Quantum Entanglement as a Metaphor for the Unity of God: An Analysis

Informed by Pannenberg’s Use of the Metaphor of Field for the Spirit of God

By R. Daren Erisman
For STSP 5900 Advanced Seminar in Theology & Science
Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, California

INTRODUCTION
Nine years ago, I was reading Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Systematic Theology, when
I came across a point that made a significant impression upon me. According to
Pannenberg, it was easier to show the distinctions between the three persons of the
Trinity than to show the unity of God.1 From that point onward, I have paid attention to
how theology might elucidate the unity of God, particularly in light of a quickly growing
Islamic world that views God only in the exclusive terms of asserting God’s oneness,
tawhid. With an interest in showing the intelligibility of a Christian understanding of
God’s unity, and an interest in the language of science as a medium for interfaith
conversation, I was captivated by our classroom discussion on quantum mechanics and
specifically the issue of nonseparability or what has been termed: “quantum
entanglement.”
Can quantum entanglement provide such an intelligible language for describing
the unity of God from a Christian, Trinitarian perspective? This paper seeks to answer
this question. To begin with, Ian Barbour’s methodology provides a significant
foundation for exploring this question, particularly his careful consideration of scientific
and religious models, and the use of metaphor. If quantum entanglement is to be a
successful metaphor for God’s unity then its limitations need to be explicitly described.
It is also instructive to bring in a comparative metaphor, in this case Pannenberg’s use of
field theory to describe God as Spirit. Pannenberg’s metaphor is helpful not only in that
it uses another scientific metaphor to talk about the unity of God, but also, because the
metaphor’s scientific basis has been criticized as being simply “classical” and outdated.
The question always looms in the background as to the fate of a theological metaphor if
the status of its scientific basis changes.
Before moving into the section on methodology and analysis, it is worth a quick
look at the scientific theory of quantum entanglement.

A Brief Overview of Quantum Entanglement

For readers unfamiliar with quantum mechanics, at its most basic level, the theory
of quantum entanglement suggests that if two particles, such as two photons, interact with
each other, that even though they may separate spatially, they relate to each other in ways
that would suggest that they were not separated—this is termed “nonseparability” or is

1
Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, trans. G. W. Bromiley, 3 vols., vol. 1 (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 340-342.
often referred to as “nonlocality.” Amazingly, this theory has been experimentally
confirmed2 with particles separated by over ten kilometers, yet, still retaining
nonseparability. Essentially, the two particles share both a separateness and a
togetherness—features useful in applying quantum entanglement as a metaphor for the
unity God.
At a more advanced scientific level,3 quantum entanglement is “essentially a more
or less complex species of superposition4 involving more than one particle.”5 It is as
though the two spatially separated particles existed in a shared wave function. When a
measurement is taken on one of the particles, the wave of probability collapses and
instantaneously determines the other particle’s coordinating state. John Polkinghorne6
uses the example of two protons which previously joined together have a total spin equal
to zero. If after separating a wide distance, the measurement of the z-axis spin of one
proton were determined to be “up,” then the z-axis spin of the other proton would
instantaneously become “down.” Significantly, before measurement, the spin
components of each proton are indeterminate, but when a component of one of the
protons is measured, the other is instantly determined as if both particles were local.
At a philosophical level, quantum entanglement is an ontological effect and not
epistemological. The entangled particles are instantaneously influenced in their being
(taking a particular state) and not in some exchange of information. This is an important
distinction. Quantum entanglement is not a form of telepathy or as Robert Russell puts it,
entanglement does not mean that when you wiggle one particle that the other distant
particle wiggles too. More profoundly, it does mean that the two entangled particles
share a mutual dependence in terms of being. This will be further explored in the section
on “Analogical Use: The Unity of God and the Immanent and Economic Trinity.”

2
This was first shown by experiments conducted by Alain Aspect and later repeated by others at
greater distances.
3
This discussion and the following assumes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory.
The important implication of this is an assumed ontological indeterminacy. For a thorough
description of the Copenhagen interpretation refer to Robert J. Russell, "Divine Action and
Quantum Mechanics: A Fresh Assessment," in Quantum Mechanics: Scientific Perspectives on
Divine Action, ed. Robert John Russell et al. (Vatican City State and Berkeley, Calif.: Vatican
Observatory and the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2001).
4
“Superposition” refers to the principle that if two physically states are allowed for a wave
function of a particle, that they can be arbitrarily combined to create another physically allowable
state. According to quantum mechanics, particles therefore exist in multiple simultaneous states
until a measurement is taken.
5
Kirk Wegster-McNelly, “The World, Entanglement, and God: Quantum Theory and the
Christian Doctrine of Creation” (Doctoral Dissertation, Graduate Theological Union, 2003),
Section 6.2.
6
John Polkinghorne, The Quantum World (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984), 70-71.

p. 2
METHODOLOGY/ANALYSIS

The methodology of this paper is indebted to Ian Barbour’s discussion of models

and metaphors. In his pioneering work, Myths, Models, and Paradigms,7 Barbour
carefully lays out the characteristics of scientific and religious models, metaphors and
paradigms. This paper utilizes these concepts to first distinguish the relationship between
models and metaphors, and then, after emphasizing the role of “critical realism” some
characteristics of models shape the discussion in terms of analogy, extensibility, and
unity.8 After this analysis, a similar metaphor proposed by Pannenberg is introduced,
critiqued and compared with the metaphor of quantum entanglement.

Quantum Entanglement as Model and Metaphor

So far, in this paper the language of models and metaphors has been used in a
loose fashion. This is reasonable considering their similar functions as “analogical
imagination.”9 Models however, and theoretical scientific models in particular, are
systematically developed metaphors which lead to theories that can be tested through
experiment. Metaphors on the other hand, particularly religious metaphors, can evoke
“emotional and valuational responses”10 and by their open-ended nature cannot simply be
reduced to a set of equivalent literal statements.11 With regard to quantum entanglement,
this paper suggests that this theoretical scientific model be used as a metaphor for the
unity of God.

