Quantum Christianity: Believe Again

by Aaron Davis

  ALBERT EINSTEIN

  Although Einstein is best known for his theory of relativity and was in many ways considered “anti-quantum mechanics” by his contemporaries, he actually won the Nobel Prize for his contribution to theoretical physics in 1921 with his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect (ultimately introducing the concept of photons).

  Einstein particularly disliked the popularly accepted idea within the theoretical physics community of the universe and nature being “random,” as Max Planck (1918 Nobel Prize Winner for this discovery of energy “quanta”) and many other physicists of that day proposed and seemingly agreed upon.

  In his famous quotation, “God does not play dice,” Einstein frustratingly argued that, based upon the current understanding of physics in that day, randomness would be impossible based upon his revolutionary theory of relativity, proposing that space and time were not independent of each other but actually interdependent and singularly coexisting as “space-time” with the relationship between mass and energy (E=mc2).

  In a nutshell, Einstein found that as an object approached the speed of light, c, the mass of the object increased. The object goes faster, but it also gets heavier. If it were actually able to move at c, the object’s mass and energy would both be infinite. A heavier object is harder to speed up, so it’s impossible to ever actually get the particle up to a speed of c.

  Until Einstein, the concepts of mass and energy were viewed as completely separate. He proved that the principles of conservation of mass and conservation of energy are part of the same larger, unified principle, conservation of mass-energy. Matter can be turned into energy and energy can be turned into matter because a fundamental connection exists between the two types of substance.9

  Yet during this same general period, physicists like Bohr, Dirac, Schrodinger, and Heisenberg were also presenting their own often-differing theories that were also foundational revelations for what we understand scientifically today.

  As new aspects of previously undiscovered scientific realities developed, these advancements and the introduction of additional variables necessitated a reconsideration of what had been previously accepted for centuries as physical law. It wasn’t that these quantum aspects of energy and the laws surrounding them were nonexistent before their discovery, but rather that mankind had not been aware of them or how they functioned. As a result, they’d never had reason or opportunity to contemplate how they existed or to theorize about their structure.

  However, after their discovery, there was an undeniable need to quantify their existence, presenting those considered mathematical geniuses of their day with an opportunity to build off the foundation of their previous understanding and stretch knowledge into an arena that had never been humanly traversed. They laid the groundwork for many major twentieth-century scientific advancements, not the least of which being the creation and harnessing of nuclear energy for electrical power, which likely directly affects you in some capacity.

  OUT OF THE BOX

  What I found particularly interesting about this turn of events in history is that it presented an opportunity for the scientists of that day to think outside of a previously understood metaphorical box and required them to consider the possibilities of what had previously been unknown to them. It quickly became clear that there was more to science than what they understood, and rather than continuing to exist—content only to know what they already knew about science, energy, and matter—they pursued to quantify that which they did not fully understand.

  Many theories and formulas were presented and considered within the scientific community, such as relativity, the structure of atoms, the Compton effect, how atoms interrelated, how gravity and radiation effect mass, the Uncertainty Principle—the list could go on and on. As an understanding of this new physics was slowly developing, one scientist would present his theory with all of the mathematical equations needed to justify it and another of equal genius would review that theory and the subsequent equation, point out the consistencies and inconsistencies within it, and in turn present his own modified version of the theorem and proof. Individually and collectively, a small group of brilliant minds from different countries, different backgrounds, and many times, different ideologies, collaborated and together built a framework of understanding that would revolutionize the future of physics and ultimately the world as they knew it.

  This quest for understanding more did not come without obstacles or even a direct confrontation of what may have been previously understood and accepted as truth. Occasionally, something would be theorized, collectively agreed upon, and then completely disproven by another, as in the case of the historically accepted belief that matter could not be created.

  Before the 20th century, it was assumed by scientists and theologians alike, that matter could not be created or destroyed by natural means. Of course, the form of matter can change, for example, during chemical reactions, but the total quantity of matter was considered without exception, constant . . . The belief that matter cannot be created by natural means collapsed dramatically in the 1930s when matter was first made in the laboratory. The events leading up to this discovery provide a classic example of modern physics at its best when Carl Anderson was studying the absorption of cosmic rays and . . . he spotted, for the first time, the unambiguous appearance of Dirac’s Anti electron. Matter had been created in the laboratory in a controlled experiment and Dirac and Anderson shared a Nobel Prize for this brilliant prediction and discovery.10

  The impossible had been achieved! A willingness to confront belief systems rooted in a driving pursuit of knowledge and understanding that paved the way for a quantum leap in scientific understanding, and over the course of a half century, the new physics was born.

