Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:16:07.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Christology and Complementarity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Christopher B. Kaiser
Christopher B. Kaiser
Affiliation:
New College, Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A good deal has already been written on the possible relevance of Niels Bohr's principle of ‘complementarity’ to various theological issues. Bohr, himself, suggested that the concept might be useful in discussions concerning the relation of intra-mundane causality and divine providence, or that of human freedom and divine sovereignty. These suggestions have been taken up and developed by C. A. Coulson and D. M. Mackay, but they have also seriously been criticized, notably by I. G. Barbour. The principal difficulty encountered in regarding God and the world as ‘complementary’, in Bohr's sense of the term, is that Creator and creature are generally thought to be two distinct ‘entities’, in Christian ‘theism’, rather than two ‘modes’ of a single entity as ‘wave’ and ‘particle’ are two ‘complementary’ modes of an atomic object in physics.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 1976 , pp. 37 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 37 note 1 See John Baillie's account of Bohr's (unpublished) 1949 Gifford Lectures in The Sense of the Presence of God (London: Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 217Google Scholar; cf. Pollard, W. G., Chance and Providence (London: Faber, 1958), pp. 139, 151.Google Scholar

page 37 note 2 Coulson, C. A., Christianity in an Age of Science (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), pp. 20–33Google Scholar, Science and Christian Belief (London: Oxford University Press, 1955, Fontana Books, 1958), pp. 86–107Google Scholar, and ‘The Similarity of Science and Religion’, in Barbour, I. G., ed., Science and Religion (London: SCM Press, 1968), pp. 72–5.Google Scholar

page 37 note 3 Mackay, D. M., ‘Man as Observer-Predictor’, in Westmann, H., ed., Man and His Relationships (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1955), pp. 27f.Google Scholar, and ‘Complementarity II’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplement 32 (1958), pp. 120f.Google Scholar See also Globus, G. G., ‘Unexpected symmetries in the “world-knot”’, Science CLXXX (1973), 1135f.Google Scholar

page 37 note 4 Barbour, I. G., Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966), pp. 292ff.Google Scholar

page 37 note 5 Ibid. p. 293.

page 37 note 6 Bohr, N., Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature (London: Cambridge University Press, 1934), pp. 23, 77f.Google Scholar, 81, Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (New York: Wiley, 1958), pp. 6f.Google Scholar, 19, 21, 99 and Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1963), pp. 5, 11, 25, 63.Google Scholar

page 37 note 7 Atomic Theory, pp. 22f., Atomic Physics, pp. 9f., 20f., 62, 76, 92, 100, and Essays, pp. 26f.; cf: Elsasser, W. M., Atom and Organism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966).Google Scholar

page 37 note 8 Atomic Theory, pp. 24, 100f, 117, and Atomic Physics, pp. 11, 78; cf. Brody, N. and Oppenheim, P., ‘Application of Bohr's principle of complementarity to the mind-body problem’, Journal of Philosophy LXVI (1969), 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 38 note 1 Austin, W. H., ‘Waves, Particles, and Paradoxes’, Rice University Studies LIII, 2 (Spring 1967), 85–92Google Scholar; cf. Barbour, I. G., Myths, Models and Paradigms (London: SCM Press, 1974), pp. 151ff.Google Scholar

page 38 note 2 Review of ‘Waves, Particles, and Paradoxes’, in Scottish Journal of Theology xxv (1972), 94f.Google Scholar Note ‘trivial’ = ‘rival’!

page 39 note 1 On the use of the terms ‘incompatible’ and ‘coreferential’ see Bedau, H. and Oppenheim, P., ‘Complementarity in quantum mechanics: a logical analysis’, Synthese 13 (1961), 216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 40 note 1 Among those who opt for this solution are Margenau, H., The Nature of Physical Reality (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950), pp. 321f., 418Google Scholar; and Bunge, M., Foundations of Physics (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1967), p. 235CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Analogy in quantum theory: from insight to nonsense’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science xviii (1967), 270–3, 280ff.Google Scholar

page 40 note 2 Atomic Theory, pp. 8, 16, 23f., 53, Atomic Physics, pp. 25ff, 39f., 67f, 72f, 88f., and Essays, pp. 3, 5ff., 10f., 24, 59f., 78.

page 40 note 3 ContraAustin, W. H., loc. cit. pp. 30f., 89.Google Scholar

page 40 note 4 Cf. Bedau, H. and Oppenheim, P., loc. cit. pp. 221ff.Google Scholar

page 41 note 1 Austin, Contra W. H., loc. cit. p. 27.Google Scholar

page 41 note 2 On the use of the terms ‘negative’ and ‘positive analogy’ see Hesse, M., Models and Analogies in Science (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966), p. 58.Google Scholar

page 41 note 3 The ‘incommensurability’ of different ‘paradigms’ and their respective terminologies is discussed by Kuhn, T. S. in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn 1970), pp. 150, 198ff.Google Scholar

page 42 note 1 For Bohr's various uses of the terms ‘analysis’ and ‘application’ see Atomic Theory, pp. 23f., Atomic Physics, pp. 6f., 9, 27, 52, 90, 97, and Essays, pp. 5, 11, 13.

