Science and spiritual intuition

In this essay, I engage with the question: Is spiritual awareness or intuition possible? I argue that such an awareness may be conceived of as a real possibility within the context of quantum physics. This continues my presentation of a Judaeo-Christian worldview which ascribes a spiritual dimension to our world. 

The ancients believed in spirits and gods as well as some kind of spiritual intuition or awareness which connects humans with such entities. In ancient societies, spiritual guides were assigned the role of establishing contact with that world [1]. Within the Judaeo-Christian view, the Spirit of God, as well as all sorts of spirits, are operative in that world. Although communication with all spirits, including the spirits of the dead, were prohibited, they believe that God's Spirit through some kind of spiritual intuition was able to "move" the Hebrew prophets in their writing of the divine Scriptures. Traditional Christians also believe that God "speaks" to them through His Spirit in their daily lives. In general non-religious people and atheists do not believe in the spiritual world (spirit world), soul (spirit) or spiritual intuition.

The basic question seems to be: How would we know whether the spiritual realm, spirits and spiritual intuition (awareness) exist? Since these are outside the reach of our sensible intuition (and by extension, empirical confirmation), there is no way to "prove" the existence of any of these. What is possible, however, is that in the progress of science these would in time become accessible in the context of indirect empirical studies within the context of quantum physics.

Although scientists do not have empirical access to the (pre-measurement) quantum realm - once measurement takes place the entities no longer exist in that kind of quantum mode which belongs to the "quantum realm" - they have various ways to indirectly establish whether particular things exist in that realm and one may suggest that all of the above may in time come within the reach of scientific inquiry. Although there would be various metaphysical interpretations regarding such observations, the view presented here would at least have the advantage that such predictions were made beforehand. This implies that we may develop this conceptual framework into a viable hypothesis that can be brought within the scientific domain.

In my view, the existence of the spiritual realm, spirits and spiritual intuition together present the basic ingredients of a spiritual worldview in which about all religious people believe (although I work from a Judaeo-Christian perspective, these concepts are not particular to Judaeo-Christianity). I previously suggested that we use the Kantian metaphysical conception as the point of departure - using it as a theoretical model or hypothesis that may be tested insofar as the study of such things becomes possible in the framework of science [2].

In this regard, I showed that Kant's noumenal realm, which was based on the corresponding Platonic conception, originally went back to the spiritual realm [3]. In line with this perspective on the noumenal realm, Kant situates the soul in that realm and calls it the "noumenal self" [4]. I showed that all the characteristics of this realm have been confirmed in the context of quantum physics [3] and also that we may conceptualize the Kantian soul in this context as a quantum body (existing outside proper space-time) [4].

In this essay, I proceed in showing how another aspect of that ancient spiritual worldview, namely spiritual intuition, may be conceptualized in the context of quantum physics. Again, I use the Kantian metaphysics as the point of departure. Now, however, I move beyond the Kantian position which only incorporates sensible intuition (and not spiritual intuition) in his philosophy. I show how Kant's philosophical system may be expanded to include spiritual intuition and also how (as before) that may find an application in the context of quantum physics. As such I present a viable conception of such intuition which is in line with contemporary quantum physics. This may serve as working hypothesis guiding scientific research in this regard.

Spiritual intuition in philosophical tradition

The idea of spiritual intuition or awareness entered Greek philosophical tradition as early as the 6th century BC in the time of the Pythagoreans (maybe even earlier). In their view, the "higher soul" is the seat of the intuitive mind and the "rational soul", which they considered secondary, is the seat of discursive reason (they also distinguished the non-rational soul, responsible for the senses, appetites and motion). For the Pythagoreans, the word "nous" ("mind") referred to an ability of the soul. As such it did not only had reference to an intellectual ability but also - and even more importantly - to some kind of intuitive apprehension or awareness of the invisible world.

Plato also understood the soul in such terms. Although Plato's view is often taken as merely referring to our intellectual understanding of the "invisible world" of our thoughts, he seems to have had a more basic kind of perception of such a world in mind. One should not forget that Plato mentions in the Phaedo - in the context of the dialogues between Socrates and his friends - that he takes the view of the mystic Orphics regarding such an invisible world as the point of departure for his own view of that world. In fact, one may assume that this was how the "invisible world" entered Greek philosophical thinking in the first place, i.e. as originating from the idea of the spiritual world [3]. As such Plato mentions that our perception of the invisible world is through the "eye of the soul", which seems to go beyond a mere conceptualization of such a world.

What happened in Platonic philosophy (even though the neo-Platonists always accentuated this mystic side), especially in later Western tradition, is that the noumenal world and the intuition that we as humans may have of it was collapsed into an intelligible world that is grasped intellectually in some way (through an intelligible intuition). Rationalists such as Rene Descartes (1596-1650) believed that our concepts originate in the Platonic forms that exist in that intelligible world. As such concepts were considered to be the only things that are truly real. That is why the rationalists discarded empirical data as untrustworthy.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), however, rejected this rationalist view. In his philosophical system, no intellectual intuition of that world is allowed for humans. In his thinking, only God can have such an intellectual intuition of things existing in the noumenal world. Humans only have access to the phenomenal world through their senses. They may think about things that may exist in a noumenal realm, but there is no way in which they may know that such things exist because they do not have an intuition that allows for that. Kant writes in his famous Critique of Pure Reason (called the first Critique) in a section called "Phenomena and Noumena": "room thus remains for some other sort of intuition... [but] we are acquainted with no sort of intuition other than our own sensible one" (B343). For Kant, all concepts must be synthesized with sensible intuitions for knowledge to become possible - and since humans do not have an intellectual intuition, the noumenal or supersensible world (if it exists) is totally unknown to them.

I showed in another essay [5] how the move in Western philosophy to collapse the noumenal into the intellectual and taking the noumenal intuition of early Greek tradition merely as an intelligible intuition has led to a divorce between the phenomenal and intelligible realms. When reason became enthroned, the possibility of some noumenal awareness of a supersensible realm was discarded. But is this correct? I argued that this was a reductionist move which did not allow for the extreme complexity of our human existence. As such I proposed that we may actually conceptualize how such an intuition is possible - even within the Kantian conceptual framework.

Kant developed a regulative metaphysics in which we may conceptualize what the world beyond our senses may be like - even though his conceptual view was not a dogmatic metaphysics. Such a metaphysics is not established through our understanding but through reason (in its regulative role) as a hypothesis. Although Kant's purpose with the first Critique was also to establish the limits of reason (and therefore the futility of the dogmatic metaphysics as presented by the rationalists) he also allowed for the legitimate use of reason beyond our sensible reach insofar as that is only problematically considered - as regulative ideas (guiding ideas).

The question is how such noumenal intuition may be introduced within Kant's regulative conceptual system. Although Kant thought that we cannot conceive of such an intuition, he was not in principle against such a possibility. In fact, Kant mentions that we cannot assert that no such intuition exists (A255/B311). Kant just did not know how one may conceive of such an intuition in his philosophical system. Since then, our knowledge has increased a lot and another possibility that is compatible with his system did, in fact, open up. 

Noumenal intuition within Kantian philosophy

In Kant's philosophy, all our interaction with the world takes place through our senses in which empirical objects are presented within space and time. For Kant, space and time are the basic a priori "forms" of our human sensibility and all sensible intuitions are given within these forms. As such, space and time are also the "forms" of appearances, i.e. the form in which appearances (in the phenomenal world) are presented to us as humans. Insofar as we perceive the world around us, all perceptions are always within the framework of space and time. So, how would one introduce noumenal intuition in the Kantian system?