Role of Critical Realism

Behind most of Barbour’s comments on models and metaphors is the driving

claim of critical realism.12 It is an intermediate position between those who seek to be
dismissive of models and theories as simply imaginative (idealism) and perhaps useful
constructs (instrumentalism) that have nothing to do with what is real, and those who
view models and theories as literal descriptions of the world (classical or “naïve”
realism). Critical realism claims that models and metaphors are selectively representative
of certain aspects of the world. They are not fully adequate to explain the reality, but
7
Ian G. Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms: A Comparative Study in Science and Religion
(New York: Harper & Row, 1974).
8
Ian G. Barbour, Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, Revised and
expanded edition of Religion in an Age of Science ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 1997), 116.
9
Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms: A Comparative Study in Science and Religion, 44.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid., 14.
12
Refer to Barbour, Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, 117-118. For
further development of critical realism see Robert J. Russell, "Ian Barbour's Methodological
Breakthrough: Creating the 'Bridge' between Science and Theology," in 40 Years in Science and
Religion: Ian G. Barbour and His Legacy, ed. Robert J. Russell (Ashgate, To be published in
2004). Refer also to Niels Henrik Gregersen, "Critical Realism and Other Realisms," in 40 Years
in Science and Religion: Ian G. Barbour and His Legacy, ed. Robert J. Russell (Ashgate, To be
published 2004).

p. 3
they are to be taken seriously and not just as a useful fiction. They are not literally true,
but usefully comparative. Importantly, they “make tentative ontological claims that there
are entities in the world something like those postulated in the models.”13 At one level,
this paper follows Barbour’s approach of critical realism, but at the same time, there is
the acknowledgement that quantum entanglement challenges the notion of common sense
“realism.” To clarify this, it is worth presenting a brief historical description of the
development of quantum entanglement.
Interestingly, the roots of quantum entanglement came from Albert Einstein
trying to show that it was impossible. He had an aversion to the indeterminate,
probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics as emphasized by Niels Bohr and Werner
Heisenberg. Rather, Einstein sought determinism, and worked under the assumption of
classical realism in which, using Barbour’s words, “individual particles possess definite
classical properties at all times, even when we are not observing them.”14 Einstein,
through the constraints of his own theory of Special Relativity, also understood that no
causal influence can be transmitted between two separate systems faster than the speed of
light. This constraint is called “locality.” Einstein therefore sought classical realism and
locality. In 1935, Einstein and collaborators Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen
developed the thought experiment of the before-mentioned separation of two particles.
When their thought experiment, called the “EPR experiment,” implied nonlocality,
Einstein chose to interpret this as a failure of quantum mechanics and said in a realist
fashion that there must be a determining missing variable. John Bell in 1965 created a set
of inequalities that could be tested experimentally (though with some difficulty) to show
if Einstein’s assumptions were correct. Alain Aspect in 1983 proved that Einstein was
wrong and that one of Einstein’s assumptions was incorrect, classical realism or locality.
This has left a number of options for scientists and philosophers to examine.
David Bohm, and ironically, John Bell have sought to maintain the determinism
of the classical realist approach combined with nonlocality.15 Most other scientists have
sought to keep locality (because of their investment in Special Relativity) but have
struggled with the concept of realism for this case. Barbour views this as struggle
between nonlocal classical realism and local critical realism16 while Robert Russell
comments that we are really forced to choose between “nonlocal realism and local
antirealism.”17
In any case, the most common approach, and the one adopted by this paper, is that
“realism” is yet to be fully explicated on the matter of quantum entanglement18 but that in

13
Barbour, Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, 117.
14
Ibid., 176.
15
David Bohm “has developed the equations for a quantum potential that acts as a kind of
instantaneous pilot wave guiding particles; the wave incorporates encoded information about both
local and distant events and does not fall off with distance.” Ibid.
16
Ibid., 176-177.
17
Robert J. Russell, "Religion and the Theories of Science: A Response to Barbour," Zygon 31,
no. 1 (March 1996): 31.
18
Robert Russell nicely summarizes the problem: “the challenge to Barbour, as to the rest of us
who defend ‘locality’ (i.e., special relativity) in spite of quantum correlations with spacelike
separations, and who do so while supporting realism (even if ‘critically’), is to produce a
metaphysical system through which the ‘nonseparability’ ontology of quantum systems, their

p. 4
a critical realist manner, quantum entanglement does imply a quantum holism and
indeterminacy. Furthermore, as will be shown, these characteristics fit well with a
relational understanding of the unity of God.

Analogical Use: The Unity of God and the Immanent and Economic Trinity

Analogically, quantum entanglement suggests the rich analogy of togetherness

and separateness or as John Polkinghorne puts it, “togetherness-in-separation.”19 With
regard to the immanent Trinity that describes the inter-relationships of the Father,20 Son
and Holy Spirit, the togetherness-in-separation is useful in grasping the distinction of the
three persons, yet maintaining the unitary character of the Godhead. Just as two
entangled particles maintain their individual physical space, so too it may be said that
God the Father and God the Son are able to maintain their individuality as persons. One
may even describe the corresponding wave function as akin the Holy Spirit,21 the creative
potential from which the nature of God is actualized. Analogously, the quantum
entanglement of the two particles suggests an ontological unity. No matter how far the
particles distinguish themselves in their physical separation, they are ontologically bound.
One measurement on one particle instantaneously establishes the nature of the other
particle. They are in essence a unity of being. So too, we might consider the unity of
God as a unity of being. With the analogical aid of quantum entanglement, God may be
perceived as an entangled God of unitary being who is able to act with distinctive
individuality. The incarnation of the Son in Jesus Christ in physical space can be
conceptualized as the actualization of God’s love in its own physical and independent
space, yet eternally and ontologically connected with the Father.
The analogy of “togetherness-in-separation” that quantum entanglement implies is
also relevant to the economic Trinity, God’s relationship with creation.22 Akin to the
previous implications of Christ’s physical separation, yet ontological unity with the
Godhead, one may imply a similar23 relationship between God and God’s creation. One
must be more careful, however, in the degrees of “togetherness” and “separation.”
Starting with God’s togetherness with the world, concepts such as God’s continuous
creation and humanity made in the “image” of God take on perhaps a richer meaning.
The metaphor implies that God’s very being is connected with creation and therefore
creation becomes more than just “not-God.” If this analogy of togetherness is taken to its
extreme, then it takes on a form of pantheism or perhaps one-step back, panentheism as

