Is Science the only sure path to Truth?
Physics is “the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms” (Oxford Dictionaries). Till the first half of the eighteenth century, physics was a branch of natural philosophy. It “became widely used in its modern sense (i.e., excluding the life sciences, geology, and chemistry) during the second half of the eighteenth century” (Olson, 2002, p. 301).
Olson (2002) explains how physics is divided into two main categories. He states that topics treated before the middle of the last decade of the nineteenth century are said to be parts of classical physics. On the other hand a group of topics that emerged after about 1895 is said to make up modern physics.
Since physics is a broad area, in this essay, I specifically focus on one topic from modern physics, namely quantum physics. I will evaluate whether quantum physics can lead us to ‘Truth’. In this paper, ‘Truth’ refers to quantum events. First, I will portray how quantum events are filled with uncertainties; I will then list three answers given by physicists to explain why uncertainties are present. I will then move on to show how quantum physics offers conceptual parallels to ideas in religion. I will mainly discuss the role of holism character in quantum systems. Finally I will evaluate whether god is the reason for these indeterminacies.
Barbour (2000) states that in the 1920s, Erwin Schrodinger devised the wave equation of quantum theory, which accounts accurately for the discrete energy levels of electrons in atoms. The equation enables us to calculate the probability that an electron will show up at a particular point when an observation is made. However, it is not possible to predict the location or trajectory of an electron. A similar example exists with other pair of variables such as energy and time. For example, according to Barbour (2000), we can predict when half of a large group of radioactive atoms will have disintegrated, but we cannot predict when a particular atom will disintegrate.
Do these uncertainties represent the limitations of our knowledge or real indeterminacy and chance in the world? Three possible answers were given by physicists to explain these uncertainties. Uncertainty may be attributed to temporary human ignorance, inherent experimental or conceptual limitations or indeterminacy in nature.
According to Barbour (1998), a minority of physicists, including Einstein and Planck, have maintained the uncertainties of quantum theory are attributable to our present ignorance. “They believe that detailed subatomic mechanisms are rigidly casual and deterministic; someday the laws of these mechanisms will be found and exact prediction will be possible” (Barbour, Religion and science:Historical and contemporary issues, 1998, p. 171).

On the other hand, according to Barbour (1998), many physicists assert that uncertainty is not a product of temporary ignorance but a fundamental limitation permanently preventing exact knowledge of the atomic domain. Cassidy (2009) quotes Heisenberg who states that the impossibility of an objective world of perception was the “source of indeterminacy”. The first version of this argument claims that the difficulty is an experimental one. The uncertainty is introduced by the process of observation. For example, if we want to observe an electron, we bombard it with a quantum of light. This actually disturbs the situation we were attempting to study. Barbour (1998), states that the uncertainty is present because of this disturbance. However, this interpretation cannot be used to explain uncertainties when nothing is done to disturb the system. For example, the unpredictability of the time at which a radioactive atom spontaneously disintegrates. Barbour (1998) further states that the second version of the argument attributes uncertainty to our conceptual limitations. “By our choice of experimental situations we decide in which of our conceptual schemes (wave or particle, exact position or exact velocity) an electron will manifest itself to us” (Barbour, Religion and science:Historical and contemporary issues, 1998, p. 172). The structure of the atomic world is such that we must choose either casual descriptions or spatiotemporal descriptions, but we cannot have both at once.
Finally, in his later writings, Heisenberg held that the indeterminacy is an objective feature of nature. For example, instead of assuming that an electron has a precise position and velocity that are unknown to us, we should conclude that it is not the sort of entity that always has such properties. Another version of the argument is Hugh Everett’s many-worlds interpretation. “Everett proposed that every time a quantum system can yield more than one possible outcome, the universe splits into many separate universes, in each of which one of these possible outcomes occurs” (Barbour, Religion and science:Historical and contemporary issues, 1998, p. 173). According to Barbour (1998), we happen to be in the world in which the outcome we observe occurs. However, we have no access to other worlds in which duplicates of us observe other possibilities. This theory therefore, cannot be put to test because we do not have access to other worlds containing the potentialities unrealised in ours. Therefore, Barbour advises us to assume that potentialities not actualised in our world are not actualised anywhere. On that assumption, there is one universe that is objectively indeterminate.
I personally believe that the uncertainty is due to the atomic world. There is definitely the presence of reality beyond our world. Therefore, let us now consider certain theological implications to this situation. Quantum physics is said to offer conceptual parallels to ideas in religion. We will examine the holistic character of quantum systems.
Quantum physics challenges the reductionism of Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics “was reductionistic in holding that the behaviour of a system is determined by the behaviour of its smallest parts” (Barbour, When science meets religion, 2000, p. 66). However, quantum physics shows us that in new complex systems, “new properties appear that were not foreshadowed in the parts alone” (Barbour, When science meets religion, 2000, p. 81). “New wholes have distinctive principles of organisation as systems, and therefore exhibit properties and activities not found in their components” (Barbour, When science meets religion, 2000, p. 81). For example, Barbour states that the energy levels of an array of atoms in the solid state are a property of the whole system rather than of its components. Moreover, some of the disorder-order transitions and the so-called cooperative phenomena have proven impossible to analyse through the behaviour of the components-for example, the behaviour of electrons in a superconductor. “The whole has some features of wholeness which cannot be obtained from its parts” (Anatoljevich & Rodrigues, 1999, p. 14). An impressive form of holism known as nonlocality is shown in a type of experiment proposed by Einstein and more recently by John Bell. In one version, a source emits two photons, A and B, which fly off in opposite directions-left and right, let us say. One detector at the left measures the spin of A. The spin of B is immediately known; it is equal and opposite to that of A, since the system initially had total spin zero. In a 1997 experiment, the left detector was thirty kilometres distant at the far end of an optical fibre. The orientation of this detector was chosen while A was in flight- far too late for a signal to reach B before it arrived at the right detector, assuming that no signal can travel faster than the speed of light, as relativity theory requires (Barbour, When science meets religion, 2000, p. 82).
Quantum theory describes each photon in flight as a mixture (“superposition”) of waves representing all possible spin orientations (Barbour, When science meets religion, 2000, p. 82). Barbour (2000) then further goes on to state that…
Each set of waves collapses to a single value only when a measurement is made. How could the waves representing B know what is happening to the waves representing A? The connection seems to be instantaneous and does not decrease with distance as most physical forces do. However, we could not use such a system to send a message faster than the speed of light because the spin of A is unpredictable; it can be recorded but not controlled by the experimenter. Evidently the two particles originate in one event must be described by a single overall wave function, no matter how far apart they are (Barbour, When science meets religion, 2000, p. 83).