Kant distinguished between the space and time as the forms of intuition - through which we experience the world - and space and time as concepts. Insofar as (geometrical) space and time are concepts, they may be applied to "empirical space" and time in the same way that concepts (in general) are applied to empirical intuitions in his system (which allows us to make a determinate judgement whether something is such or not). Empirical space refers to the way in which empirical objects determine the form of space through their magnitudes and relations (A431/B459). The same principle applies to time. 

Many possible concepts of space may be constructed in this way and Kant did not restrict what he called "ideal" (conceptual) space/time in any way even though only Euclidean space was known to him. As such, there is no reason why his philosophy should not be compatible with non-Euclidean space (such as Riemannian geometry used in general relativity) or abstract Hilbert space used in quantum physics. In my view, we may rework the Kantian system to be compatible with general relativity or quantum physics (quantum field theory) when we introduce a space-time manifold in the context of his conception of ideal space/time. 

We may think without contradiction of any possible abstract mathematical space or space-time which may apply to the noumenal realm - which may be conceptualized in correspondence with the quantum realm. In this regard, the quantum realm corresponds with Kant's noumenal realm which is also beyond empirical reach (see [3]). In this context, the Kantian conception of ideal space/time (as mere concepts) may be applied to the quantum realm even though that realm is beyond empirical access in its pre-measurement phase. 

At this stage, I am only concerned with quantum mechanics. The unique feature of quantum mechanics is that abstract Hilbert space is combined with proper time. Within the Kantian system that would mean that ideal space (as an abstract space concept) is combined with proper time. Kant did not foresee this possibility, but there is no reason why such a concept cannot be introduced within the Kantian system. The question is: what are the implications of this for the Kantian way of thinking? How is the Kantian philosophy expanded through this reworking thereof? 

In the first place, this provides a way to bridge the gap between Kant's phenomenal and noumenal realms. The divide between these realms had always been a major drawback in Kant's philosophy since no human interaction with that realm is allowed in his system. The result was that this realm was reduced to a realm of belief - something that religious people believe in but which can never be confirmed or denied through science. In my reworking of the Kantian system, we do not only find a conceptual link between these realms (that they may be conceptualized as interwoven in certain contexts) but also that humans may have some kind of experience of that realm through noumenal intuition.

When we take the noumenal realm as the quantum realm, then from a quantum mechanical perspective this means that we may become aware of quantum entities insofar as these are presented within our time intuition (even though they are not presented in our space intuition). This would happen when our quantum bodies (souls) interact through quantum interactions with our natural bodies. We would be able to become conscious of such quantum interactions in proper time if humans have such an awareness.

God and man connecting: Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel (1508-12)

Although we do not know at this stage if humans do indeed have such a form of intuition in line with the suggestion given above, it may very well be the case. This would mean that humans have another kind of intuition than the sensible one, which would allow for some kind of spiritual experience over and above our sensible experience. Insofar as we take the noumenal realm as our first interaction with the spiritual realm [3], this would constitute a spiritual intuition. 

Although I do not prove that such a quantum or spiritual intuition exists, I show how it may be conceptualized as a real possibility. In the Kantian conceptual framework, this may serve as a regulative idea (hypothesis) that may guide scientific research into this matter. Although this idea has to be presented within a detailed conceptual framework that includes both physical and quantum bodies, the basic idea underlying such interaction is quite clear. As such this kind of intuition is no longer merely a vague idea that religious people believe in, but a philosophical concept that is consistent with contemporary science.

Within the Judaeo-Christian worldview, this opens the door for an understanding of God's revelation in Scripture that is consistent with our scientific worldview. Although the details of God's working through his Spirit in the hearts and minds of humans would probably forever be beyond our human understanding, we may at least grasp how that is possible. 

Conclusion

In this essay, I focus on spiritual intuition. If we allow that our engagement with the quantum realm is, in fact, our first scientific step in exploring the spiritual realm and that humans may have a quantum body which compliments their physical bodies and which may continue existing after death, then it seems very likely that we as humans would have some kind of spiritual intuition that allows for some kind of communication between these two spheres. Although I did not present any proof at this stage that such intuition (or even spiritual bodies) exist, I do show how we may conceive thereof in the context of contemporary science. 

Science has progressed a lot over the last two hundred years. Many of the things which Kant included in his metaphysics which was originally rejected as untenable - such as a noumenal realm governed by spontaneity instead of mechanism - have been confirmed in the context of quantum physics where determinism had been proven to break down. I believe it is just a matter of time before the existence of the soul as a quantum body which is somehow interwoven with our physical body, is also confirmed (albeit only indirectly - just like any quantum entity in its pre-measurement phase - since it is beyond the possibility of direct empirical confirmation). 

In the same way that the possible existence of a quantum aspect to our human existence (i.e. a soul) has become a viable scientific hypothesis, the possibility of quantum (spiritual) intuitions may be so the presented. Although the existence of such intuitions would be extremely difficult to establish, they would nonetheless in time come within scientific reach.

Notes

[1] Today such persons are called "mediums". In my view, they, in general, do not interact with the dead but with the psyche of those who knew such persons. In this regard, they may actually use the kind of spiritual intuition that I discuss, but only in connection with living persons.

[2] Part 3 of this series

[3] Part 4 of this series

[4] Part 5 of this series

[5] Is the spirit world more than an idea?

I previously argued in essays on this blog (before 2014) that Kant's noumenal realm finds its conceptual application in the framework of the higher dimensional realm theorized by theoretical physicists. Since then I have reworked that hypothesis into a more substantial position in which the quantum realm itself is taken as confirmation of Kant's noumenal realm. The second position is much stronger because it does not only involve the quantum realm as a reality (instead of the mere theoretical possibilities presented by quantum theorists) but also because higher dimensions are just one way among others in which the quantum realm may be conceptualized. 

[6] Prof. Brian Josephson has proposed that quantum entanglement may explain telepathy. Although this is by no means confirmed to be the case, it is nonetheless an example where a form of spiritual intuition is understood in the context of quantum mechanics. My reworking of the Kantian metaphysical framework provides a philosophical framework within which these things may be understood and studied.  

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)

Dialoguer

The author is a scientist and philosopher (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy and science.

Science and God. Part 1: The problem of spontaneity in quantum mechanics

Science and God. Part 2: Science and our restricted human understanding

Science and God. Part 3: Science and metaphysics: in search of Russell's teapot

Science and God. Part 4: Science and the spiritual realm

Science and God. Part 5: In defence of the soul

Science and our restricted human understanding

Science is often presented as having the potential to unlock and understand all the mysteries of our world. There is, however, one severe problem that is not taken into account in this regard: due to our human constitution, we have restricted access to the world. As humans, we would never be able to fully encompass the world for the simple reason that both our sensibility and understanding are severely limited in its reach! This is where science meets quantum objects and dark matter. This is also where science meets religion!

Humans often have a very high regard for their own abilities. This is especially common among scientists and those who follow their lead - they often think that there is no end to the possibilities of human exploration. This perspective goes back to modernist times, when man thought of himself as a god in his own right; when man thought that there is nothing which he will not eventually subdue and understand. The problem with this view, however, is that humans just do not have the capabilities to explore and access all of that which exist. Some things in our world are forever beyond our empirical reach!

In this essay, I discuss the extent of the limitations of our human access to the world around us. I show in what sense science is forever restricted in its empirical access and understanding of our world. I use the philosophy of the well-known philosopher Immanuel Kant to explore these issues. Kant engaged with them long ago and his approach is now more relevant than ever. Especially now that science has discovered that large parts of our world are "dark" to us.

