Werner Heisenberg — there’s a name you probably don’t discuss much at the kitchen table. I doubt many people outside of either the scientific world or academia have heard of him. Heisenberg was a German physicist during the turbulent years of the early twentieth century. A contemporary of notable physicists such as Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, his work furthered our understanding of many complex scientific issues of the day. Heisenberg’s important contributions came in the areas of nuclear physics, quantum mechanics and particle theories. His efforts earned him not only a nomination from Einstein for the Nobel Prize in Physics, but the prize itself in 1932. During WWII he worked in Hitler’s nuclear program, often at odds with the Nazi leadership, until his capture by the Allies in the waning days of WWII. After the war, he continued his work for the West, shunning recruitment by the Soviets to work for their side during the Cold War.
Unfortunately, I am intellectually ill-suited to discuss Heisenberg’s accomplishments in great detail or understanding. I will leave these discussions to the theoretical physicists of our day. Even so, there is one principle crafted by the mind of Heisenberg that I want to explore for a moment. Believe it or not, it’s a principle that has cast a great deal of light upon my own Christian experience. I only hope Mr. Heisenberg can posthumously forgive me for greatly oversimplifying a portion of his important work.
I have no doubt some of you reading this have a healthily skepticism of the notion that science and Christianity have much in common with each other. It is true both of these worlds have experienced much tension and conflict with each other in years past. After all, the Pope had Galileo placed under house arrest until his dying day for theorizing the Earth revolves around the sun. Not to mention, many modern scientists are of the firm opinion that science has replaced God. Regardless of past or present disagreements, I think both camps have much more in common than most people realize.
Take for instance Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Published In 1927, Heisenberg’s theory served as a foundation for interpreting quantum mechanics. Without going into technical detail, his principle stated that the absolute position of an atom could never really be determined conclusively. This principle has nothing to do with the limits of technology but rather has everything to do with the characteristics of an atom. Please bear with me and you will soon see where I am going with all of this.
Before we go farther I must address two concepts. The first concept we all know — in order to “see” an object, light must be reflected off the object and then back to your eye. The second, which you may not realize, is that light is actually made up of tiny particles even smaller than atoms. These particles are called photons.
By stating we can never know an atom’s true position, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle gave rise to what is called the “observer effect”. This says if you were to use light in an attempt to “see” an atom, the photons in the light would strike the atom and move it out of its original position — thus the uncertainty of the atom’s position.
Closing in on my point, what this means is that no one can ever truly see an atom. Let’s think about this for moment. The atom is the foundation and basis for all studies of science. It is the atom that is the heartbeat of chemistry, material science, physics, and biology. The movement of its electrons produces electricity in thunderstorms and induces magnetism in metals. Group certain atoms together and you get a material that will undergo photosynthesis to provide food for plants. Combine other atoms together and a material is formed that can either provide massive amounts of energy for homes and businesses or destroy whole cities in a single instant. Mix other atoms together and medicines potent enough to cure cancer or benign enough to ward off headaches can be created.
Yet even though the atom is the central figure of all things science, no scientist will ever lay eyes on one. According to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and the related observer effect, no atom will ever, can ever, be seen. Sure scientists can measure its mass, determine its effects upon other objects, predict its behavior, and understand its characteristics. But not one scientist will ever behold an atom. So in order for scientists of any field to truly believe in their atom they must have one thing — faith. They must have faith their calculations, experiments, and models are correct. They must have faith to transform the empirical data they possess in their minds into a belief they hold in their hearts. They must have faith the atom actually exists at all.
Do you notice any parallels with Christianity? Certainly God is the central figure of our Christianity. And to be sure, none of us will ever see God in our lifetime. This is cause enough for many to say we should give up our belief in him. But to do this would fly in the face of everything we know to be true. Perhaps we can’t see him. But we can measure the effect his love has had upon our lives. We can observe the change he produces in others. We can understand more and more of his character the closer we grow to him. Through this ever-increasing understanding of him and the study of his word, we can predict his actions and reactions. Best of all, we can always feel him by our side when we need him most. Everything we know and understand about God is a result of our observation and study of his ways. Not unlike scientists with their atoms, this knowledge of God in our minds fuels the belief residing in our hearts. This is our faith.
