Does Quantum Physics Validate Christian Science? 

The following post is by guest contributor realscience

This is the first of two posts critiquing a lecture at Principia College by Laurance Doyle, Ph.D., entitled, “The Metaphysics of Quantum Physics.” Doyle’s talk makes two basic claims: (1) quantum physics validates Christian Science; and (2) Mary Baker Eddy anticipated the findings of 20th century physics. This post tackles the first claim; I will address the second in a later post.


Fifteen years ago physicist and former Christian Scientist, Robert L. Miller, published an article in the journal Skeptic entitled, “Christian Science and the Perversion of Quantum Physics.” Laurance Doyle, an astrophysicist and Christian Scientist, had been proclaiming a metaphysical interpretation of quantum physics that was at odds with generally accepted interpretations and wrong on the physics to boot. Well, Doyle is still at it, perverting theory and experiment to evangelize lay Christian Scientists with the notion that quantum physics validates their religion and that Mary Baker Eddy had a prescient understanding of scientific reality.

Doyle gave a lecture last April at Principia College where he is director of the oxymoronic “Institute for the Metaphysics of Physics”) on “The Metaphysics of Quantum Physics.” I suppose a talk of that flavor to a community of believers is to be expected, but it is clear from the expressionless faces in the audience that the physics he presented was far over-the-heads of most. I don’t believe anyone in Cox Auditorium that day had sufficient knowledge to question anything Doyle said. Indeed, I suspect the Christian Science community as a whole reveres Dr. Doyle as an unassailable authority on quantum physics.

In fact, however, Doyle is far out of the mainstream of physics consensus. Anyone who has attended a scientific conference knows how participants will challenge others’ hypotheses and interpretations of experimental results, all for the advancement of understanding–but this won’t happen at Principia College. If Doyle were to give this same presentation to a group of his peers at a physics symposium (even stripped of its references to Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science) he would be interrupted and challenged on nearly every slide.

1. The experimenter is not separable from his experiment.

Doyle repeatedly misstates the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics promulgated by Niels Bohr by declaring that “the experimenter is not separable from the experiment” (referring to the famous double-slit experiment). Doyle believes that the experimenter’s mind affects quantum behavior: “What you can know about the experiment turns out to be what’s important.” But Bohr was explicit that it is the measuring apparatus (rather than the mind of the experimenter) that is inseparable from the behavior of the particles: The experiment “implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear.”1

Doyle is incorrect when he declares, “Particles do not exist until they are observed” (i.e., by a human experimenter). Science writer Eliot Hawkins explains his error:

This is where people sometimes get confused and misinterpretations occur. . . . To us regular folks, “observation” means looking at something, seeing something happen. That’s not even close to what it means to quantum physicists. To them, it means measuring. . . . These vastly different definitions left us regular joe’s thinking that reality is unresolved until we look at it and that quantum states didn’t resolve until the information had managed to filter through our human minds.2

2. An underlying immediate connectedness exists between all elementary particles that make up all things.

Doyle bases this assertion on the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, in which particles of common origin and shared properties appear to be “aware” of each other’s states when separated (and theoretically the separation distance is unlimited). Although it defies our common sense, the phenomenon is reliably observable in experiments. Doyle believes that experiments to test Bell’s Theorem prove that entangled particles “communicate” their status via a mechanism that operates faster than the speed of light. But he faces a formidable hurdle with that inference because it conflicts with Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which has been exhaustively validated experimentally. Most physicists reject the notion that superluminal communication is what’s happening in the Bell’s Inequality experiments, and recent experiments continue to demonstrate that faster-than-light transmission is impossible.

Entanglement can be produced in the laboratory, but it is a fragile condition that is instantly destroyed when particles are disturbed by interactions from outside their closed system. Consequently, the random and chaotic nature of the universe ensures that any sort of underlying entanglement or awareness among all particles in the cosmos is impossible.

3. “History” can be changed.

As strange as it seems, experiments with individual particles have shown that at the quantum level time can run backwards. Doyle suggests that this phenomenon raises the interesting possibility of reversing time at macroscopic levels (“changing history”).

Time, like position and momentum, is a probabilistic phenomenon. At the level of individual particles the probability of time going either direction can be high. But at scales greater than small numbers of particles the probability of time reversal increasingly approaches zero. Consequently, at the macroscopic scale in which we live time is an irreversible forward arrow hurtling in the direction of greater entropy, as the second law of thermodynamics requires. Zoran Pazameta explains:

In Einstein’s physics causality holds in all domains of the natural world, but quantum theory allows for violation of microcausality at the (microscopic) quantum level. In our macroscopic world, however, causality holds absolutely. This is one important reason why time travel is impossible; to go backwards in time means reversing every cause-and-effect event in the entire universe between then and now.3

Dr. Doyle’s central argument that modern physics validates Christian Science is a willful misinterpretation of the science. If physics actually validated his three assertions then we could plausibly believe that human thought determines what is real; that every particle of the universe is united under one mind; and that mental force can change the history of human experience (including, I suppose, raising the dead). But Doyle’s assertions are not validated by physics: they are all incorrect. No, Dr. Doyle, quantum physics does not validate Christian Science.