radical wholeness, can be made intelligible. Again, this is an outstanding and unsolved problem
in our field.” Ibid.
19
John Polkinghorne, Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2002), 79.
20
The language of God as “Father” is used only to be consistent with Trinitarian tradition. Such
language is ultimately inadequate and is not meant to evoke hierarchy. It is useful however in
demonstrating the relational aspect of the Trinity as opposed to language such as “God the
Creator” which tends to characterize the persons of the Trinity in terms of function.
21
Thus, John 4:24 takes on new meaning when Jesus says “God is spirit.”
22
For a carefully nuanced and engaging exploration of quantum entanglement and creation, refer
to Wegster-McNelly.
23
The connection is weaker and must be qualified.

p. 5
favored by process thought.24 If one takes the analogy of separation to its extreme, then
one finds oneself with the distant, disconnected God of deism. Perhaps the metaphor of
quantum entanglement, which seems to hold the complementary facets of togetherness
and separation, provides a balance of these two extremes. This would also satisfy what
Ted Peter’s calls “Rahner’s Rule,” the equating, or more aptly in light of our quantum
discussion, the superposition of the immanent and economic Trinity.
perhaps one-step back, panentheism as favored by process thought.24 If one takes
the analogy of separation to its extreme, then one finds oneself with the distant,
disconnected God of deism. Perhaps the metaphor of quantum entanglement, which
seems to hold the complementary facets of togetherness and separation, provides a
balance of these two extremes. This would also satisfy what Ted Peter’s calls “Rahner’s
Rule,” the equating, or more aptly in light of our quantum discussion, the superposition
of the immanent and economic Trinity.

Extensibility: Addressing Soteriology, Theodicy, and the Eucharist

Beyond quantum entanglement being a useful metaphor for the unity of God,
quantum entanglement can also contribute to the extension25 of other doctrines at the
level of intelligibility and perhaps discernment among competing options.26
Further analogical comparisons between quantum entanglement and the Trinity
regard the soteriological role of Jesus. What does it mean for there to be an ontological
togetherness between God and God’s Son when it comes to Christ’s death and
resurrection? How is God’s very being affected by the suffering and death of Jesus

24
Ian Barbour, who is favorable to process thinking, indirectly connects process thought with
quantum entanglement in his discussion of wholes and parts: Barbour, Religion and Science:
Historical and Contemporary Issues, 234. For a discussion of Barbour’s understanding of
panentheism and a helpful discussion of the role of process thought refer to Philip Clayton,
"Barbour's Panentheistic Metaphysic," in 40 Years in Science and Religion: Ian G. Bargour and
His Legacy, ed. Robert J. Russell (Ashgate, To be published in 2004).
24
Ian Barbour, who is favorable to process thinking, indirectly connects process thought with
quantum entanglement in his discussion of wholes and parts: Barbour, Religion and Science:
Historical and Contemporary Issues, 234. For a discussion of Barbour’s understanding of
panentheism and a helpful discussion of the role of process thought refer to Philip Clayton,
"Barbour's Panentheistic Metaphysic," in 40 Years in Science and Religion: Ian G. Bargour and
His Legacy, ed. Robert J. Russell (Ashgate, To be published in 2004).
25
Here, I have somewhat modified Barbour’s definition of extensibility. He uses it rather
specifically for the ability of theoretical models to contribute to the extension of theories.
Barbour, Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, 116.
26
A thorough analysis of “competing options” is beyond the scope of this paper. For some
philosophical tools, Nancey Murphy’s work is particularly helpful with her elucidation of Imre
Lakatos’ “research program” and Alasdair MacIntyre’s “adjudication between competing
traditions.” Nancey Murphy, Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning, ed. William P. Alston,
Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of Religion (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press,
1990). For a concise summary that coalesces with Barbour’s work, refer to Nancey Murphy,
"Religion, Theology, and the Philosophy of Science: An Appreciation of the Work of Ian
Barbour," in 40 Years in Science and Religion: Ian G. Barbour and His Legacy, ed. Robert J.
Russell (Ashgate, To be published in 2004).

p. 6
Christ? How does this ontological connection work between God and a suffering
creation? Ernie Simmons, another theologian favorable to process thinking, tackles some
of these questions by developing the metaphor of quantum entanglement with his view of
a “kenotic Trinity.”27 Using the togetherness of the quantum entanglement metaphor, he
suggests that the kenotic nature of Christ on the cross is connected with God’s kenotic
activity of creation and sanctification in which God’s Spirit is actively involved: “The
Sprit is the ongoing kenotic entanglement of the Father and the Son with the creation, the
sanctifying embodiment of the agapaic love of God.”28
Simmon’s work is an interesting approach, however, he skirts the issue of
theodicy which Simmons would, as a process thinker, simply call upon a self-limiting
God in response. For those, however, who do not follow a process metaphysics, quantum
entanglement leads to further concerns about how God can be ontologically connected to
the universe that coincides with evil and profound suffering. It appears that in this case,
the quantum entanglement metaphor creates more tension than consolation.29
The Eucharist also provides an interesting realm for the metaphorical use of
quantum entanglement. Much of the conceptualization and consequential liturgical
practices of the Catholic Church resonate with the Aristotelian metaphysics of
“substance” and “accidents.” Ironically, the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation
in which the elements take on the substance of Christ becomes more intelligible with
regard to quantum entanglement—Christ’s being can be thought of, through the help of
superposition, as being in more than one place at the same time. One wonders what the
Anabaptists would have thought during the time of the Reformation, if they had grasped
that Jesus need not only be in “heaven at the right hand of the Father.” Perhaps quantum
entanglement may lead all Protestants to more frequent communion!

