Chapter Seven
THE BIRKBECK METAPHYSICS AND CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
The previous chapters outline Bohm's organismic and
holistic physics. These develop from his early hidden variables ideas through
to his contemporary quantum potential and holomovement theories. Included in
the discussion are an introduction to his metaphysics and his religious ideas,
plus the relation of these to his physics.<
This chapter will concentrate on several questions raised by Bohm's physics and metaphysics for Christian theology. The place of God in his metaphysics will be the special focus. I will also begin an outline of a theology based on his metaphysics.
Several writers seek a theology heavily influenced by
twentieth century physics. Dean Fowler, Richard Schlegel, Karl Heim, Carl
Raschke, are only a few to pursue such a course. Further, some particular
issues raised by quantum physics encourage theology. Examples include the
measurement problem and quantum uncertainty.<
Bohm's physics is, therefore, not the first to provide a
context for theological questions. It is also a good place for such
conversation. Barbour and Robert Russell write that Bohm's work "is ripe
for theological interpretation, since concepts such as cosmos, wholeness,
fragmentation, and implicate order are extended as integrating metaphors to all
of experience. Through it can come new language for God and human nature, for
estrangement and community, for religious experience in contemporary culture."<
THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS FROM BOHM'S METAPHYSICS
Some Christians are loud in their praise for the holistic
view of Bohm. Charles Birch and John Cobb are examples. So is Virginia Stem
Owens in her mystical theology based on Bohm's nonlocal interpretation of the
EPR experiment.<
Some writers are negative, however. Mark Doughty writes in
the
It is easy for Christians to connect with points in Bohm's religious thinking. Three examples immediately spring to mind. Bohm's theology assumes there is a beyond completely inaccessible to us. This sounds like the God of the theology of Karl Barth and his followers. It is like the God the Christian theologian Gordon Kaufman calls the real God. This God is totally unknowable as it really is. For Bohm, only intuition can help in understanding God. Even then the understanding is fragmentary. For Kaufman, not even this fragmented knowledge is possible.
The holomovement provides the second example of a point in Bohm's thinking open for theological comment. Is the holomovement a product of the creator God, or is it the same as the creator God? The former does an injustice to Bohm because for him the holomovement is the center of creativity. The alternative of equating God and the holomovement contradicts Bohm's belief in a beyond. Yet, Russell pursues it in his comparison of Bohm's metaphysics and Christian theology. I shall look at and respond to it below.
The movement part of the idea of the holomovement also relates to theology. This is the third example of a topic in common to Christian theology and Bohm's metaphysics. The question is whether or not there is a purpose or development in the movement of the holomovement. Movement brings to mind the sense of direction in the Judeo-Christian approach to history. The world is going somewhere, from creation to its fulfillment. It is moving toward its salvation. Ideas such as progress and evolution start in part with this religious insight. This Christian concept may significantly differ from Bohm's ideas. The former is movement in a specific direction for a purpose. The holomovement, on the other hand, may not go anywhere. In Bohm's scheme, the movement of the holomovement does not have a purpose or a goal. It is the unfolding of the implicate order out of the explicate and the correlative folding back into the implicate. On second thoughts, the explicate order may be going somewhere if it is toward increasing complexity. This could tie in with the Christian idea.
The holistic view of Bohm, therefore, touches several
topics in theology. It might be useful for theology as a store of ideas. There
is a second possible use as well. Bohm's perspective provides a motivation for
theology's interaction with other disciplines. In fact, it encourages
interdisciplinary studies. It says no one perspective can provide the complete
understanding, and each depends on the others.<
Russell's Comparisons
In the middle of
The first is the theological relevance of critical realism. Critical realism is a philosophical position that insists both subjective and objective factors play a part in knowing. It avoids two opposite extremes. One says all knowledge is completely subjective. The human imagination constructs knowledge without any reference to a world independent of the knower. The other extreme is that all knowledge is completely objective by being a perfect replica of reality itself. Critical realism is a compromise between the two. It says there is a reality independent of the knower which somehow or other knowledge reflects. It also insists subjective factors play a part in the process of knowing. We cannot separate the subjective and the objective aspects of knowledge.