Barbour (2000) quotes Jean Staune who holds that such scientific knowledge demonstrates the existence of a level of reality that escapes time, space, energy, and matter, yet still has a casual effect on our material level of reality. He then further states that quantum physics alone cannot provide a complete picture of reality. However, it does provide the basis for a credible way to understand the existence of God, because the world no longer limits itself to our level of reality.
Since quantum physics suggests the existence of god, I will now move on to explore whether god has a role to play in these indeterminacies. Barbour (2002) states that since quantum events are not completely determined by the relationships described by the laws of physics, their final determination might be made directly by God. Many atheists believe that these events are caused by chance; however, I believe that god is the one responsible for all the events. Barbour (2002) states that divine sovereignty would be maintained if god providentially controls the events that appear to us as chance. He then further goes on to state that scientific research finds only law and chance. But in god’s knowledge, all events are foreseen and predetermined through a combination of law and particular divine action.
Since god’s action would be scientifically undetectable, it could neither be proved nor refuted by science. This would exclude any proof of god’s action of the kind sought in natural theology, but it would not exclude the possibility of god’s action affirmed on other grounds in a wider theology of nature. If god controls all events, then the traditional idea of predestination is preserved. However, “the problems of waste, suffering and human freedom would remain acute” (Barbour, Nature, human nature, and god, 2002, p. 28).
An alternative would be to say that most quantum events happen by chance, but god influences most of them without influencing the law of quantum physics. A possible objection to this model is that it assumes bottom up causality within nature once god’s action has occurred and thus seems to concede the reductionist’s claims that the behaviour of all entities is determined by their smallest parts (or lowest levels) (Barbour, Nature, human nature, and god, 2002, p. 28).
However, Barbour (2002) states that “most of these authors also allow for god’s action at higher levels, however, which then results in a top down influence on lower levels, in addition to quantum effects from the bottom up”. I personally like this approach as it puts many questions to rest. “Robert Russell is among those who hold that God influences only certain quantum events and also acts at higher levels as a top down cause on events at lower levels” (Barbour, When science meets religion, 2000, p. 87). This actually avoids the objections raised against the previous model, and “it would allow for chance, law, and God’s action in the quantum world”.
Therefore, if an event is not completely determined by physical laws, Barbour (2000) states that its final determination might in some cases be made directly by god, who would actualise one rather than another of the system’s potentialities. Since god’s actions do not violate the statistical laws of quantum theory, it cannot be detected by science.
This proposal which Barbour (1998) puts forward is not intended to be an argument for the existence of god in the tradition of natural theology, since uncertainties might still be attributable to human ignorance or to chance. “It is offered rather as a theology of nature- that is, in a way in which the god in whom we believe on other grounds might be conceived to act in ways consistent with scientific theories (Barbour, When science meets religion, 2000, p. 88).”
To conclude, I strongly believe that God is the determiner of the indeterminacies present in the world. Quantum physics can only help us understand events to a certain extent. If we wish to get the actual picture of reality then we must turn towards God. I will end my essay with a quote “Only one who can learn the process of nescience and that of transcendental knowledge side by side can transcend the influence of repeated birth and death and enjoy the full blessings of immortality” (Bhaktivedanta Swami, 1997).

Bibliography
(n.d.). Retrieved from Oxford Dictionaries: http://oxforddictionaries.com/
Anatoljevich, G., & Rodrigues, W. (1999). Non locality in quantum physics. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
Barbour, I. (1998). Religion and science:Historical and contemporary issues. London: SCM Press.
Barbour, I. (2000). When science meets religion. New York: HarpourCollins.
Barbour, I. (2002). Nature, human nature, and god. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Bhaktivedanta Swami, A. (1997). Sri isopanisad. Los Angeles: The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.
Cassidy, D. (2009). Beyond uncertainty:Heisenberg, quantum physics, and the bomb. New York: Bellevue Literary Press.
Olson, R. (2002). Physics. In G. Ferngren (Ed.), Science and religion:A historical introduction (pp. 301-313). Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.