AAR Session 2 (3/11/10): Contemporary Theology

(Probably my favorite session out of both days, if I had to pick one...)

"A Change of Planetude: Attaining a Sense of Place in the Universe Story, Quantum Physics, and Process Philosophy" by Matthew Riley

Mr. Riley explores the New Cosmology of Thomas Berry, and begins with a statement from Berry (paraphrased): Human alienation occurs as mutually beneficial actions become more meaningless. He mentions Sister Mary MacGillis (sp?), who lived in Western NJ, and the sense of deep quiet attained in that place. (Easy to understand--I live in Western NJ, and it's still largely rural). That sense of quiet seems hard to know these days, as most humans live in cities. Even if we are privileged, we tend to be largely nomadic--moving from job to job, place to place. There is a need to recover a sense of place if we want to avoid that sense of alienation.

Mr. Riley believes that a new basis for human interaction can be found in the sciences. We can gain an appreciation of our environment through scientific understanding. Mr. Riley takes on the notion of "local realism". One of the tenets of local realism is that the universe is made up of matter--material, tangible, and partitioned. However, as Alfred North Whitehead pointed out, this is useful but ultimately false conception. Scientific abstraction cannot take the place of reality. Whitehead proposes that the universe is not made up of matter, but of subjective events. Each subjective entity (i.e., our own perceptions and set of experiences) is a locus for the universe. And we move in relation, in interdependence, not isolation.

Bell's Theorem shows that the paradigm of local realism is incompatible with quantum physics. The theorem shows that if 2 particles become entangled with each other, they will gain characteristics of each other, including the spin of the particle. When Particle A changes, Particle B changes instantaneously--there is no time lapse, regardless of the distance between particles. This fact rules out the entire class of local realism theories, and demonstrates a non-local reality. Things are neither here nor there, but both here and there.

In summation, Mr. Riley has 3 major points: 1. The Universe is composed of events, not matter; 2. Separation is an abstraction; 3. Each subject exists in relational, interdependent relationships. Whitehead talks about the "microphase" versus the "macrophase". The microphase is the smaller reality that we experience, and the macrophase is the bigger picture. The notion of separation belongs to the microphase.

(There was a lot of commentary on this paper. Someone asked whether the ideas put forward were the reality or analogous. Mr. Riley suggested that they were analogous, as not all physicists agree that what happens on the quantum level has anything to do with life as we experience it. I can think of the notion of time travel as a result of quantum interference as an example. It can be demonstrated how that might happen at the particle level, but it is not something we can manifest at the level of complex organisms such as ourselves. On the other hand, we are made up of particles, and we have a great interest in finding out about the early nature of the Universe around the time of the Big Bang by looking at particles. There is a lot about quantum physics that falls in line with very old religious and philosophical ideas about the nature of existence, so it does make it worth some study. Dr. Eller accurately pointed out that there is a lot in quantum mechanics that falls in line with the Buddhist cosmology.)

"Catholic Tradition's Critically Expanding Universe" by Stephen M. Johnson (read by Cynthia Eller)

Dr. Johnson was asked to review Sister Elizabeth Michael Boyle's book, "Science as Sacred Metaphor: an Evolving Revelation," published in 2006. Dr. Johnson wonders at Sister Boyle's attempt at matchmaking science and religion. He is pleasantly surprised at the results. Sister Boyle argues that science expands our understanding of reality, and that "the god of classical physics can no longer be invoked". The ideal Christian is both autonomous and connected. Dr. Johnson sees this as a re-spin of William Blake's notion of "the self meeting the Self". We are better able to see God when we are grounded in the natural.

Sister Boyle summarizes evolution's disputes, and moves to defend science and religion from fundamentalism. With regard to divine and human suffering, she suggests that God is not a god of stone--he is pre-Darwin, a force in Nature. "God is here, in redemptive agony, waiting for you to act." For Sister Boyle, God is not in the details, but in the possibilities. If evolution moves us from instinct to thoughtfulness, the faithful should understand that we are not moving "towards" God--God is always there, and our current scientific understanding should support the notion of human trust in God.

Sister Boyle also tackles the complex "string theory" of quantum physics, drawing a parallel with the Greek gods Apollo and Dionysus-- an attempt to reconcile the classical order of traditional physics with the disorder of quantum mechanics.

Overall, Dr. Johnson was impressed with Sister Boyle's tackling of the subject, and suggested that he would willingly attend any service where she was preaching at the pulpit. He discussed recent events in the papacy of Benedict XVI, including the Vatican's apostolic visit to the American nuns. He points out (and I agree 100%) that this attempt to make sure nuns are "in line" with Church teaching is a bit ironic, given that the Sisters have spent much time on self-reform and building bridges with the faithful, while the Church hierarchy has started to lose respect. He suggests that Catholics may need to lose the Church as it is now in order to regain it. In any event, Catholics should not lose all that was gained with Vatican II.

"Perspectives on Muslim Immigrants and Immigrant Religion in Contemporary Sweden" by Cecil Beret Marshall

Ms. Marshall argues in her paper that Swedish government is not truly secular, but still very much affected by traditional Christian ideals. She asks the question--how is it that those who pride themselves on tolerance can exclude an entire group of their population--the Muslims? She suggests that the definition of religious and secular has changed in Sweden. The population is almost 40% foreign immigrants, and those immigrants are most likely to be Muslim. She notes that the explosion of the Muslim population was swift and sudden, and that the "traditional" Swedish government and populace was caught off guard. Muslims are "ghettoized" in Sweden, and the government does not pay any attention to the needs of those communities, so they also suffer the most. Many native-born Swedes are afraid the Muslims will take over (I've heard this complaint in other parts of Europe as well), and feel they need to protect the Swedish way of life. They have refused to legalize Muslim "halal slaughter" (a ritual method of meat slaughter) in the name of animal protection, though they also will not legalize Jewish kosher means of butchering, either, for the same reason. Ms. Marshall suggests that it hasn't come up as a problem in the Jewish community because it's a lot smaller, and they've assimilated with the Swedes in a way that the Muslim communities have not. The official Lutheran Church of Sweden was disestablished 10 years ago, but that only seems to be a disestablishment "on paper"--Church membership is still seen as part of Swedish national identity. Mosques are universally unwanted in Sweden, as they claim they will interfere with the existing architecture and landscape. One audience member asked if Ms. Marshall had any suggestions for how this could change, and she mentioned that the government is currently working on several policies to try to sort out the inequalities.

My own thought on this last presentation is a bit ambivalent. I understand the concerns about inequality, but I also think of the old notion of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." I am friendly with a number of Indian immigrants to the United States who fervently espouse this belief. When I spend time in Europe, I try to adapt my own behavior to what is acceptable there. While this should not mean an eradication of one's religion and culture, it has to be noted that when you move to a country with different values and traditions, there are going to be conflicts if you go against that grain. So, I'm not sure Sweden is being intolerant as much as they seem ill-equipped to deal with this change in demographic, and Ms. Marshall points out (rightly, I think) that there is a more glaring population explosion in Sweden than in other European countries. Perhaps it comes down to realizing that such "tribal" identities have always changed throughout history as people migrate from one place to another, and will continue to do so. There's no sense fighting for a "purity" that was never really there.