelf in the library. Intrigued, I picked it up and decided to read it and review it for the site and, overall, I'm glad I did.Polkinghorne is certainly not trying to say that quantum physics in any way explains religious questions, such as how miracles take place. He's not interested in explaining them, really. He's interested in understanding their meaning and it's in that way that the book relates his work as a priest to the realm of quantum physics.
For example, Polkinghorne points out that wave particle duality in quantum physics is a case where two conflicting interpretations both apply to a situation. By analogy, in orthodox Christianity theologians must content with the concept that Jesus was both human and divine. Just as physicists reconcile the dual nature of light, theologians reconcile the seeming paradox of Jesus' true nature.
The book is, essentially, a series of such examples, which is both a benefit and a curse, I think. Polkinghorne never seems to really bring things together in a meaningful way. The examples, however, are not just superficial, but truly do cut to the heart of both quantum physics and theology, providing deep insights into both realms of inquiry.
Another shortcoming is that Polkinghorne never really resolves the fundamental difference between science and religion - that science can be replicated, while religion cannot. But, again, this isn't Polkinghorne's point ... but after doing such a good job with the similarities between the two subjects, it would certainly have been nice to have seen him address the fundamental differences as well.
It's not that Polkinghorne isn't aware of the differences, but just that it wasn't the point. This book is short, crisp, and on message: theologians, in their own way, use a scientific-like methodology.