page 42 note 2 Atomic Theory, pp. 13, 23, Atomic Physics, pp. 6f., 9, and Essays, pp. 5, 11.

page 42 note 3 Atomic Physics, p. 9, Essays, p. 5.

page 42 note 4 Atomic Theory, pp. 11, 15, 54, and Atomic Physics, pp. 50ff., 78ff., 91f.; cf. Petersen, A., ‘The philosophy of Niels Bohr’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists xix, 9 (1963), 11.Google Scholar

page 43 note 1 Atomic Physics, pp. 40, 72, 90, 99, Essays, pp. 5, 11, 25.

page 43 note 2 Cf. Hilary, On the Trinity 11.7, ix.72.

page 43 note 3 Atomic Theory, p. 96, Atomic Physics, p. 26.

page 43 note 4 ‘One being (phýsis) of the divine Word made flesh’, Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 4Google Scholar (Against Nestorius 2).

page 44 note 1 Atomic Theory, p. 88, Atomic Physics, p. 98.

page 44 note 2 Leontius of Byzantium, Against Nestorius and Eutyches 1Google Scholar; Leontius of Jerusalem, Against Nestorius 11. 13.Google Scholar

page 44 note 3 Austin, Contra W. H., loc. cit. pp. 26Google Scholar, 28, 31, 86f., 89, and ‘Complementarity and theological paradox’, Zygon 1 (1967), 370ff.Google Scholar

page 44 note 4 Atomic Physics, p. 90.

page 44 note 5 Atomic Theory, p. 55, and Atomic Physics, pp. 4, 46. On the current status of this ‘semi-classical’ approach see Scully, M. O. and Sargent, M. III, ‘The concept of the photon’, Physics Today xxv, 3 (1972), 38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 44 note 6 Atomic Physics, pp. 40, 74, 90, 99 and Essays, pp. 4, 12, 19, 25, 60, 92.

page 44 note 7 Atomic Theory, pp. 10, 56, 94 and Atomic Physics, pp. 5, 26, 40, 74.

page 44 note 8 Atomic Physics, pp. 6, 9; cf. Atomic Theory, pp. 12, 87.

page 44 note 9 Atomic Physics, pp. 42f.

page 45 note 1 Pseudo-Cyril, , On the Holy Trinity 24Google Scholar; and John of Damascus On the Orthodox Faith 111.17Google Scholar; see Wolfson, H. A., The Philosophy of the Church Fathers 1 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956), pp. 423–7.Google Scholar

page 45 note 2 Atomic Physics, pp. 42f.

page 45 note 3 Hilary, , On the Trinity ix.5Google Scholar; Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistle 101Google Scholar; Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 1.95, v.5, vi.2ff.Google Scholar

page 45 note 4 Atomic Physics, pp. 42f., cf. pp. 19, 99 on particles ‘in’ atoms.

page 45 note 5 Atomic Theory, pp. 10, 19, 54, 77f., 85, 107.

page 45 note 6 Austin, Contra W. H., loc. cit. pp. 26, 31, 86f.Google Scholar

page 45 note 7 Atomic Theory, pp. 11, 59f., 63, 94.

page 45 note 8 Gregory, of Nazianzus, , Orations 37.2, 38.13.Google Scholar

page 45 note 9 Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 681); cf. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith 111.13.Google Scholar

page 46 note 1 Atomic Theory, pp. 18f., 60, 94f, Atomic Physics, pp. 40, 72, and Essays, pp. 5, 61.

page 46 note 2 Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius vi.1Google Scholar; Cyril of Alexandria, Epistles 4, 40, 46.Google Scholar

page 46 note 3 Atomic Theory, pp. 13, 23, 81, Atomic Physics, pp. 6f., 19, 21, 99, and Essays, pp. 2, 11, 25, 63.

page 46 note 4 Atomic Theory, pp. 23, 81, Atomic Physics, pp. 6f., 9, 99, and Essays, pp. 34, 63, 84.

page 46 note 5 Cf. Barbour, I. G., Myths, Models and Paradigms, p. 152.Google Scholar

page 46 note 6 Atomic Physics, pp. 4, 46.

page 46 note 7 Landé, Notably A., From Dualism to Unity in Quantum Mechanics (London: Cambridge University Press, 1960), pp. vii, xiiif.Google Scholar, 73f., 100, 104.

page 48 note 1 See e.g. Lossky, V., The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1957), ch. 5.Google Scholar

page 48 note 2 Compare Professor John Hick's analysis of the ‘Augustinian’ and ‘Irenaean’ types of theodicy in Evil and the God of Love (London: Macmillan, 1966Google Scholar, Fontana Library, 1968).