Russell suggests several contemporary theologians use
critical realism and that it is similar to Bohm's own approach. There could be
a fruitful interchange between the critical realism used in theology and Bohm's
form of realism. This he calls nonlocal realism. It has to do with the results
of the EPR experiment in which an event correlates with another simultaneous
event some distance from it. The nonlocality of quantum physics attacks the
classical belief that knowledge mirrors reality perfectly. It suggests to Bohm
there are unusual, almost subjective, connections in the objective world of
quantum objects. Nonlocal realism is, therefore, like critical realism.<
The second area Russell considers requires fuller examination and will be the subject of the next section.
To open the third area for comparison, Russell asks a
question. Does the order in Bohm's universe lead to beauty, design, or
purpose? Does it operate logically and, if so, is this because the divine
created it? Is the order that Bohm explores in the universe evidence of the
intentional design of some creator? Does this design imply a purpose for the
universe on the part of the creator? Russell feels the order inherent in Bohm's
scheme could
The fourth area of comparison concerns grace, free-will
and quantum uncertainty. The members of this trio of ideas have a history
of mutual debate. For example, several writers see quantum uncertainty as
leaving a space for free-will within an otherwise determined
world. Not only is human free-will involved. Does a determined world leave any
space for God's activity? There is, according to Bohm's metaphysics. The world
contains infinitely many levels. In some of these determinism predominates and
in others uncertainty holds sway. Since there is no bottom level, neither
uncertainty nor determinism can have the last word. Thus, Russell concludes,
there is in principle room for God's actions. Grace or God's activity could
occur in the ordered levels as well as in the levels of chance. It does not
have to work only on the bottom rung of nature. Alternatively, God's activity
may fold into nature. There it may unfold in the decisions of the self.<
One could picture God's activity in this way. Unfortunately, Russell does not make it clear how God acts in or on the world, be it within the implicate order or otherwise. Neither is it clear what God does in these supposed actions. Further, suppose God's actions occur in otherwise unused levels in Bohm's infinity of levels. It would then be difficult to avoid a situation in which God is irrelevant for explanations. These problems are not unique to Russell's use of Bohm; they exist for current theology and science. Theology's explanations are irrelevant to other disciplines.
The universe is a whole, but can be broken into subwholes that act independently within the explicate order. Russell's next point suggests using this wholeness idea of Bohm as a theological model for the church. The church is a whole, the members of which come together in Christ. Yet in this total body, each person does not lose her or his individual nature or uniqueness.
The final theological area that Russell compares with
Bohm's ideas he entitles fragmentation, evil and the self. Fragmentation
is disruption of the wholeness. It extends from matter to society to the
individual to knowledge itself. Russell asks about the relation between
fragmentation and evil. Traditional theology, he writes, gives meaning to evil
only in morality. Evil is not primarily a property of the natural or inanimate
world. At most physical destruction and pain in nature form the background for
corruption at the personal and social levels. Russell suggests Bohm's idea of
fragmentation for moving from the human and social moral understanding of evil
toward seeing its physical dimensions. "Nature (as explicate order) seems
broken...in need of a deeper unity which may lie at the hidden, implicate
level."<
Russell goes further. Bohm's ideas may provide ways to help overcome social and psychological fragmentation. The holomovement character of the physical world, for instance, may supply clues for overcoming the brokenness of the human world. In particular, we can take note of how its parts combine.
GOD IN BOHM'S METAPHYSICS
The second of Russell's comparisons between Bohm and Christian theology, skipped above, is more important for this discussion than are the others. It concerns the universe and God.