The possibility of objective knowledge

Most people do not really think about their own or our scientific access to the world; they merely accept that we have full access to the world as it exists. The problem, however, is that we always access the world through our human senses or by extension, through our instruments (we use the causal connection between our senses and instruments to extend our empirical access of the world). Once we gain empirical access in this manner, the acquired data always belongs only to those aspects of our world that can be so accessed. All empirical data belongs to those aspects of our world that are measurable by our material instruments. All things that happen(ed) or exist beyond our temporal and spatial reach can never be so accessed. This includes things which are too complex (for example, an infinity of causally related connections) or which are by their very nature forever outside empirical reach (although there might in some cases be indirect ways to establish that they do in fact exist).

What about our conceptual understanding of the world? Surely we can think about the world as it really exits? Although we might think that we can in principle understand all things, our understanding is actually also very constrained. Somehow our understanding is restricted by our senses. As long as we can present things empirically in space and time, that is, when we can visualize them in some manner, we can also figure out how they work. Our understanding works hand in hand with our human senses (even when these are extended in experiment) - things that can be empirically given in our senses or in experiment can be understood. Things that lay beyond that can be conceptualized, we can think them, we can reason about them, but before we do not have empirical access to them we cannot really understand them. This means that we are also very restricted in our understanding of the world.

Kant was very interested in these problems since they are closely related to the question of human knowledge. How is objective human knowledge possible? Since we always access the world subjectively as humans, how can we obtain objective knowledge that is universally true? The possibility of empirical data, which is always given through human sensibility, is severely restricted by our human senses - not in the sense of the crudeness of our senses which can be extended far beyond that in experiments but in its limited access of the world. Since we do not access the world as it really is (but merely as it is presented in our senses or experiments), all data given in our senses or experiment is contingent - as mere sense data, we have no guarantee that this is what the world truly is like.

Even if we think that we find some order among this data, how do we know that they constitute "laws" of the world as it really is? They may be "laws" that regulate our interaction with the world at the empirical level but how do we know that they actually describe some real truths about the world? Since we do not have unconditional access to the world due to the fact that our understanding of the world is restricted by our senses, we can obviously not know anything about the world except to the extent that it is presented in our senses (or experiments). As such all "laws" that we ascribe to nature are just human conceptions applied to nature - they are forever and always "human" concepts. They are therefore always subjective (they do not objectively apply to the world as it really is).

Kant had a remarkable insight in this regard, namely that we can conceptualize things as they may be given in our senses in space and time before they are actually given as such (Kant calls this synthetic a priori, where "synthetic" refers to "pure" human sensibility, i.e. without any real data given in the senses, and a priori means that it is prior to actual experience). In this way, humans have the possibility of real experience even before actually engaging with things. When things are given empirically in our senses (which would be a posteriori) this is actually nothing but a particularization of those general things that may be given in "pure" sensibility (intuition).

The essence of Kant's idea is that our concepts of understanding work hand in hand with our sensibility (senses). Kant says that our concepts are "synthesized" with our forms of sensibility. Although our understanding is restricted by our senses, as long as it does not try to move beyond the senses (experiments), it can indeed understand things as they are given in the senses. For those things that may be given in our senses (instruments), we can formulate general rules which apply to all such things that may be given in experience or experiment. In this way science becomes possible: we can formulate general scientific laws that apply to the things that we encounter every day around us or in controlled experiments. 

In the final instance, we make judgments whether the things given empirically in the senses agree with our synthetic conceptualization of them (in pure sensibility). If they agree, then we may say that these things are indeed the things that we have formed concepts about, i.e. we can establish an "objective" truth judgment. The general rules of the understanding are applied to the particulars (empirical data) given in our senses or experiment. In this way, we can obtain objective knowledge of things even though we do not have access to the world as it really is.

The order of the world that is given in experience and experiment is understood in terms of the order (laws) that we bring to that data (through our conceptualization thereof). In the progress of experience, we can proceed to engage on an ever more substantial level with the material world of matter. The empirical data so obtained is then brought under ever more sophisticated conceptual structures (theories) - if the data (particulars) is in agreement with the conceptual structures, we can say that we have obtained objective knowledge (on an ever more substantial level). But all knowledge is always restricted to our empirical observation of nature.

The limits of our understanding

When we think about the world beyond the objects as they are given in human sensibility, we have no choice but to take our world as if it is systematically ordered - even though this can never be proven. In this context, we can think what such an ordered world might look like. In Kant's thinking, there are two ways in which the world might be beyond the reach of our senses and therefore also our understanding. In the context of our human senses, the one way relates to limits of degree, i.e. that our senses or instruments are such that they are limited in the manner in which data can be given in them (limitations in time, space and magnitude). The world as it really is may have (for us) an inaccessible extension with an infinity of relations and connections which can never be empirically brought within the range of our senses (or experiments). As such some objects and their totality of interactions are beyond our sensible (experimental) access.

The other way in which the world might be beyond our sense relates to limits in kind, i.e. that our particular kind of sensibility is such that it may not be able to access certain kinds of objects which may only be accessible to another kind of intuition than our sensible one. As such there may be objects in our world that can never be given in space and time in our senses (or instruments). In fact, we know today from our scientific research that such things exist.

To account for these two ways in which the world may be beyond our senses, Kant allowed that our phenomenal world (called "empirical nature"), that is the world of our experience and experiments, be complemented with two other concepts of the world, namely "conceptual nature" (the concept of nature taken as a total system; in short: "nature") and a supersensible realm outside nature. Nature refers to our world in its totality of deterministic connections (called "mechanism") as we can only conceptualize it, i.e. as it may really be but outside the possibility of our sensible reach.

All the objects of our experience are also objects of nature; they belong to nature and as such we can empirically access them in space and time (in the context of deterministic causality). Objects of nature, however, as they "really" are when their enormous magnitudes or infinite relations are concerned cannot be brought within the limitations of our experiments. Some scientific laws relate to nature, for example, the theories of relativity and those describing stochastic behaviour. We accept these laws but they present a systematic unity that goes well beyond the phenomenal laws that we encounter in experiment. We can think these laws; we cannot bring all of nature to which they apply within the reach of our experiments.

Kant also allowed for a supersensible realm outside nature. The difference between nature and the supersensible realm outside nature is that the all objects in nature are deterministically (mechanistically) connected; objects in the supersensible realm are not so connected (I previously showed that absolute spontaneity (freedom) rules in this realm [1]). They are also outside the framework of the space-time conceptions that apply to nature. As such we can say that they belong to a different mode of existence than the one that we conceptualize as nature. Since such supersensible objects can never be brought into our experiments, they are not empirically accessible. They stand forever outside our empirical reach. We encounter such objects in the context of quantum physics. Quantum objects in the pre-measurement stage are different from those that we encounter in our experiments - quantum objects adhere to superpositions of states which "collapse" to certain reduced modes that are observable in experiment.

The only reason why we can argue that quantum objects exist even though we cannot empirically access them is that they cause certain outcomes in our world. If they did not do this (and some don't), we would not even have known about their existence. So, the question is: how extensive is the quantum realm? How many kinds of objects are there that belong to that realm? What kind of existence is that which we do not have empirical access to?

Even if we do not try to answer these questions we have to admit the following: we are severely constrained in our understanding of the world! We have no hope that we will ever gain access to this mode of existence because of the restricted nature of our kind of sensibility. Although we can think beyond that, and formulate various mathematical conceptions that apply to that kind of existence to the extent that we may encounter outcomes produced by such objects, we would never be able to empirically access them and understand them. We can say: A part of our world is beyond empirical reach. This is also the part where "dark" matter and "dark" energy resides.

Once we are confronted with the limits of our understanding, we are forced to acknowledge that the world involves more than we had ever thought possible. This does not mean that all sorts of crazy ideas about the world should now be allowed in serious debate. It does mean, however, that our conceptualization and metaphysical constructs of the world should accommodate this aspect of our world in a sensible manner. All metaphysical conceptualizations which are still stuck in the old paradigm where only the mechanistic world is allowed, are not relevant to current debate. They do not realistically capture the world of our experience and experiments [1].