It should be a matter of concern that Dr. Doyle misrepresents physical science to an audience of students in order to promote a metaphysical system. It is unfortunate that students at Principia College will not be exposed to other perspectives on the implications of modern physics, which are indeed fascinating. Principia College remains an intellectually closed community on matters that may challenge Christian Science theology. These students deserve better.

For further reading:

Quincey, Paul. “Quantum Weirdness: An Analogy from the Time of Newton.” Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 32.6 Nov./Dec. 2008. Stenger, Victor.

“Quantum Quackery.” Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 21.1 Jan./Feb. 1997.

Endnotes

  1. Niels Bohr (1949). “Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics”. In P. Schilpp. Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. Open Court.
  2. Eliot Hawkins, Quantum Mechanics for the 99% (but not for Dummies) (Amazon Digital Services, Inc., 2012) Kindle loc. 428.
  3. Zoran Pazameta, “The Laws of Nature: A Skeptic’s Guide,” Skeptical Inquirer, vol. 24.5 Sept./Oct. 2000.

Embedded links

Comments on this post have been turned off

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Does Quantum Physics Validate Christian Science? 

  1. Bill Sweet says:

    Even though time travel is presently out ruled, it’s not off the chopping board completely. Either is Star Trek’s “Beam me up. Beam me down.” Transportation is not off the chopping block completely in quantum physics. We can expect more weird strangeness in future discoveries.

    I would like to share a dream I had about time travel during last week.

    I had a dream four nights ago that I was chosen to go back in time in a time machine. I took the opportunity to get a meeting with Mary Baker Eddy. It took some persuasion to meet her, as I had to convince Mrs. Eddy’s secretaries that I was from the future and needed to speak with her.

    I met with Mary Baker Eddy in her office. I told Mrs. Eddy that she had to plan for several things that would undeniably haunt her discovery and potentially lead to the loss of Christian Science.

    One thing was, she had to say something about parents taking their children to the doctor. It should be the law. Otherwise, people will leave Christian Science in droves.

    Another thing was, I told Mrs. Eddy that she had to make clearer the roles of the Directors and Trustees, as there will be a power grab by the Board of Directors in the 1920s, falsely based on the Supreme Court suddenly switching gears in the Board’s favor.

    I also mentioned to Mrs. Eddy that the future needed more ‘curious’ students of Christian Science who looked into the Science of Christian Science, as the whole of civilization was going to become scientific about every avenue of life. Christian Science could become “the last man standing” among Christian churches in regard to Christianity being in a relationship with Science. She had to prepare her students for the scientific age ahead.

  2. spindrifter says:

    Would you like to dismiss some of their experiments that were conducted by university trained scientists? Skeptics have told me that unless a non believer, a skeptic, an atheist did experiments of the type mentioned, it’s illegitimate science. That would be you gladly acknowledged I’m sure. Who do you want to do these tests then? Have only those who don’t like the subjects involved do the testing? An atheist scientist told me that only an atheist is capable of answering if God exists or not. Is that the kind of world you want?

    • Pete Jensen says:

      Truth is not a democracy. There is no middle ground between truth and error. Notice the lack of capitals, that was intentional.

      Noetics is bullshit, plain and simple. I don’t care if they were university trained or not, the underlying principle of Noetics is flawed, a misunderstanding of quantum physics. No credible scientist in their right mind would ever cite any of the “research” you use as support. If you set out with an objective and try to find an explanation that points towards the result you desire, that is not science. Your understanding of the scientific method is a joke, I’ve seen your website, I’m not even going to bother ripping it to shreds, nobody important will take it seriously anyway.

      As for your final question, as I stumble through your grammar errors, is the kind of world I want one in which only an Atheist can prove if God exists? I don’t care, I absolutely do not care if there is or is not a God or gods. It is completely and utterly irrelevant to everything in my life. I do not have the time or the patience to engage in a futile debate with no bearing whatsoever on the world around me.

  3. spindrifterr says:

    Enjoy your worldview. As to one point about the scientific method Spindrift hired a scientist to make sure protocols were being followed.

  4. spindrifterr says:

    I should have thrown this article into the discussion. Though I don’t personally think the survey is correct, presented today is this article from the “Huffington Post” on the cooperation between religion and science.

  5. Bill Fleming says:

    I have just watched a Horizon program on the BBC that suggests we could all be a hologram. that something doesn’t have time or space until it is observed, that we may exist in multiple universes, that basically there is no unifying theory in physics, except for a short period and then it changes again. At the moment it appears as everything could simply be an equation. Now ask yourself, where does an equation get meaning and life? Not in matter, but in MIND! Perhaps a little known woman at the end of the 19th century has a point, perhaps experimentation as we know it cannot fully explain the universe and reality, perhaps the human mind is only an image on a projector and a two dimensional one at that!! Objective based analysis may yet be a flaw as big as the “sudo religious” flaw of the Roman Catholic Church pre Galileo that sated that the world was flat….in fact it may be flat even though it appears to be a sphere??? In other words don’t let your little human mind stop itself from thinking outside the box Mr Jensen.

Comments are closed.