Unitary: Comprehensibility of the Quantum Entanglement Metaphor as a Unit

The last characteristic used by Barbour in defining a model is the notion that a
model is intelligible as a unit. In other words, a model holds together as a whole,
multiple abstractions, and therefore conceptually simplifies a complex reality. Similarly,
our metaphorical use of quantum entanglement exhibits such unitary character. Just as
the scientific quantum entanglement model functions to represent a multiplicity of
observations within a more comprehensible whole, so too, its metaphorical use functions
to comprehend a variety of theological features as evidenced in the discussion of
extensibility. With further work by the theological community, perhaps this metaphor

27
Ernest L. Simmons, "Toward a Kenotic Pneumatology: Quantum Field Theory and the
Theology of God," CTNS Bulletin 19, no. 2 (Spring 1999): 12.
28
Ibid.: 14.
29
Nancey Murphy and George Ellis also share in their emphasis of God as kenotic and they
similarly go on to describe the kenotic nature of the universe, or what they call the “moral nature”
of the universe in their book: Nancey Murphy and George F.R. Ellis, On the Moral Nature of the
Universe: Theology, Cosmology, and Ethics, ed. Kevin Sharpe, Theology and the Sciences
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996). Though they feel that their kenotic research program
addresses theodicy better than a traditional Augustinian handling of theodicy, this program still
falls short with regard to some of the profound historical genocides, etc, which continue to make
the issue of theodicy relevant.

p. 7
could function as a religious model. In an upcoming section of this paper, we will
explore Pannenberg’s work on the metaphor of God’s Spirit as field, and analyze whether
he is seeking to turn the status of his metaphor into that of a model or perhaps even a
comprehensive system of metaphysics. First, though, a further methodological piece is
helpful in analyzing the usefulness of the quantum entanglement metaphor for the unity
of God: consonance and dissonance.

Consonance and Dissonance: Dealing with a Dynamic World

Several scholars, who are seeking to address the dynamic nature of the world and
the continued evolving of theories in both science and religion, have appropriated the use
of the language of “consonance” and “dissonance”. Following Robert Russell’s
account,30 Ernan McMullin, in 1981, introduced the idea of “consonance” with regard to
the need for a coherent ever-changing world-view that embraced all forms of human
knowledge. Robert Russell then added the dimension of “dissonance” to account for
those inevitable points when a scientific or religious theory needs to be changed because
it is has become inadequate in addressing the current worldview. Russell makes the point
that “we can build change directly into the relation between science and theology rather
than being threatened by it.” Ted Peters makes the critical realist observation that even
though a perfectly harmonious consonance is unrealistic, a weaker “hypothetical
consonance” is plausible and necessary.
With regard to the scientific model and religious metaphorical use of quantum
entanglement, the conceptions of “consonance” and “dissonance” serve as both a
sobering caution and an energizing affirmation. If one is to take up a current scientific
theoretical model and use it as religious metaphor, then one should be aware that if such a
metaphor in a changing world-view creates a “hypothetical consonance” with other
knowledge, then, most likely, it will eventually become a point of “dissonance” in the
future as both science and theology move on. The essential realization however, is that
whether quantum entanglement becomes a building block or a stumbling stone to the
future intelligibility of the unity of God, it nevertheless functions as an attempt to
comprehend the shared reality that comes ultimately from the one God. It is an open
invitation for both scientists and theologians to work together in meaningful and
“integrative” dialogue.31

Introducing Pannenberg’s Use of Field Theory as a Metaphor for the Spirit of God

Except for a few scientist-theologians, there have in the past been few theologians
who have dared to fully jump over the interdisciplinary fence and into modern-science’s
back yard. Wolfhart Pannenberg is one of those theologians. Working within a major
university system in Germany, Pannenberg has continually sought to defend the objective

30
Russell, "Ian Barbour's Methodological Breakthrough: Creating the 'Bridge' between Science
and Theology," section on “Consonance as a growing theme in theology and science”.
31
It is this kind of compelling conversation at the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences
that convinced me to come to the Graduate Theological Union. It is also this critical realist
approach that needs to be shared with a world that often views any relationship between religion
and science with suspicion.

p. 8
nature of religion and particularly Christianity. He has armed himself with an array of
complex philosophical and historical tools that have left many novices either shaking
their heads in confusion or simply giving up from fatigue. His style of writing is dense,
like a letter from the apostle Paul, and his ideas, whether simply brilliant or obscure, are
sure to be engaged through some book or dissertation.
I have begun this section with this introduction to Pannenberg not simply to bring
some familiarity. Rather, I highlight the observation that though the following analysis
will show that Pannenberg seems to have tenaciously adopted a classical scientific model,
one should be humbled by the fact that Pannenberg may perceive something that eludes
current conversation on the topic. Barring any revelation of this kind, the following
analyzes Pannenberg’s metaphorical use of field theory to describe the Spirit of God as
an example of a metaphor that is technically out-of-step with modern science. Using the
language of Thomas Kuhn, the world of science is experiencing a significant shift in
paradigms, and during this overlapping period of classical physics and modern physics, it
is suggestive but not pre-determined that religious metaphors built upon classical physics
will need to be at best, modified, and at worst, discarded. Following the discussion of
consonance and dissonance, this is not surprising. Here then, is opportunity to learn from
an example of classically-challenged metaphor and how, if it is robust enough in its own
extensible nature, to modify it for further use. To begin with, it is important to identify
the parameters of this new paradigm in science. The following table is an attempt to
organize some of these parameters.

The Paradigmatic Shift Between Classical and Modern Science

Classical Science (Individualistic): Modern Science (Relational):

Mechanistic Organic
Deterministic Indeterminate but Organized
Reductive (epistemic and ontolog.) Holistic (epistemic & ontolog.)
“Divide and conquer” strategy Discover interrelations
Immutable Evolutionary, Changing
Newtonian Physics /S.R./ Q.M. (Copenhagen), Chaos Theory
Complementarity (Q.M.)