Metaphysics

We can even say that in physics we have now moved from the pure empirical study of nature (which is obviously not "pure" since we always bring empirical data under concepts) to metaphysical interpretations which can never be shown to be true or not (in the Kantian sense). As such there are, for example, various possible ways to interpret the world through the lens of quantum physics. We just do not know - and can never know - what the quantum world really is like. We can form metaphysical constructs based on mathematical theories and the available data but we can never gain knowledge of that world to the extent that it is beyond our experimental reach. At most, we can present good reasons why we think that the world is such or such.

In some sense physics has therefore entered the domain of metaphysics which was in the modern age looked down upon as not truly "scientific". In this world of metaphysics, we also find the various ways in which we can think that the world really is in accordance with our religious conceptions. The fact that we are so restricted in our empirical access of the world shows why one would never be able to prove or disprove the existence of God (As Kant has shown, all the proofs for God's existence moves from conceptual constructs to assume existence). We can merely present metaphysical constructs that capture our religious understanding of the world in a rational manner. That is, we can present good reasons why we think that the world is such or such - using a wider spectrum of data and arguments than in the metaphysics of any particular branch of science (i.e. from all aspects of our life experience). I plan to argue in another essay that Kant's metaphysics is not only a reworking of the Christian worldview but is also one of the best ways to understand the world of science.

So, due to our restricted human senses and understanding, it has now so happened that both science and religion are engaged in the very same metaphysical game with the difference that serious science keeps away from the more substantial questions regarding our human existence (That would be to move too far beyond the basic data available in experiments). All of us are nonetheless interested in those questions. As such the idea that "religion" is concerned with things which cannot be proven and is therefore not to be taken seriously is just not right; even science is concerned with things which lie beyond empirical access. Anybody who is open-minded should in this context, at the very least, seriously and carefully consider the metaphysics of religion.

Conclusion

In this essay, I focus on the limits of our human understanding. Gone are the days when scientists could think that it is just a matter of time before everything is understood. Although some - even prominent scientists - may still keep that hope alive, the reality is that philosophers of science are long past that way of thinking. Our world is just too complex - there are parts of our world that are beyond the reach of our sensible intuition (our five senses) and would require a totally different kind of intuition than the one that we use in our experimental exploration of the world.

Although some aspects of our world are empirically inaccessible, this does not mean that we cannot think about that. We can, from the context of our broader human experience, which involve human consciousness and other aspects of our existence, construct a systematic metaphysics which accommodate all our life experience. Kant presented such a metaphysics - and I hope to explore it in more detail in future. Suddenly things that modern man thought impossible, like the existence of Kant's supersensible realm, has again become part of our thinking - even scientific thinking - about the world, where it is now taken as applying to the quantum realm [1].

The question is: What about the other things that Kant also argued for in that context, for example, the existence of the human soul? Since he was right in allowing for a supersensible realm which was rejected by about all philosophers and scientists until quite recently, he might be right in other regards too. We should be humble and open to considering such possibilities. Our restricted sensibility and understanding force us to accept that we may have good reasons to believe things even though we know that we can never bring them within experimental reach to understand them. The existence of the soul might be something like this. Another may be the belief in God [2].

[1] Click on The problem of spontaneity in quantum mechanics

[2] I plan to discuss these things later in this series about Kant and quantum physics.

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com

On the theme of Science, Philosophy and God read also:

Part 1: The problem of spontaneity in quantum mechanics

Part 3: Science and metaphysics: in search of Russell's teapot
            Presenting a new argument for the existence of God

Part 4. Science and the spiritual realm

Part 5. In defence of the soul
Part 6: Science and Atheism
Part 7: Science and spiritual intuition
Part 8: The Christian and Evolution 

Engaging with atheists and agnostics

In this essay, I discuss the great challenges that Christians face in sharing the gospel with the people of our time - especially in the context of statistics that show a dramatic change in the belief-systems of people in the Western world. I present intellectual tools that I developed in this regard and show how they might assist Christians in reaching out to an ever-more sceptical world.

As Christians, we are called to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to all people. Since Jesus sent out his disciples two thousand years ago, Christians have been trying in various ways to reach all people, both in their own communities and in far-away countries, with the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ. Our age, however, presents us with particular challenges in this regard. Western society, which has traditionally been Christian, is changing in fundamental ways and more and more people do not believe or are agnostic regarding the existence of God. The question is: How do we effectively reach people with the gospel in this climate of change?

Before trying to answer this question one should first of all be aware of the magnitude of the challenge. A study that appeared in the Washington Post earlier this year [1], shows that atheism has grown a lot over the last few decades in the Western World. In large regions of Western Europe, the percentage of people who regard themselves as non-religious or atheists are about 50% or more. The Western European countries that top the list are the Netherlands (66%) and the UK (66%), followed by Germany (59%), Switzerland (58%), Spain (55%) and Austria (54%). These do not include European countries to the north and east, like Sweden (76%) and the Czech Republic (75%). This is the situation in spite of the fact that countries like the Netherlands and Germany have strong Christian, especially reformist, traditions and in the case of the Netherlands one even finds a Bible-belt running through the country.

Another study by the Pew Research Center [2] shows that even in the USA, which has traditionally been regarded as one of the countries with the highest percentage of Christians, the situation is changing. Christians have declined sharply as a percentage of the population in the period 2007 to 2014, namely from 78.4% to 70.6%. Although the group of unaffiliated Christians have increased (presumably Christians who do not go to recognized denominations) with nearly 7%, most of the denominations have seen a drastic decline in numbers. Mainline-protestant has declined from 18.1% to 14.7%, Catholics from 23.9% to 20.8% and Evangelicals from 26.3% to 25.4%. In the same period those who regard themselves as not religiously affiliated, agnostic or atheistic have grown from 16.1% to 22.8%.

Clearly, Christians are doing something wrong!! Although there are various reasons for the current situation, it seems that in most Western countries an enormous divide appeared between the Christian and agnostic-atheistic sections of society who live next to each other, but (to a large extent) do not interact with each other. Although part of the problem may lay with Christian attitudes (their behaviour being perceived in negative terms), there is definitely also a problem regarding the packaging of the gospel. In many ways, it seems that the general public does not think that the Christian worldview is sustainable and that the Bible cannot be regarded as a trustworthy account of events in our scientific age. These are the issues which I deal with in this essay.

The various missional approaches

It is often said that the call to missions starts with God. There are various ways in which this call may be unpacked in theological terms. What I am interested in this essay, however, is not that issue, but the practical manner in which the church live the great commandment. In this regard, we can distinguish between various approaches to take the Gospel of Jesus Christ to others. My question is: Are these approaches effective and what must the church do to change the tide?

Traditionally the missionary call has been interpreted as taking the gospel to all nations - especially to those who are not part of the Christian world. In this context, various tools have been developed to effectively reach the unreached peoples of the world with the gospel. As such it was and is necessary to learn a different language, be culturally sensitive, translate the Bible, live in far-away communities etc. This traditional approach may be called the "missionary" approach. Since this approach focuses on countries and geographical areas outside the traditional Christian world, it does not really concern us in this essay.

During those times when the name "Christian world" still applied to their home communities (which in general does not hold for the Western world any more), Christians also felt the need to take the gospel to those in their own community who have not yet come to know the Lord Jesus as their personal Savior. In this regard, these Christians observed that being a Christian in name is not the same as being a Christian in the true sense of the word (having a personal relationship with God through the indwelling Spirit of God). In this context, there are also various tools that had been developed to reach one's neighbour in the context of the same (rather homogeneous) society, especially through church as well as interdenominational outreaches. This approach may be called the "evangelistic" approach. Over the last few decades, this approach has become more and more ineffective - in many Western societies it has become extremely difficult to get strangers to attend such outreaches [3].