Russell sees two parallels between Bohm's thinking about the universe and that of the Christian theological tradition. First, Bohm thinks of the universe "as an objective, self-contained, [connected] whole....[It is] a unit of infinite complexity. Nothing can arise out of nothing." Everything in nature comes from something else. Everything is the product of strings of generations. This idea, Russell suggests, is similar to the belief that everything depends for its existence on God's sustaining power. Everything depends on the continuous activity of God as creator.
The second parallel between Bohm's universe and the
Christian God centers on the world being "a single, whole and yet on-going
creation of God." Russell suggests this may come from Bohm's ideas of
nonlocality and the connections among everything. Here may be the means for
fleshing out this theological idea that ought to, but does not, have close ties
with physics.<
Russell also looks at defining God to be the implicate
order or the holomovement. This is one of the interesting bridges from Bohm to
theology. God so defined, Russell notes, need not be personal. On the other
hand, this approach need not lead to pantheism, the belief that everything is
divine. Bohm's ideas "point to transcendent...features
of nature which could correspond to divine presence." On balance,
Russell concludes, Bohm is probably closest to a panentheistic image of God.
God contains the universe.<
Russell has an incorrect understanding of the divine in
Bohm's metaphysics. Bohm does not believe God is the holomovement or that God
contains the holomovement. For Bohm, the divine is beyond the holomovement,
beyond all implicate orders. God is beyond them in ways that defy our ideas. In
Bohm's scheme, the holomovement is part of the created order.<
This error of Russell is understandable. Bohm's writings
present a confused picture. Few of his publications even discuss this
beyondness and the others imply both placements of the divine. One can easily
gain the impression from most of Bohm's writings that the holomovement is God.
It is not until reading an article like the
In the same issue of Zygon: Journal of Religion and
Science in which Russell's paper appears, Ted Peters also asks whether the
holomovement is divine. He thinks the holomovement is not God. It could not be
for Christian theology, and is not for Bohm himself. For Bohm, the holomovement
is holy only in the sense that the word whole is the origin of the word holy. It
is not sacred in the sense of what an organized religion might consider divine.<
However, continues Peters, talk of the whole does suggest talk of God. It also suggests there is only one God. Traditional belief suggests a difference between God and the universe, similar to the distinction between a potter and the pots he or she creates. On the other hand, continues Peters, the idea of a single reality probably attracts Bohm. Bohm would thereby deny two points. First, he would not make a distinction between God and the universe. Second, he would deny that the universe depends entirely on God.
Peters' interpretation of Bohm appears incorrect. He is
right in saying that to Bohm's mind the holomovement is not divine. He is
incorrect in saying Bohm thinks there is only one reality. Bohm is not a monist
as Peters suggests. There is something beyond the holomovement, something about
which we can say nothing. It is to this we may more correctly apply the label
divine. Bohm's response to Peters makes this point quite clear. That the
universe is not divine is especially important for Bohm. Rather, he regards the
universe as he does any scientific theory; it is inherently incomplete and
depends on what is beyond it.<
Religious thinkers will and have equated the implicate
order, the holomovement, with God, despite Bohm's intentions. Besides Russell
and Peters, David Trickett is another example. He thinks Bohm sees a human as a
sort of image of the implicate order. Then he asks whether God is a projection
of this image of the implicate order. "If so, just what is the nature of
this God?" He also wants to understand the relations between God and such
aspects of the implicate order as human beings and nonhuman nature.<
Bohm's belief in God as the beyond bears striking
similarities to the divine in Kaufman's theology. There are problems with this
type of idea. For instance, it contains a contradiction. On the one hand, it
says there is a beyond about which we can say nothing. On the other hand, this
is saying something about the beyond, namely that we cannot say anything about
it.<
Bohm might respond that the beyond is not a concept. It is a reality experienced through meditation and insight, in ways words cannot describe. I disagree. Meditation and insight may lead to experiences different from normal. That is reasonable to say, but they may still be human experiences. That is not to deny the value of meditative or other techniques, or the existence of insight. It is to say they are not such different experiences that they bear no relation to other experiences. The language used to talk about them relates to the language used to talk about other human experiences.