As the table suggests, there are significant changes between classical and modern
science that warrant the characterization of “paradigm shift.” The past century has
witnessed this movement from the deterministic worldview of Newtonian physics to the
more indeterminate worldviews of quantum mechanics and chaos theory. With Newton,
the world was perceived as being organized around regular, physical laws. Essentially, if
one knew the precise initial conditions and boundaries of a physical system, then every
state of that system was predictable. Importantly, it was the underlying assumption that
any unpredictability of the world came merely from a lack of knowledge. In a
reductionistic manner, if you knew what was going on at the most basic level of physics,
then you could theoretically understand and predict more complex systems. This “divide
and conquer” strategy of reductionism was phenomenally successful and led to
significant advances in the sciences ranging from Newton’s laws of motion, Maxwell’s
laws of electricity and magnetism, and Einstein’s theory of special relativity. Behind

p. 9
these advances was the classical understanding of a mechanistic universe that once
broken down into its constituent laws was thoroughly comprehensible and predictable.
Using Barbour’s language, one could say that classical science had a naïve realism with
regard to scientific theories of the universe.
Though there is significant overlap, it could be said that modern science really
begins at the turn of the century with the advent of the theory of quantum mechanics.
This is characterized by features such as indeterminism, as demonstrated in the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and by complementarity, as evidenced in a dual
particle/wave understanding of matter. Behind such scientific development is the
worldview that nature cannot just be broken down into its individual constituent parts and
analyzed, but rather, it must be viewed as an organic whole that should be evaluated at
multiple levels of relationship. Not surprisingly, Pannenberg’s thinking does not fit
perfectly into one category or the other, but is a mixture of the two. Even though the
following will show that Pannenberg uses a classical view of science, his use of metaphor
expresses the more modern paradigm of interrelationship.

Pannenberg’s Development and Analogical Use of the Concept of Field

Pannenberg has made the challenging move of using a scientific theory to aid in
describing the nature of God. As Philip Hefner puts it, Pannenberg’s “profound
accomplishment” is that he relates the natural world to God and grounds that relationship
to the very nature of God.32 The way he does this is through the analogical use of field
theory.
Essentially, Pannenberg takes a classical view of field theory as he presents it in
his Systematic Theology, I & 2.33 He describes an infinite, “non-material” field of force
acting on finite, material objects. Pannenberg then relates this field of force to the “Spirit
of God” that acts on creation and is the ground of creation. Importantly, this analogy
speaks of God’s creative force, dynamis,34 as enabling the action of a created world, yet
there is a level of freedom for the creature. This is an essential feature of this analogy for
Pannenberg. God is not pantheistic, but is still co-present to all creation. God is still God
and creation is still creation with both retaining their freedom.35
Perhaps the most interesting feature of Pannenberg’s use of field theory as a
metaphor is that he goes beyond explaining the economic relationship between God and
creation and develops the immanent inner relationships between the three persons of the
Holy Trinity. Essential to Pannenberg’s systematic theology, the three distinctive
persons of the Trinity are preserved within this scheme as unique manifestations

32
Philip Hefner, "Pannenberg's Fundamental Challenges to Theology and Science," Zygon 36, no.
4 (December 2001): 807.
33
Volume 2 provides a more concise summary. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology,
trans. G. W. Bromiley, 3 vols., vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 79-84. See also his
preliminary remarks: Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 382-383.
34
Wolfhart Pannenberg, "God as Spirit--and Natural Science," Zygon 36, no. 4 (December 2001):
786.
35
“In creating, God gives creatures space alongside himself and over against himself. But his
presence still comprehends them.” Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 86.

p. 10
(singularities) of the “field of the divine essentiality.”36 The three persons are however,
not derived from the divine essence.37 Clarifying Pannenberg’s language, he uses the
“Spirit of God” to mean the unifying, eternal, divine essence from which the three
persons of the Trinity are manifestations: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The
“Spirit of God” and the “Holy Spirit” are therefore different, but the “Spirit of God” is
not another being, but rather the unifying “one movement which embraces and permeates
all of them—the movement of the divine Spirit who has his existence only in them.”38
This is how Pannenberg makes the unity of God (relatively) intelligible. It is through the
Spirit of God that the three distinctive persons of the Trinity relate as “centers of action”
as one movement, as one God acting in creation.39
Now, one may begin to question Pannenberg’s analogy in light of a more modern
understanding of fields, especially quantum field theory. After all, fields are not simply
“non-material” as John Polkinghorne points out in a number of articles.40 However,
before jumping into a critique based on a more exacting understanding of science, it is
worthwhile to explore Pannenberg’s historical and theological development of his
analogy. Perhaps such an exploration can make some sense of why Pannenberg
tenaciously holds onto this metaphor despite significant criticism.
Pannenberg develops the field metaphor through several sources with Max
Jammer’s work chief among them.41 Max Jammer, historian of scientific terminology,
studied the history of the development of force and field theory. He has speculated that
the early Stoic doctrine of the divine spirit, pneuma, was a precursor to the conception of
the modern view of a field of force. The teaching of the pre-Socratic Anaximenes was
that air was the medium of the cosmos and that all things originated as compressions of
air. It was the tension, tonos, of the air that held the cosmos together and gave rise to its
movements. According to Pannenberg, this influenced early Christian conceptions of
God’s Spirit as they tried to make sense of John 4:24, “God is spirit.” Later, Origen’s
criticism of the material nature of this view profoundly shaped Christian thinking on the
subject. He was concerned that if God was associated with the material world, that this
limited God. Therefore, Origen interpreted God in terms of rationality and mind, nous,42
instead of the more biblical understanding of God’s spirit as “breath” or “wind” (which
are the common interpretations of the Greek pneuma, or Hebrew ruah). The first words
of Genesis echo the earlier, dynamic understanding of God’s spirit as God’s ruah hovers

36
Ibid., 83.
37
Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 385.
38
Ibid.
39
One analogical way I have thought about this communal action is by thinking in terms of a
gravity field shaped by three masses. Each mass applies a vector of force (influence) upon an
object within the field yet the three spatial vectors simply add up to exert one force in one
direction.
40
Refer to John Polkinghorne, "Wolfhart Pannenbeg's Engagement with the Natural Sciences,"
Zygon 34, no. 1 (March 1999): 154. John Polkinghorne, Faith, Science and Understanding (New
Haven: Yale University, 2000). John Polkinghorne, "Fields and Theology: A Response to
Wolfhart Pannenberg," Zygon 36, no. 4 (December 2001): 796.
41
Pannenberg particularly references Max Hammer’s 1972 article “Feld, Feldtheorie.” In
Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie 2:923-26. Refer to Pannenberg, Systematic Theology,
81. And, Pannenberg, "God as Spirit--and Natural Science," 787.
42
Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 382.