  WHAT WE BELIEVE IS NOT ALWAYS WHAT IS TRUTH

  I think it is safe to say that personal and world history reveals to us that belief systems are often flawed by a failure to understand or maybe even acknowledge a previously unforeseen variable. I can think of many times in my life when my perspective on a situation changed completely when the variable within the scenario that was previously unknown to me became apparent.

  Once it was revealed to the physicists that there was more than what they had previously assumed or understood, their willingness to pursue and embrace additional information, sometimes exhibiting maybe even contradictory ideals that they previously held as truths, placed them in a position to be a catalyst for change. Had they viewed the information and remained content to not pursue the more that they had come to believe was available to them, history, or at least their contribution to it, could have been forever affected.

  As in the case of Christopher Columbus, inevitably the New World would have been discovered with or without him, but his willingness to embrace his destiny and confront the flat world ideals that many of his day embraced postured him forever as a world-changing historical figure. So, also, men of the early 20th century like Einstein, Bohr, Anderson, Dirac, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, and Planck, in their pursuit of a belief that there must be more than what they knew, penciled themselves into the history books with a willingness to confront common belief systems of their day and revolutionize scientific advancement.

  THE PARALLEL

  It is this same mentality and belief that there must be more based upon the information that has been presented and subsequently led to the deeper understanding of quantum physics, that challenged my traditionally accepted or indoctrinated religious belief systems and encouraged me to pursue the more that I believe may be available, based upon what I have come to understand through this pursuit.

  John 1:1–3 (AMP)

  In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.

  He was present originally with God.

  All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.

  The only thing new about the ne
w physics was human understanding of it. The laws establishing energy and matter are as old as the universe itself. Newton didn’t invent gravity. Einstein didn’t invent relativity. Dirac and Anderson didn’t necessarily invent the anti-electron. They simply exposed and clarified what was always available to us and only limited by our advancements and understanding of our physical universe.

  Paul Davies clearly conveys my heart for writing Quantum Christianity in the preface of his book, God and the New Physics, which was written to give his perspective between the existence of God (albeit different from my perspective) and how He exists or could exist within our understanding of quantum physics and concludes in reference to his book. He says, “I do not claim that the scientific discussions are either systematic or complete . . . My motivation for writing the book is that I am convinced there is more to the world than meets the eye.”

  Phil Mason shares a similar view:

  The Western world is undergoing a movement away from the concrete to the abstract, the rational to the intuitive, from the objective to the subjective, from rejection of the supernatural to acceptance of invisible spiritual realities. The discoveries of quantum physics somehow reflect and support this movement away from a traditional Western, rationalistic view of the universe to more intuitive acceptance of the interconnectedness of all things and the role of consciousness in the shaping of reality.11

  MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE

  Just as the revelation of Newtonian physics was the foundation for what was later elaborated upon with Quantum physics, I embrace what has been traditionally taught and understood as foundational Christianity. However, after a lifetime of studying the promises contained within the Bible, I’m convinced that there is more to what God intended for man than what is being experienced, popularly accepted, or maybe even understood.

  It is this pursuit of understanding more that led me to confront some of the very difficult questions that many have asked and failed to reach a place of resolution about, such as, “Where were you, God, when this tragedy happened?” I also wanted to further confront some popularly adopted Christian belief systems about God, His sovereignty, and His omnipotence. I ultimately reached the conclusion that not only is there more, but what that more may actually look like, in comparison to how it has been traditionally perceived.

  In all of my recent studies regarding the correlation between man and God and natural versus spiritual laws, Davies’ statement has rung truer than anything else I have read. I, too, am completely convinced that there is more than meets the eye or has been previously understood or taught from a theological standpoint, as it relates to the interconnectedness of God and man.

  CHAPTER FIVE

  A God of Covenant

  “In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

  —Werner Heisenberg, Across the Frontiers

  When exploring the deeper questions about God, who He is, and how He relates to man, I have discovered that it is essential to have an understanding of the subject of covenant and particularly what a covenant relationship between God and man looks like from a biblical perspective.

  Psalm 89:34 (KJV)

  My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

  I recognize that Scriptures like Psalm 89:34—and others defining God as a covenant-keeper or one who cannot lie—are among some of the most difficult to comprehend or rationalize when comparing what often seems like polarized extremes between our experiences and what God has promised in the Bible. Like Pastor Sergio De La Mora of Cornerstone Church in San Diego says, “Our God is the God of restoration. Nothing moved Him to step out of heaven, leave His throne, and become flesh, except the plight of humankind.”