The main reason for this difficulty is that Western culture has changed dramatically over the last few decades. In this regard, one may say, in philosophical terms, that a large part of Western society has moved from the modernist to the postmodernist paradigm. This does not mean that the majority has necessarily accepted the postmodernist ideology; it merely means that the manner in which especially young people but also many older people interact with each other and the wider world, has changed in a fundamental manner. The old structures and mindset - which were rationally inclined, hierarchical, strict, accepting of traditional ideas and values and closed to other views - have changed to those that are open, inquiring, sceptical, relational, networking, socially-connected through all sorts of media etc. Since this cultural shift only involves a part of society, one can say that there are now (to a large extent) two culturally distinct groups in the same society, namely the older generation (and those that associate with them) and the new postmodern generation. The problem for Christian outreach is this: How to reach this postmodern generation? It seems that the traditional evangelistic tools do not work in this context!

This issue is not new and there have been many voices as to the manner in which this generation may be reached with the gospel. In general, various approaches have been developed that involve a new kind of community life as well as different ways to engage with one's neighbours in a non-intrusive and culturally suitable manner. This includes all sorts of practical ways in which people may become involved around some area of shared interest, for example through engagement in communal projects. The people who are reached in this manner may include a broad spectrum of persons, some of whom may not be religiously affiliated, although maybe not atheists or agnostics. On the whole, we may call all these approaches that engage the postmodern person "missional" approaches. These approaches have limited success and although some high-profile books have appeared discussing these efforts, in general, they have not had a major impact on the changing tide.

Once people have decided to call themselves atheists or even agnostics they have made up their minds and it is very difficult to effectively reach them. There are, nonetheless, Christians who engage these people, using various apologetic tools, including arranged debates between Christian and atheistic scientists, books that argue for the faith, conferences, discussion forums etc. Some congregations focus in their services and outreach on agnostics and atheists, but this may lead to other aspects of church life not being effectively given attention to. Reaching atheists and agnostics, who have made a conscious decision in this regard, is not easy.

Effective outreach

How do we effectively reach agnostics and atheists? In my mind, the answer is to reach people before they have made their decision in this regard. There are many people who sit on the fence - they observe the wider context in which all sorts of conversations take place in the public and social media. They are sensitive to these issues, but they are still undecided. Even those who present themselves as not religiously affiliated might not yet have made a final decision regarding faith. They may have some problem with the traditional Church or traditional Christians but they are not necessarily against the idea of believing in God.

In my view, the main problem is that the postmodern world provides people with many possible and seemingly viable alternative narratives regarding our human existence. Why should they believe the Christian narrative? Not only have Christians in the Western World often behaved very unchristian (being arrogant and self-righteous on social media etc.), they have also been compromised (in taking certain discredited political and eschatological positions) and their positions have often been simplistic and even anti-intellectual. The general public is often confronted with a Christian narrative that does not make sense to them since it stands in direct contrast with the general scientific perspective that has become widely accepted in society (for example, regarding the age of the universe etc.). How can one expect people to believe the Christian narrative if they do not think that it makes sense? It is not good enough to present your own interpretation as "the Bible says so" when people do not believe the Bible to be a trustworthy source of information.

There are especially two important areas in which Christians have in general not been convincing. These are in presenting 1) the Christian worldview as a realistic and sensible reading of reality (what the world is like) and 2) the Bible as a trustworthy source of information. Often the general public is presented with a false dichotomy: either one accepts the young earth view or one has to accept the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution (which is anathema for most Christians). The general public may not have strong views regarding neo-Darwinist evolution, but in general, they do accept that science has shown that the cosmos is very old. Confronted with this choice, they do not only choose against the Christian worldview (regarding it as unrealistic), they also reject the Christian belief that the Bible is God's Word - to them it is merely an old religious book without relevance to our current age (which teaches such nonsense as the world is a few thousand years old). So, how can they believe in the Biblical message of salvation if they do not consider the Bible to be trustworthy?

The main reason why this simplistic view often overshadows the conversation is that many Christians are not convinced that the alternative Christian narratives truly adhere to Biblical teaching. Many Christians think that any other view than the young earth one necessarily brings the Fall into disrepute (and therefore Christ's redemption) and opens the door for accepting neo-Darwinist evolution which negates God's role as creator (even when this is packaged as "theistic evolution"). The idea that God used this process in his creation is not acceptable to them because it is random (i.e. insofar as genetic mutations are concerned) and mechanistic, without any clear design involved.

What is necessary, is a two-fold approach: 1) To develop good alternative Christian narratives that are consistent with the Bible as God's inspired Word, 2) which are not in conflict with science (not due to a forced reading in this regard but because this is a good and sensible reading). Since God revealed Himself both in Scripture and nature, the hermeneutical study of the Biblical text and the scientific study of nature should not be in conflict! Although paradigms (like the traditional Christian one) are very resistant to change, the dramatic ineffectiveness in spreading the gospel today in Western society may eventually force change.

In my own approach, I develop intellectual tools that incorporate both these concerns. Although Christians often steer clear of "intellectualism" and philosophy, there cannot be any doubt that a good intellectual framework grounds effective practical outreach. Both reason and faith are important in practical Christian living [4]. This does not mean that all Christians should become "intellectuals"; rather, it means that such tools can play a significant role in presenting the gospel in a sensible manner to the people of our day. We should remember that St. Paul engaged with the philosophers of his day and knew a lot about the contemporary philosophy of his time (see Acts 17:15-34; Titus 1:12). Although philosophy should never replace the gospel of salvation through the cross of Jesus Christ or good Biblical teaching (see 1 Cor. 3:18-20), we should use it in suitable contexts to argue for the trustworthiness of the Biblical worldview and Scripture.

My main focus is to present the Christian worldview as a (even the most) realistic view of reality (in contrast with the mechanistic/deterministic view which is preferred by atheists) and the Bible as a remarkably trustworthy source of information. In this regard, I reworked the approach of the well-known philosopher Immanuel Kant in such a manner that it provides the philosophical basis (or rational grounding) for such a Christian worldview (Kant himself was a Christian). Although all belief-systems have a strong emotional component, I am here primarily concerned with the rational grounds for holding such beliefs.

Kant's conception of a "noumenal realm" is central to my approach. The name is derived from the Greek word for mind, namely "nous". According to Kant, this realm is beyond the reach of the human senses and we can therefore only think about it with our mind. This realm forms an essential part of his metaphysics; we can think of it as an intellectual reworking of the idea of the spiritual realm. Although it is often asserted that the noumenal realm should only be understood in moral terms, this is not correct - it forms an integral part of Kant's philosophy of science (in his Critique of the Power of Judgement). I argue that in a scientific context the noumenal realm finds its realization (in the most basic sense) in the quantum realm (see [5] for a more detailed discussion). This means that in the context of the quantum realm scientists have effectively for the first time began to engage with the spiritual realm (although they do not yet recognize it).

Immanuel Kant

The metaphysical implications of this approach are far-reaching and show that the mechanistic (i.e. atheistic) view of the world is unsustainable (even insofar as evolution is considered as a mere mechanistic approach). The strength of this approach lies (among other things) therein that it provides a solution to extremely difficult problems in science, namely how to explain and reconcile determinism and indeterminism (spontaneity) and how to solve the so-called "measurement problem" (these problems in quantum physics are about 100 years old!). This is achieved when mechanism is ascribed to the "classical world" where the space-time theories of relativity apply (which agrees with the Kantian conception of "nature") and spontaneity to the pre-measurement "quantum world" (which agrees with the noumenal realm).