p. 11
over the waters of chaos and creates the universe. However, with Origen’s interpretation,
God became domesticated as the rational intellect that created a harmonious, reasoned
cosmos. Of course, it was this domesticated God as nous that was seized upon during the
enlightenment as science accordingly domesticated reality, viewing the universe as
governed by eternal and immutable laws such as inertia.43 This explains part of
Pannenberg’s attraction to the dynamic understanding of God as Spirit, and his emphasis
in a God who is continually interacting with creation and within the inter-trinitarian
relationship.
Key to understanding Pannenberg’s work is his emphasis on the relational
character of God within God’s self and with creation. When God was interpreted in
terms of nous, God appeared to take on the distant, non-relational characteristics of
deism. Now, with the metaphor of field, Pannenberg emphasizes the close inter-
trinitarian relationship that does not as easily fall into hierarchy and derivation of one
person from the other.44 There is an innate equality among the three persons of the
Trinity and a collective action. This fits with Pannenberg’s systematic development of
God in terms of Trinity and it is his answer to the problem of how to make the unity of
God intelligible.

Critiquing Pannenberg’s Metaphor

Philip Hefner makes the congenial observation that Pannenberg takes on the
significant tasks of both relating a scientific theory to a theological concept and utilizing
a scientific theory to gain greater insight into the internal nature of God.45 As discussed
above, Pannenberg uses the metaphor of field to speak about the immanent Trinity in
terms of its unity while relating it to the economic Trinity and again, in terms of unity.
Though Pannenberg makes it clear that the metaphor of field is strictly speaking, simply a
metaphor, it is for him a metaphor that he views as both biblically and theologically
insightful. Pannenberg is therefore at some level a realist about this metaphor and it is in
this fashion that he should be criticized.
John Polkinghorne carries out this criticism in two articles in which he responds
to Pannenberg’s engagement with the sciences in general and with God’s Spirit as field in

43
Pannenberg makes an interesting observation that the concept of inertia contributed to the
Enlightenment’s movement away from God: “…the existence of God as the principle of the
ongoing existence of finite things became superfluous when with the introduction of the principle
of inertia by Descartes and its refinement by Isaac Newton (as vis insita) there was ascribed to all
things a tendency to remain as they are, whether their state be one of rest or one of movement. In
a mechanistic worldview the concept of God was no longer needed to explain natural events.
Ibid., 88.
44
Ibid., 384-385.
45
Hefner: 805. Hefner compares Pannenberg’s development and use of the metaphor of field
with Nancey Murphey and George Ellis, and (similarly) John Haught’s use of the metaphor of
kenosis. Hefner finds the use of the metaphor of kenosis as applied to the universe to be
relatively successful, but, he highlights the point that Pannenberg has taken on the more difficult
challenge. Hefner references Murphy and Ellis, On the Moral Nature of the Universe: Theology,
Cosmology, and Ethics. And, John F. Haught, God after Darwin: A Theology of Evolution
(Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2000).

p. 12
particular. In Polkinghorne’s earlier article,46 he is critical of Pannenberg’s use of
classical field theory. First, Polkinghorne criticizes Pannenberg for using classical field
theory in the first place since it has been superceded by quantum field theory. In this
sense, Pannenberg errs when he describes his use of field theory in terms of “modern
physics.” Second, Polkinghorne criticizes Pannenberg for describing field theory
inaccurately. As mentioned earlier, Pannenberg favors the use of field theory as a
metaphor for God’s Spirit because he views fields as being non-material. This enables
Pannenberg to declare that field theory gets around the problem of the Stoic
understanding of pneuma that Origen criticized. Polkinghorne, however, points out that a
field is not simply nonmaterial, rather, it is materially energy. An electromagnetic field
for example carries both energy and momentum, “inertial properties that function in the
same way for the field as they do for particles of matter.”47 Polkinghorne also charges
that Pannenberg wrongly attributes a relational aspect to classical fields. Though fields
may envelop numerous objects, each point in a classical field is independent (local) and
not tied together in a kind of holism that Pannenberg might desire. Lastly, Polkinghorne
makes the most difficult criticism that Pannenberg’s use of field theory “is perhaps the
most baffling aspect of Pannenberg’s thought for the scientist to confront.”48 This strikes
at the heart of Pannenberg’s effort to have meaningful dialogue with scientists and
hampers Pannenberg’s more extended program of Christian apologetics.
How does Pannenberg reply to these criticisms? Two years later, in an article
again for Zygon,49 Pannenberg boldly lays out the argument for his use of field theory
noting some of the criticisms of Polkinghorne. Essentially, though Pannenberg admits
that while he “does not use the word field with the precise meaning it has in physics”50 he
nevertheless values it particularly in terms of its connection with “how the eternal God is
related to space and time...”51 He then goes on to make “theological use of the field
concept” that “does not and need not rely on any specific field theory the physicists have
produced.”52 Pannenberg’s response is that his theological understanding of field theory
supercedes a scientific understanding, viewing the scientific view as a subset of a
theological view. The following lengthy quote is quite illuminating:
“I said before that space and time, or rather space-time, are the only basic
requirements of the field concept in the General Theory of Relativity. Here, the
universe is described as a single field, while in principle the states of bodily
matter (or particles) are considered as singularities of the cosmic field. If all
geometrical descriptions of time and space, however, are dependent on the prior
conception of space and time as an infinite and undivided whole, the immensity
and eternity of God, then this infinite and undivided whole may also be described
as infinite field, the field of God’s spirit that constitutes and penetrates all finite
fields that are investigated and described by physicists, even the space-time of
General Relativity. This relationship makes intelligible how the divine Spirit