  I believe that a significant part of the confusion lies in the modern-day misunderstanding and even ignorance of what a covenant is, when coupling that with additional factors about what covenant looks like from a biblical perspective and how different covenants that God has made with man throughout the Bible interrelate with each other.

  This confusion and diversity in perspectives surrounding God and man is not limited only to those who have not extensively studied the Bible. As a matter of fact, I’ve yet to meet a single person, Christian or not, who at some point has not had probing questions concerning who God is, how He relates to us, and why things happen the way they do.

  While doing research for this book, I found that many of my own questions were directly reflective of who I believed God to be or who I had been taught that He was, particularly as it pertained to His direct (or perceived indirect) involvement with man.

  Many of these questions involved my personal understanding (and oftentimes misunderstanding) of covenant from a biblical perspective. But likely, the most significant factor for my own resolve is that understanding covenant from a biblical perspective was an essential prerequisite to being able to connect the dots on nearly every other question I had, as it pertained to God and how He relates to me in the grand scheme of life.

  Understanding covenant within the confines of our relationship with God can be complex and has, at times, been overwhelming for me, but nevertheless, understanding our covenant with God is foundational for nearly everything else that will be written in this book. And as a result, it is essential that I clarify some of what I have come to understand in order for you to track with me for the remainder of this journey.

  The difficulty in writing this chapter is that I could (and probably will in the future) write an entire book on the subject of covenant. Recognizing the diversity of readers and their knowledge on this subject, I’m cautious not to put so much information in this chapter that it encourages people who (like I would have likely been) think they already know about covenant to skip this chapter and perhaps miss something new and even possibly transformational in their perspectives. But I also do not want to assume a pre-knowledge and underemphasize or under-inform you, the reader, who may have never been taught anything about our covenant with God.

  So, with that understanding, I would like to first address what covenant is from a biblical perspective. We will then discuss some key aspects of biblical covenant and how this relates to us today.

  WHAT IS COVENANT?

  In pulpits around the world, the word covenant is often used but rarely defined by our leaders, leaving you as the hearer to your own interpretation of the word. Some may immediately associate the word with marriage, having heard the words marriage covenant at a wedding. Others immediately associate the word with a legal contract relating to property ownership, restrictions, and the sale of land. Still others may view the word directly as a promise. All of these have legitimate application as it pertains to the biblical understanding of covenant, but they don’t necessarily define it as a whole because there is more to it than our everyday understanding, or perhaps, better said, often misunderstanding.

  Within all of these partially correct perceptions lie also some incorrect perceptions associated with them by default because of modern experiences. For instance, although in a marriage covenant two people commit to for better or worse, until death do us part, in our modern society, with a majority of these covenants ending in a legal divorce before the fulfillment of these vows sworn to each other, there is an experientially connected ideal that although covenants are supposed to be unbroken, they can be with little consequence.

  These types of perceptions also relate to other forms of covenants, contracts, and
promises in which there is a commitment made. In our society today, there almost always exists a loophole in the covenant where, if you try hard enough, you can get out of it even if you swore otherwise and sincerely meant it at the time.

  Think about the convincing message sent when someone puts their hand on the Bible in a court of law, raises their other hand, and swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. It sure looks good. It probably makes the person feel like they are doing what’s right and hopefully also leaves the jury feeling better about the person affirming, but with all of the lies, deceptions, and games by legal teams, does anyone really believe this charade beyond its display? In the back of our minds, isn’t there always the underlying “take it with a grain of salt” perspective present?

  We know people lie. Now let’s look at how that underlying perspective translates as we apply it to God.

  THE WHOLE TRUTH . . . BUT NOT REALLY

  I’ve had the extreme pleasure of testifying in court more times than I can count. What many people outside of law enforcement or the legal fields don’t know is that they make you promise to tell the whole truth but then the judge often tells you (apart from the jury’s knowledge) that you have to leave some part of the truth out, even if it is directly a part of the whole truth, because, from his perspective, it may prejudice the jury. In essence, this leaves you with a catch-22. You promise to tell the whole truth from the jury’s perspective, but there’s a legally binding loophole behind-the-scenes, keeping you from fulfilling your promise, and resulting in a complete mistrial if you do tell the whole truth anyway.

  I once worked a case in which a young teenage girl was raped by an adult family friend. He snorted a line of methamphetamine on her dresser in her room moments before raping her. Through the development of the case, I was actually able to find meth residue on the girl’s dresser in the spot she stated it took place, and confirmed that she did not have meth in her system. Furthermore, the perpetrator admitted to me to snorting the meth in her room on that day.