Insofar as the Christian worldview is concerned, one of the implications of my approach is that mechanistic evolution must be complemented by design. Kant's approach incorporates two aspects in biological evolution, namely mechanistic causes (as is nowadays described in neo-Darwinian evolution) as well as spontaneous causes (which in the Kantian view signify design at the noumenal level which underlies all material expression). Although we stand at the beginning of this line of quantum-biological research, it seems that we would eventually be able to describe such design in terms of quantum effects [6]. My approach overcomes the drawbacks that plague other apologetic approaches to the no-design problem of neo-Darwinian evolution (for example, in Intelligent Design [7; 8]).

Other implications of my approach in this regard are (among others) 2) that free will can be substantiated (without which adherence to God's Law is nonsensical), 3) that human existence goes beyond the physical realm (Kantian metaphysics accepts the existence of the soul), 4) that noumenal intuitions, which go beyond the reach of sensible intuitions, become realistically possible. This means that divine revelation or natural theology can be argued for on a solid philosophical basis; this has traditionally been a problematic area of Kant's philosophy. In general, this approach establishes good reasons for belief in God [8].

Insofar as the Bible is concerned, my approach to interpretation also follows a Kantian angle. I argue that all good interpretation requires both our conceptions (our horizon of interpretation) as well as the representations of reality in the text (the horizon of the author) [9]. This means that we should not force our conceptual approach onto the text; rather, we should listen to the voices of both the author as well as the tradition in which s/he was embedded as presented in the text [10]. Problems of interpretation arise when we approach the text simplistically, using our current manner of understanding the world as the point of departure (neglecting the horizon of the author). This may involve both modernistic or postmodernistic approaches which force our cultural context (as is done by many lay readers) or a scientific worldview (as is done in Biblical Criticism) onto the text. My approach navigates between the rocks of modernism and postmodernism.

In the context of discussions about our human existence, our interpretation of the Book of Genesis is especially relevant - in fact, the manner in which we understand this book determines our understanding of the rest of the Bible! It is important that we read the book with the ancient context in which it originated in mind (this provides the horizon of the author). But what context is relevant? I argue [11] that the Mesopotamian material in the book (especially Gen. 1-12) should be read in an ancient Sumerian context (i.e. not in a neo-Babylonian context as is assumed in Biblical Criticism) for the simple reason that we have every reason to take the Biblical story regarding Abraham's journey from ancient Sumer (Ur) to Canaan serious. This implies that the Mesopotamian source material for the book was handed down in Abraham's family since the time when they left that country (I call this approach the "Sumerian hypothesis" [12]).

Again, the implications of this approach are substantial. I show that although we should not force a scientific view onto the text (or a mere mythological one, for that matter), the creation story nonetheless forces us to understand the "days" in which God made the cosmos as "periods" of creation, which can be viewed as agreeing with the current scientific view regarding the age of the earth [13]. Furthermore, good hermeneutical principles allow us to take Adam and Eve as real personages who lived about six-thousand years ago (even though this can obviously not be proven), but not that they were the very first people or parents of the whole human race (for a detailed discussion, see [14]). They are important because we may regard them as the earliest remembered people with whom God had a relationship.

I also show that, although the fallen human condition is very much part of the garden story, a good interpretation of the text does not support the idea that they and all of nature became fallen due to their disobedience; rather, their disobedience revealed the fallen human condition which goes back far beyond their own time (as does death - there is abundant archaeological evidence for that!). This reading does not undermine Christ's work on the cross as the answer to that condition; rather, it establishes that within the context of a credible reading of history [15]. As such, my approach provides a solid but also a comprehensive interpretation of Genesis 1-12 which does not only carefully analyze the ancient context but which is also (as can be expected) in line with our scientific understanding of the world. Other interpretations which argue for an old earth, typically focus on the creation account in Genesis 1 but do not engage with other important issues like the talking serpent, the Fall, etc. for which answers should also be provided. Scientific explanations (like Reasons to Believe) also do not take the ancient context in which the text originated into account.

In my approach to the Bible, I believe that neither the naturalistic approach (as is found in Biblical Criticism) nor the simplistic approach (often associated with traditional Christian interpretation) makes sense. The first regards the Bible as a mere book among other books; the other as if it is written only for children (without any understanding for the ancient context from which it originated) [16]. The first removes all aspects of God's supernatural involvement in human history from the Bible; the other requires blind faith in the face of highly unreasonable claims. What is necessary, is a balanced approach that uses good hermeneutical tools [17]. In this manner, the trustworthiness of the Bible as a source of information can be established. In my view, we would not be able to turn the tide without a balanced approach - that steers clear of both these extremes. We need both good intellectual tools which establish the credibility of the Biblical worldview and the Bible as God's Word as well as good practical application in the context of godly lives.

Conclusions

In this essay, I discuss the dramatic change in society's attitudes over the past few decades. On the whole, it seems that the so-called "Christian world" is not Christian any more. In most Western countries the percentage of atheists and agnostics have increased to such an extent that they now constitute the majority of the population. Even in the US, which has always been considered a Christian country, the percentage of people considering themselves as Christians have declined significantly whereas the percentage of those who view themselves as agnostic, atheistic or non-religious have increased a lot over the past few years.

The question is: What should the church do? I discuss four current approaches and show that on their own they are unlikely to change the trend. They may work in communities where they are still applicable - but the world is changing and in a few years we might find that they run aground in many communities which are now still open and accessible. What is needed is a new approach (complimenting the others) which establishes the Christian worldview as a realistic and sensible reading of reality and the Bible as a trustworthy source of information. This would only succeed if traditional Christians accept interpretations of the Biblical text that accentuate the ancient context in which it was written and which are neither in conflict with science nor undermine the Bible as the divinely-inspired Word of God. In fact, it affirms that!

I also present my own solution to the problem. This involves the development of intellectual tools that are grounded in a Kantian philosophical approach. This approach allows us to engage with science (through a reworking of Kant's philosophy of science) but also with the Biblical text (through a reworking of Kant's epistemology to establish good hermeneutical principles). As such it involves a unified approach within the framework of a single Kantian metaphysical framework which is consistent with the Christian worldview. It shows that all mechanistic or naturalistic approaches to the world and the Bible are highly reductionist. And it confirms that the Biblical worldview can better account for reality (explored through science) than the atheistic one whereas the divine inspiration of Scripture is manifest in the fact that reading the text using good hermeneutical principles compliments (rather than contradicts) our scientific understanding of the world. I believe that the acceptance of this approach would add to our ability to effectively reach the people of our day with the gospel, especially those who have not yet decided and silently observe the conversation in the marketplace of ideas.