46
Polkinghorne, "Wolfhart Pannenbeg's Engagement with the Natural Sciences."
47
Ibid.: 154.
48
Ibid.: 153.
49
Pannenberg, "God as Spirit--and Natural Science."
50
Ibid.: 788.
51
Ibid.
52
Ibid.: 790.

p. 13
works in creation through the created reality of natural fields and forces. The
interpretation of the concept of God as spirit in terms of the field concept, then,
functions as a key to obtaining some understanding of God’s fundamental
relationship to the world of nature.”53

If one applies the critique of a critical realist, then Pannenberg’s use of the concept of
field theory as applied to the Spirit of God is weakened by his disregard for current
science. Polkinghorne therefore once again roundly criticizes Pannenberg for his failure
to update his notion of field.54
Then, as Pannenberg responds to Polkinghorne, a critical point is reached that
characterizes the debate between Polkinghorne and Pannenberg—a point that helps
clarify how metaphors are used differently depending upon one’s treatment of science
and theology. To begin with, Pannenberg’s response to Polkinghorne is that
Polkinghorne does not address Pannenberg’s theological development of the concept of
field through biblical exegesis and historical roots. This is true. Polkinghorne’s critique
is shaped by his vast knowledge of science and he does little to criticize Pannenberg
theologically.55 Then Pannenberg goes on to add:
“The contribution of the theologian (or philosopher) in the dialogue with
natural science might not be confined to taking notice of what already happened
in science, but might also extend to exploring the horizon of further conceptual
developments. There could be no genuine dialogue between scientists and
theologians if only the theologians were expected to listen to the scientists, while
these would have no reason to be concerned for what theology might have to say
on the requirements of an interpretation of nature as God’s creation.”56

Aha! Here is the outline of the fence as described in my introduction to Pannenberg.

Pannenberg certainly recognizes that he is not a scientist, but through his theological and
philosophical reflection, he understands the value of theology to science in a way that
Polkinghorne would perhaps not as readily admit. Pannenberg has after all, invested
himself in three volumes of Systematic Theology based on the understanding that God is
the ultimate unifying reality. Pannenberg is eager to bring theology out of its subjective
ghetto and into the public light of objective reality—therefore his interest in dialogue
with science. Pannenberg readily admits that this God-reality is only dimly understood
now, but his proleptic view of God as the world’s future shaping the world’s history
emboldens one to embrace reality wherever it is found, including science. This is what
motivates Pannenberg to make what Polkinghorne calls Pannenberg’s “quixotic”
statements.57
One may also speculate that Pannenberg has moved his metaphor to the status of a
comprehensive model or a metaphysical system. Though Pannenberg shows disdain for
other metaphysical systems such as process theology, his tenacity for holding onto the

53
Ibid.
54
Polkinghorne, "Fields and Theology: A Response to Wolfhart Pannenberg."
55
This is rather evident given the stature of Pannenberg as a theologian.
56
Wolfhart Pannenberg, "Response to John Polkinghorne," Zygon 36, no. 4 (December 2001):
800.
57
Polkinghorne, "Fields and Theology: A Response to Wolfhart Pannenberg," 796.

p. 14
metaphor of field might best be explained by understanding it as part of a comprehensive
metaphysical system of God’s Spirit as field. It allows him both a transcendent and
immanent God. It gives him a way of God creating ex nihilo and continuata. It also,
most importantly highlights a relational understanding within the Trinity and with the
world. However, as Robert Russell explains, the hazards of committing oneself to a
certain metaphysics when he says that it is like having a Christmas tree with only twenty
seven categories from which to hang all of your thoughts.58
Finally, it is worth mentioning that within Polkinghorne’s critique of Pannenberg,
he offers quantum entanglement (and chaos or complex systems theory) as better suited
to address Pannenberg’s desire for a relational God. Polkinghorne and Pannenberg both
share an enormous interest in demonstrating the “intelligibility” of Christian faith.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM PANNENBERG’S USE OF METAPHOR

There are several points gleaned from the previous discussion. First, it is not an
easy matter to locate oneself judiciously between modern science and theology. As
evidenced by the debate between Polkinghorne and Pannenberg, there is still a significant
fence that divides the two areas despite tremendous efforts to lower that fence.59 Second,
it is clear that there are consequences to holding onto metaphors in a realist sense even
when their corresponding scientific basis is shifting. It may well be that Pannenberg
understands something about the nature of the universe (based on his understanding of
God) that will adjudicate his use of fields in his favor. However, until that time, it seems
prudent to recognize the “dissonance” as discussed before and make modifications of
one’s metaphor (or simply discard it)—if one is seeking mutual dialogue with scientists.
Third, Pannenberg raises the important notion that theology should not just “listen” to
science, but speak as well. It is only when individuals challenge our physical and
metaphysical notions, that we typically venture to go beyond our current conception of
the world, and of God.

58
Refer to section “F. Metaphysical System vs. Specific Philosophical Issues” in Robert J.
Russell, "Theology and Science: Current Issues and Future Directions,"
(http://www.ctns.org/russell_article.html).
59
Interestingly, I experienced this “fence” just recently at the conference celebrating Ian
Barbour’s 80th birthday. As I conversed with scientists eager to make sense of their faith, and
with theologians eager to make their faith intelligible through science, I realized how significantly
technical training and language on both sides creates obstacles.