The above issues concern the relation between theological language and what such language chiefly refers to, namely God. This problem needs facing. It is possible to do this without accepting Bohm's idea that God is completely beyond all language and description. Another approach is to develop the holomovement as an image of God. In the rest of this essay I will explore several results of taking the holomovement as a model for God.
A HOLOMOVEMENT THEOLOGY
Global Nonlocality
Wholeness is an essential property of the holomovement. Each part of it connects with all other parts. Nonlocality expresses this wholeness in the explicate order. It is also an important part of Bohm's metaphysics for theology. Its theological users lean toward a global nonlocality: everything connects with everything else. It is instantaneous and defies normal explanations. Nonlocality feels like the all-embracing being of God who is omniscient and omnipotent, not restricted by space and time.
Many topics in theology could use the nonlocality idea. For
example, Russell suggests nonlocal wholeness as a model for the church.
Nonlocality might also be a withinness and equated with the Spirit of God. When
associated with the holomovement, nonlocality injects a creativity into the
idea of God's Spirit.<
Global nonlocality is a way of talking about ecological
togetherness too. We are all in this together. If any part suffers, we all do.
Each of us connects with everything else.<
Peat's book Synchronicity explores global
nonlocality in a Jungian way.<
The above are examples of how theology might use global
nonlocality. One must be wary. Global nonlocality extends the nonlocality idea
of current quantum physics because the latter may only apply to the quantum
world even if over macroscopic distances. Nonlocality may be more
global. At present its global use is a metaphysical idea which does not have
physics' experimental
The Holomovement God as Creator
While the idea of nonlocality may be useful for theology, so might the idea of the holomovement. After all, Bohm uses the holomovement to explain nonlocality. I will explore theology's using the holomovement idea as a model for God.
Several matters follow directly from this assumption.
To start with, there are two ways to take it. The weaker is to make the relation between God and the world like that between the holomovement and the arena of human experience. The God-world relation is like the implicate order-explicate order relation. Many purposes only need this. Other purposes require something stronger, namely that God be like the holomovement. Exploring the theology of the holomovement God often needs the latter.
Second, God contains the world as the implicate contains the explicate. The explicate comes from the implicate and folds back into it. The explicate is a particular part or restriction of the implicate. Further, as the explicate folds back into the implicate, what happens in the explicate order affects the implicate. The world and human beings can affect God.
For theology, God is the creator of the world. In the new model this is also the task of the holomovement. So describing the activity of the holomovement is describing the activity of God.
There are two traditional ways of talking of God as creator. The first is of God creating out of nothing at the beginning. The second is of God continually creating the world and all that is in it, moment by moment. Both forms of creative activity are present in the holomovement model of God.
Consider first the idea of God initially creating the universe. The point of the Christian doctrine is that the universe and everything in it depend for their existence on God. This has its parallel in a holomovement theology. The explicate order depends on the implicate for its being.
The other part of the doctrine of creation has to do with God's continuous creativity or creating. Tradition calls it God-the-sustainer. The holomovement language provides a means for talking of this creating in both the human and natural worlds. Bohm describes the holomovement as continually unfolding itself, thus creating the explicate order of our experience. The holomovement God is continually making each item, relation, feeling, and so on, in the world. God does it moment by moment by unfolding the potential in the implicate holomovement which itself is God. Russell points out this parallel: everything depends on the continual activity of God as creator.
God is not the only creator. When they take part in the
activity of the holomovement, humans and other beings create the explicate
order along with God. One could say we participate in the divine creativity by
reaching into the holomovement in our creative acts.
The God who is the holomovement is not only everything that is potential. Part of God is also the mechanism by which that potential becomes actual. The holomovement model says how this mechanism works, thereby describing how God operates. Scientific laws are descriptions of the way God works. The laws do not have any power themselves. Neither do they refer to Platonic-like powers that exist as part of or at another level from the world. They describe the action of God. Thus, a holomovement theology describes how God brings each moment into existence.