I, therefore, encourage readers to read the other essays on my blog that focus in more detail on these issues and also to tell others about it. They are welcome to share it with their pastors and other Christian leaders and philosophers. It will take time for Christians to consider and debate this approach before accepting it but I believe that eventually, they would see that without good intellectual tools we will never be able to effectively reach the people of our day and age. This implies that we will have to leave simplistic approaches behind and be open-minded like the church in Berea (Acts 17:11). May the Lord give us wisdom in this.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/14/map-these-are-the-worlds-least-religious-countries/
[2] http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
[3] Some evangelical Christians are praying for revival. They believe that the answer is that God through his mighty power moves in society. This is definitely important if we want to reach the world for Christ but this is surely not all that we should do! Revivals are sparse in our day; I do, however, believe that in the end time we will see more of that.
[4] Click on Faith and reason - finding the balance
[5] Mc Loud, W. 2015. Introducing a Kantian Interpretation of Quantum Physics, in accordance with Kant's Philosophy of Science in the Critique of the Power of Judgment, reinterpreted and reworked with special attention to the supersensible realm. Masters thesis. UCT. Cape Town.
Kant, Noumena and Quantum Physics published in Contemporary Studies in Kantian Philosophy 3 (2018)
[6] I previously wrote in the essay "Darwin's Doubt" [7] that "[i]t is possible that we will eventually find that evolution has a quantum component, i.e. that leaps in biological evolution have their grounds in the quantum world where they would arguably seem to be at home". Shortly afterwards the authors of Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology (2014) suggested that quantum processes may indeed play a role in genetic mutations – implying that a mechanistic approach to evolution may not be sufficient.
See also The Christian and Evolution
[7] Click on Darwin's Doubt
[8] I plan to write about ten essays on the implications of the remarkable fit between Kantian metaphysics and our scientific understanding of the world for the Christian-atheist conversation.
[9] In the context of interpretation the "representations of reality in the text (the horizon of the author)" do not engage with ancient reality as it was "in itself" (i.e. we do not have access to the mind of the author or all the details of his time) in the same manner that in the context of epistemology (the study of knowledge) the presentations of reality in our senses do not give us access to reality as "it is in itself" (especially not of the quantum realm). However, in the same way that such presentations in our senses are sufficient to obtain objective knowledge (see my next essay in this regard [8]), the representations of reality in the text allows us to establish sensible interpretations (meanings) of the text. In the same manner that we can proceed to better understandings of nature when more empirical data becomes available which fit more sophisticated conceptual frameworks (take, for example, the move from Newtonian mechanics to Einsteinium physics), we can also obtain better readings of the text when the context in which we place the text (for example, my "Sumerian hypothesis"; see [12]) solves problems that plague other assumed contexts (the "neo-Babylonian hypothesis" used in Biblical Criticism).
My approach to interpretation agrees with that of Gadamer contra Derrida in that it acknowledges distinct interpretations (instead of a continuous play of interpretation). I proceed beyond Gadamer in that my approach allows for rational criteria (basic principles of hermeneutics) which establish a threshold between "better" interpretations and bad ones (see [17]). Furthermore, in my view we can make "truth" claims only insofar as we can make determinate judgements; we cannot proceed beyond interpretations insofar as we are restricted to mere reflective judgements (in the Kantian sense; see [18]).
[10] I allow for two kinds of determinations, namely a priori determinations (i.e. of concepts) as well as a posteriori determinations (i.e. representations of the real in the text). These are synthesized in interpretation.
[11] In my book Abraham en sy God (Griffel, 2012)
[12] Click on The Book of Genesis - the Sumerian hypothesis
[13] Click on Does the creation narrative of Genesis 1 support the idea of a young earth?
[14] Click on Adam and Eve: were they the first humans?
[15] Click on Reconsidering The Fall
[16] The Bible can be read on two levels: 1) Such that children and simple people can understand it and come to faith in Christ 2) Such that scientists and educated people, in general, can understand it in the context of its ancient historical setting and believe it because it is a trustworthy source of information that has been written with integrity (although it has obviously not been written from a modern scientific perspective). To reconcile these might be a major challenge for any pastor - but without both, we stand no chance to reach the people of our day for Christ. The trustworthiness of the Biblical text grounds our faith that the Bible is divinely inspired as is clearly stated by some of its authors. Although we as Christians would believe the Biblical text even in the face of supposed inconsistencies, we have a duty to study such problems and show that the text is indeed trustworthy in line with the proclamations regarding its divine inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16; Acts 17:11); it is exactly its trustworthiness (which follow when we use the right contextual tools instead of the modernist approach which discredited Biblical Criticism [19]) which shows that the claims that it is the Word of God are to be taken serious (i.e. that it does not merely contain "words about God").
[17] I developed such tools in the essay Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical approach
[18] Can we still believe the Bible? An archaeological perspective
[19] A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline

Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)

Read also

Hoe moet Christene die huidige paradigma-verskuiwing in die samelewing benader?
Wat moet Christene in 'n tyd soos hierdie doen?
Middelgrond in die geloof
Wetenskap en geloof

Read also essays on Science, Philosophy and God:

Part 1: The problem of spontaneity in quantum mechanics
Part 2: Science and our restricted human understanding
Part 3: Science and metaphysics: in search of Russell's teapot
Presenting a new argument for the existence of God
Part 4. Science and the spiritual realm
Part 5. In defence of the soul
Part 6: Science and Atheism
Part 7: Science and spiritual intuition
Part 8: The Christian and Evolution

The problem of spontaneity in quantum mechanics

The problem of indeterminism in quantum physics is profound; such is the solution to that problem. I show how indeterminism (spontaneity) and determinism are accounted for in Kantian metaphysics and how this provides us with a viable way to understand our world - especially indeterminism in quantum physics. When the metaphysical implications thereof are considered, the atheistic worldview becomes untenable.

We all engage on a daily basis with the world around us. We have various experiences of and in our world. Our experience is complemented with the more substantial, careful and systematic study of our world which goes far beyond our everyday experience in the framework of science. When we consider all the information that becomes available to us, we may confront the important question: What is the cosmos really like? What is the totality of our existence? Are we only matter or are there other aspects to our universe that go beyond that? These are difficult questions and philosophers and theologians have been thinking about them for a very long time.

In this essay I engage with these questions in the context of quantum physics, using the philosophy of one of the greatest philosophers of all time, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). The reason for doing so is that his approach to these questions have special relevance to our current situation - his conceptualization of the world is in remarkable agreement with the newest developments in science (see below). On the one hand, Kant was concerned with the question of grounding science. As such he was especially interested in the question: What is knowledge? On the other hand, Kant engaged with the question of human freedom. For Kant, the possibility of human freedom (of choice) implies that our world may include an aspect that goes beyond the realm of experience (and experiment; the world of knowledge); a supersensible realm in which absolute spontaneity would be seated.

The question of freedom is very important one insofar as we want to engage with the larger questions about our human existence. If our world is merely mechanistic (everything is just matter which is deterministically connected), then humans merely have the illusion that they are free. If humans, however, really have free choice, the world cannot merely consist of matter; it must have some aspect to it that goes beyond matter and makes such freedom possible. Kant developed a conceptual framework (we may call it a metaphysical framework) in which both determinism and freedom are accommodated. In this regard, he did not merely focus on human freedom, but also on the more basic possibility of freedom or spontaneity which would make human freedom possible. This possibility has now been confirmed in science. This implies that the world is more than mere matter.

On the possibility of freedom

In Kant's view, there is only one way to account for both the possibilities of freedom and determinism, namely that the world be conceptualized as consisting of two aspects, namely nature and a supersensible (noumenal) realm outside nature. The concept of nature as a system captures the possibility of determinism (which is called "mechanism" in the context of nature) in its absolute totality, i.e. as referring to the totality of all possible mechanistic (deterministic) connections in the world. The "laws of nature" are possible as laws because of this deterministic causal (i.e. predictable) link between the objects of nature. To the extent that objects in the world are objects of nature, we can bring them within our experiential or experimental reach. As such we can gain empirical access to such objects in space and time and gain knowledge about them.

The concept of the supersensible realm, on the other hand, refers to a possible aspect of our world where objects are not deterministically connected. Since we cannot engage empirically with such objects (for that we need a deterministic causal connection between the objects and our measuring devices), they would be "supersensible", that is, outside our experiential and experimental reach. Since we cannot access such a realm with our senses or instruments, we can merely think it - that's why it is also called a "noumenal" realm (from the Greek word for understanding, namely "nous").