p. 15
CONCLUSION

The question was asked at the beginning of the paper, “Can quantum
entanglement provide such an intelligible language for describing the unity of God from a
Christian, Trinitarian perspective?” After using Barbour’s methodology to show that
quantum entanglement serves as a relatively robust metaphor, one is tempted to answer
with a strong affirmative. However, the analysis of Pannenberg’s use of metaphor and its
corresponding critique indicates that there should be several caveats to an affirmation of
this metaphor.
First, this metaphor should be understood to have a finite lifespan of usefulness.
Quantum entanglement is a relatively new concept as is quantum mechanics, and though
they serve as the most accurate picture of our world at this moment, there will be
inevitable modifications of theory and interpretation. This is the price of using an
exacting scientific metaphor. If one uses a more abstract or general metaphor then one
may increase the length of its usefulness (but it is unlikely to be as interesting!).
Second, metaphors inevitably take on a life of their own when it comes to a
community. The power of a metaphor is that it can create not only a familiarity with
something that is unfamiliar, but that new meaning can arise out of even the familiar. As
a mixed religious/scientific/social/political/economic/etc. community takes on a
metaphor, its meaning and usefulness is shaped by individual and corporate experience.
Even though someone may try to pin down a metaphor (so to speak) with a level of
precision, that metaphor will continue to take on new meaning.60 As quantum
entanglement is discussed more broadly in the scientific/theological community, time
will shape its use and usefulness.
Third, it is worth assessing what the driving issues are for using a metaphor in the
first place. Both Pannenberg and I are interested in showing that God is relational and
that there is a unity between God’s self and with the world. Whether through field theory
or quantum entanglement or some other metaphor, our desire is to show that the
relational and unifying characteristics that God exhibits in the Bible and in the people of
God are also manifested in creation itself. Therefore, there are theological/philosophical
underpinnings that drive or collapse a metaphor. However, after a semester of surveying
20th century theologians in my other class, I am confident that theology is not steering
towards an atomistic, individualistic, isolated view of God and creation.
Finally, I have thoroughly enjoyed exploring the correlations between quantum
entanglement and the unity of God. Perhaps, the next area of study I will pursue with
regard to the unity of God is time and eternity.

60
An example of this communal use is from the Physicist, Lawrence W. Fagg. He has written a
series of articles that speaks of the role of electromagnetism in formulating a “viable natural
theology” and in another article addresses Pannenberg’s use of field from the more specific view
of electromagnetism as an analogy for the “ubiquity of God’s indwelling.” Refer to Lawrence W.
Fagg, "The Universality of Electromagnetic Phenomena and the Immanence of God in a Natural
Theology," Zygon 31, no. 3 (September 1996). Lawrence W. Fagg, "Sacred Indwelling and the
Electomagnetic Undercurrent in Nature: A Physicist's Perspective," Zygon 37, no. 2 (June 2002).
Lawrence W. Fagg, "Are There Intimations of Divine Transcendence in the Physical World?,"
Zygon 38, no. 3 (September 2003).

p. 16
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barbour, Ian G. Myths, Models and Paradigms: A Comparative Study in Science and Religion.
New York: Harper & Row, 1974.

________. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. Revised and expanded
edition of Religion in an Age of Science ed. New York: HarperCollins, 1997.

Clayton, Philip. "Barbour's Panentheistic Metaphysic." In 40 Years in Science and Religion: Ian
G. Bargour and His Legacy, ed. Robert J. Russell: Ashgate, To be published in 2004.

Fagg, Lawrence W. "Sacred Indwelling and the Electomagnetic Undercurrent in Nature: A

Physicist's Perspective." Zygon 37, no. 2 (June 2002): 473-490.

________. "The Universality of Electromagnetic Phenomena and the Immanence of God in a

Natural Theology." Zygon 31, no. 3 (September 1996): 509-521.

________. "Are There Intimations of Divine Transcendence in the Physical World?" Zygon 38,
no. 3 (September 2003): 559-572.

Gregersen, Niels Henrik. "Critical Realism and Other Realisms." In 40 Years in Science and
Religion: Ian G. Barbour and His Legacy, ed. Robert J. Russell: Ashgate, To be
published 2004.

Haught, John F. God after Darwin: A Theology of Evolution. Boulder, Colorado: Westview
Press, 2000.

Hefner, Philip. "Pannenberg's Fundamental Challenges to Theology and Science." Zygon 36, no.
4 (December 2001): 801-808.

Murphy, Nancey. Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning Cornell Studies in the Philosophy
of Religion, ed. William P. Alston. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1990.

________. "Religion, Theology, and the Philosophy of Science: An Appreciation of the Work of
Ian Barbour." In 40 Years in Science and Religion: Ian G. Barbour and His Legacy, ed.
Robert J. Russell: Ashgate, To be published in 2004.

Murphy, Nancey, and George F.R. Ellis. On the Moral Nature of the Universe: Theology,
Cosmology, and Ethics Theology and the Sciences, ed. Kevin Sharpe. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1996.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Vol. 1. 3 vols.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

________. Systematic Theology. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Vol. 2. 3 vols. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1994.

p. 17
________. "God as Spirit--and Natural Science." Zygon 36, no. 4 (December 2001): 783-794.

________. "Response to John Polkinghorne." Zygon 36, no. 4 (December 2001): 799-800.

Polkinghorne, John. The Quantum World. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984.

________. Faith, Science and Understanding. New Haven: Yale University, 2000.

________. Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press,
2002.

________. "Fields and Theology: A Response to Wolfhart Pannenberg." Zygon 36, no. 4
(December 2001): 795-797.

________. "Wolfhart Pannenbeg's Engagement with the Natural Sciences." Zygon 34, no. 1
(March 1999): 151-158.

Russell, Robert J. "Divine Action and Quantum Mechanics: A Fresh Assessment." In Quantum
Mechanics: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, ed. Robert John Russell, Philip
Clayton, Kirk Wegter-McNelly and John Polkinghorne. Vatican City State and Berkeley,
Calif.: Vatican Observatory and the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2001.

________. "Theology and Science: Current Issues and Future Directions."

http://www.ctns.org/russell_article.html.

________. "Religion and the Theories of Science: A Response to Barbour." Zygon 31, no. 1
(March 1996): 29-41.

________. "Ian Barbour's Methodological Breakthrough: Creating the 'Bridge' between Science
and Theology." In 40 Years in Science and Religion: Ian G. Barbour and His Legacy, ed.
Robert J. Russell: Ashgate, To be published in 2004.

Simmons, Ernest L. "Toward a Kenotic Pneumatology: Quantum Field Theory and the Theology
of God." CTNS Bulletin 19, no. 2 (Spring 1999): 11-16.

Wegster-McNelly, Kirk. "The World, Entanglement, and God: Quantum Theory and the
Christian Doctrine of Creation." Doctoral Dissertation, Graduate Theological Union,
2003.

p. 18