The Transcendence and Immanence of the Holomovement God
Discussing the creator God leads to talk of mystery and transcendence. This leads to spirituality.
The world, according to Bohm, has an endless depth. In his words, there is a qualitative infinity to nature. The implicate order unfolds into the explicate order of our experience, but the unfoldings can always be different; they are only partial. This means we can never know the world in full. Nature will always elude us and lie beyond our comprehension, despite the success of our knowledge. The qualitative infinity of nature says the holomovement metaphysics is not going to produce a mechanistic, anti-religious explanation of everything.
Mystery will always face us. Our sense of the wonder, and of the corrupt depths into which humans can fall, are on target. There is more to life and to all and everything than we can grasp.
The holomovement God will always transcend us and our explicate world. The holomovement eludes our knowledge. All we can have are glimpses into the unknown that is both reality and the creator God. This transcendence is not absolute where we can know nothing of God. We just cannot know everything.
The holomovement God not only transcends our human world. God is also immanent by continuously bringing about each event of the world of our experience. Everything bears the mark of the holomovement. Everything is in God.
The immanence and transcendence of the holomovement God are the root of spirituality: we feel and sense something more within ourselves and our experience. We feel and sense an otherness that also connects with us closely. Holomovement theology expects a wealth of such spiritual experience. The difference from tradition is that this understanding of the spiritual is not of a wholly other. It is natural, but it does differ from us.
The Personal God
Another attribute of the holomovement God is that God is personal. One of the first personal traits we give to the holomovement is agency. It does things; we say the holomovement creates the explicate order by its unfolding. We can go a lot further. In fact, we can move quite beyond Russell's conclusion that the holomovement God need not be personal. Our emotions, thoughts, feelings, hopes, fears, relationships, joys, and so on, are part of the explicate order we experience. Yet they come from the holomovement. The subjective as well as the objective unfold from the implicate order. The two classes of experience are not distinct but partial views of reality. So God has to do with all personal traits.
It is also possible to think of God as transcending personal attributes. Many people think of personal qualities and experiences as the highest order possible for beings and organisms in the world. On the other hand, human beings are only parts of the whole that is the world. The world, furthermore, is a system whose features are difficult to fathom. The whole, God, not only includes human attributes but, by being a whole, goes beyond them.
The holomovement God is the source of all our objective and subjective experiences. Thus God could relate to us personally. Whether this happens and, if it does, what form the relation takes, are subjects for theology to ponder.
A related topic is consciousness. Suppose consciousness
comes from the evolution of the brain into an extremely complex system whose
parts are very closely connected. Suppose it is not a thing, but is a property
of such a system as the brain. The holomovement is more complex and internally
connected than is the brain. So one could think of it as
having the highest form of consciousness. It might even be pure
consciousness. Bohm says consciousness is of the material world and arises from
the holomovement. Each person's consciousness participates in the universal
consciousness (of humanity) found within the holomovement.<
CONCLUSION
This chapter has commented on and developed Bohm's ideas
from a Christian theological perspective.<
The intent of this work was to explore the physics of Bohm
and to seek points of contact between his ideas and Christian theology. A
previous chapter asked whether religious ideas such as Bohm's might have a
place in physics. The answer was yes. The question for this chapter was whether
the metaphysics, physics, and mathematics of the
There are at least three ways in which the ideas of the
First, Bohm himself holds particular religious views which are sufficiently mature to call them a theology. In fact, his God idea is similar to that of many theologians. Kaufman's concept has its roots in Barth and the Reformed tradition, giving Bohm's idea a long history in Christian theology.
Second, Bohm's metaphysics provides a base from which to develop a theology. It will continue to be useful in this way.
Lastly, the physics of the
My hope is that this conversation will broaden, deepen, and develop.