We can think that such a realm may operate according to another rule (than mechanism), namely in accordance with absolute spontaneity (freedom). The only manner in which objects in such a realm could impact our experience or experiments is if they have the ability through this spontaneous causality to produce outcomes in nature. Then we may become aware of such outcomes. In Kant's view, such spontaneous causality would be necessary to ground human free will. It would be through such a causality in the supersensible realm that our free choice would become possible.

There are various ways in which we can consider the possibility of such freedom. We can follow a methodological approach in which we consider the mere possibility of such freedom. Insofar as such a realm is outside space and time and classical causality, the logical possibility arises that freedom might be possible in that framework (i.e. there is no contradiction in that). In this case, we are not concerned with what such a realm may be like; we merely assert that it is not in space-time and outside causality and as such we can ascribe freedom to it.

Such a methodological approach may involve taking the empirical data regarding spontaneity in, say, atomic decay, as the basis to formulate a hypothetical rule to guide quantum physics. In this case, we do not worry about the How-question (How is such spontaneity possible?), we merely accept the empirical evidence regarding such spontaneity as it is observed. This is how Niels Bohr got to his "quantum postulate". The quantum objects that are responsible for these indeterminate (spontaneous according to Bohr) outcomes are outside experimental reach. We can therefore not study them empirically! It is only once the so-called wave packet (which describes the quantum object in its pre-measurement stage) has "collapsed", that we can observe something.

Bohr believed that the outcomes in quantum physics, which are indeterminate and discontinuous, are indeed spontaneously produced. Recently Hernan Pringe [1] showed how quantum outcomes can be grounded as objective knowledge in the context of Kant's philosophy. As such, he regards quantum objects as noumenal objects (that is in their pre-measurement stage) and uses the Kantian idea of absolute spontaneity to describe the production of such outcomes.

This implies that Kant's conception of the noumenal realm cannot any longer be banned from the scientific discussion as Kantian philosophers often assert (they associate it exclusively with his moral philosophy). Kant himself asserted that the noumenal realm should be included in the context of his philosophy of science as he presented it in his Critique of the Power of Judgment (also called the third Critique). In fact, it seems that we now have good reason to think that the world is not merely mechanistically connected and that Kant's metaphysics, which includes the noumenal realm, might give a better description of the world than other approaches which do not allow for spontaneity (say, Bohm's view or the "parallel universes" view) or do not say how it is possible. It also means that a very strong case for free will can be made.

 How is freedom possible?

In my own study of spontaneity [2], I proceed beyond a mere methodological approach. I am not merely concerned with the logical possibility of absolute spontaneity (spontaneous causality) or the use of hypothetical rules (the quantum postulate). I am also concerned with the more substantial question: How is such freedom possible? In this regard, I engage on a deeper level with the question of freedom.

There are certain conditions for absolute spontaneity to be possible - this involves engaging with the How-question. Kant discusses these conditions in the last part of the first Critique (in the first part of this Critique he is concerned with the conditions for human knowledge). In Kant's metaphysics these conditions are 1) the existence of a supersensible realm in contradistinction with the existence of nature (i.e. a realm in which determinism is not the governing principle), 2) the ability of objects in that realm to produce outcomes in nature. Kant also shows how we can conceive of the world in this manner.

When we allow for the mere possibility of freedom, this does not mean that such freedom really exist. Once we allow that such freedom may in fact really exist, we have to say how that would be possible. According to Kant freedom can only be "saved" if we allow that the noumenal realm exists (even if we cannot confirm its existence) and that objects in that realm produce outcomes in nature. As such the noumenal realm cannot be of the same kind of existence than nature where mechanism rules (then freedom would not be possible). Rather, we can think that the noumenal realm would only be accessible for another kind of intuition than our sensible intuition, would have an ideal (abstract) space-time structure that would correspond in some manner with our own space-time and would be governed by absolute spontaneity. As such we can positively conceptualize what such a noumenal realm would be like if it existed.

Although I do not dogmatically (in a realist sense) assert the existence of such a noumenal realm, I do think that we have good reason to think that such a realm exists in the form of the quantum realm. This would mean that the quantum realm belongs to a different mode of existence than nature (the "classical" world where the space-time theories of relativity apply). As such, the possibility of absolute spontaneity which is observed in quantum physics (where atomic decay is the most dramatic example), may be explained alongside determinism. We do not have to merely assert the fact of freedom or try to (against all evidence) try to assert determinism (as some philosophers of science have done); we can explain how both are possible and we can reconcile them in the framework of Kant's philosophy. This might be the only possible manner in which determinism and freedom are reconciled in science; not merely as logical possibilities, but in explaining how both are possible and could co-exist.

The metaphysical implications of this are profound. It means that we can not only account for the indeterminism (spontaneity) that we observe in quantum mechanics; we can also explain it. As such this explanation follows directly from an ontological (i.e. concerned with "existence") reading of Kant's philosophy in the first and third Critiques [2]. This means that Kant's metaphysics, which allows for both nature and a supersensible realm outside nature, might be the best way to understand and explain what our world is like. This also presents the first step in accounting for free will, and the argument that humans are responsible before the law (even the moral law).

In fact, Kant's philosophy even accepts the existence of the soul (as a noumenal self) which is important in the Kantian conception of free will. If this is, in fact, the only way to explain and reconcile determinism and freedom, then we may finally reject the atheistic worldview - in the sense that a strictly a-theistic (no-god) view would have to exclude the typical metaphysical grounds on which the existence of God is based. As such an a-theistic view necessitates the exclusion of the possibility of spontaneity which requires a supersensible realm; freedom and the supersensible realm opens the door for God. This is why atheistic philosophers and scientists have traditionally supported a pure mechanistic (deterministic) conception of the cosmos. Although the confirmation that the quantum realm conforms to Kant's conception of the supersensible realm obviously does not prove the existence of God, it belongs to a metaphysical picture that has traditionally been associated with belief in God.

Conclusion

In this essay, I engage with the question: How is freedom possible? I introduce the freedom-determinism debate in the context of Kant's philosophy. I show that the possible existence of both these opposites is incorporated into Kant's metaphysics which includes both nature and the supersensible realm outside nature. What is remarkable, is that the Kantian conception of a supersensible realm which grounds absolute spontaneity is now taken seriously in science [1]. As such we have to accept that quantum objects exist as noumenal objects (as Pringe shows) which ground such freedom.

I make the bold claim that we cannot only accept the mere possibility or even the empirical evidence of spontaneity without also asking: How is such freedom possible? We may have to accept that we can only explain such freedom if we conceptualize the quantum world as a different mode of existence. This means that our classical and quantum conceptions of the world refer to two distinct modes of existence. This fits in very nicely with the Kantian metaphysics; this is what we expect if we read the world through the lens of Kantian metaphysics [3].

[1] Pringe, H. 2007. Critique of the Quantum Power of Judgment. A Transcendental Foundation of Quantum Objectivity. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

[2] Mc Loud, W. 2015. Introducing a Kantian Interpretation of Quantum Physics, in accordance with Kant's Philosophy of Science in the Critique of the Power of Judgment, reinterpreted and reworked with special attention to the supersensible realm. Masters thesis. UCT. Cape Town.
Kant, Noumena and Quantum Physics, published in Contemporary Studies in Kantian Philosophy 3 (2018)

[3] I hope to write about ten essays on the implications of the remarkable fit between Kantian metaphysics and our scientific understanding of the world for the Christian-atheist conversation. 

Author: Dr. Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)

Part 2: Science and our restricted human understanding

Part 3: Science and metaphysics: in search of Russell's teapot
            Presenting a new argument for the existence of God

Part 4. Science and the spiritual realm

Part 5. In defence of the soul
Part 6: Science and Atheism 
Part 7: Science and spiritual intuition
Part 8: The Christian and Evolution