Perhaps science and Christianity have more in common than those on either side notice at first glance. My personal belief is that God created science just as he created us. The laws of physics and chemistry are laws he authored. Maybe science and Christianity aren’t identical twins. But I do believe we have the same father and at some point their two paths must cross. We just have to find where that juncture is located.
While accepting an award in front of the Catholic Academy of Bavaria in 1973, Heisenberg gave a speech entitled “Scientific and Religious Truth.” Through his speech, I will allow Werner Heisenberg to close this post in his own words.
”In what follows, then, we shall first of all deal with the unassailability and value of scientific truth, and then with the much wider field of religion, of which…this will be the hardest part to formulate–we shall speak of the relationship of the two truths.” 1
1Chapter 16 “Scientific and Religious Truth” in Across the Frontiers, 1974, Harper & Row, p.213-229
© Gregory M. Watson, 2010 (see Copyright Page for details)
While I would agree that there are similarities here, there is an arsenal of repeatable, empirical tests to prove the existence of what we call the atom (apart from “seeing” it via photons). Until such time as we have such a test for the existence of God, the faith required of a scientist (that other physical methods are equal to or better than sight) still stands an abyss away from the faith required of a believer (in no repeatable, empirical method at all).
Two cents.
Thanks for your comment astrowright. Actually, your point is the same as mine. This being that the believer does not have to see God in order to believe in him. In the course of the Christian walk, the believer too has administered an arsenal of life’s tests through which God has proven his existence to the believer over and over again. I mean no disrespect to any unbeliever (scientist or not). I am merely pointing out a parallel between two lines of thought – one traditionally empirical as you describe and the other traditionally faith-based. Again, thanks for your two cents – I actually believe it’s worth more though.
I apprecite your kind reply, and perhaps I didn’t appraise your post from the right perspective. I myself meant no disrespect. All-too-often Apologists justify faith-based beliefs by attempting to show that all science is equally faith-based, which I see as plainly untrue. However, I would agree that the walks of a believer and scientist are similarly based on experience. -A Christian on personal experience, and a scientist on empirical experience (data). Whether or not the former acknowledges the overriding validity of the latter, or vice-versa, is what I see as the source of most ideological science vs. religion confrontation today. The scientist mistrusts personal experience, waiting for something verifiable before believing it, while the Christian trusts personal experience, mistrusting any truth to purely objective reality. So, in a way, I think you’re right – we’re all doing the same thing. We just differ in opinion on what experience is more reliable. =)
Two more cents.
Once again, thanks for your well-crafted comments. Perhaps I didn’t fully allow my personal opinion to show through my writing. I apologize for this as I normally write with a Christian audience in mind. I think my writing would be better served if I kept in mind a much larger audience.
To expand my thoughts on the subject a bit, I do believe there is more common ground between the two poles than either side gives credit for. To be sure there are differences (seemingly incongruent differences), but I personally don’t believe those differences should make one side exclusive of the other. Since I am both an engineer and a Chrstian I feel as though I have a unique insight into both camps. I don’t disparage the principles and methods of science which I accept as fact while at the same time I am firmly convinced of the authenticty of scripture which I accept as holy. I have no trouble reconciling the two in my own mind and heart. But what I’ve found to be true is it’s very difficult for many who are wholly on one side or the other to see past preconceived ideas and traditions in order to truly understand the other. No doubt this is difficult as each side represents a different way of perceiving the world around them. But my personal belief is that they are two sides of the same coin. The problem is there are several issues that currently seem impossible for both sides to meet. Whether it is through scripture that may not have been interpreted correctly or scientific laws that may not fully be understood yet, my belief (or faith if you will) is that somewhere, somehow they do agree.
Again, many thanks for your comments. I’ve enjoyed reading your viewpoints on the subject. You are welcome to comment on my blog as often as you would like. Even if I were to disagree with someone on a particular point I would still welcome their perspective on the matter and defend their right to express their thoughts. In my book, this is the only way we learn. Take care.
Beautiful, Greg, thanks for sharing.
Thanks Dawn.
[...] P.S. – If you’d like to read the entire piece I wrote, you can find it in my original blog SonBurn by clicking HERE. [...]