The Christian faith and the fourth dimension E-Book

Otto Bachmann

• Herausgeber: novum publishing
• Kategorie: Gesellschafts- und Liebesromane
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 302

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024

Beschreibung

Over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, mathematics and physics have developed from a discipline tainted with intuition and metaphysics into a scientifically rigorous discipline. In contrast, ideas about fundamental topics of the Christian faith - such as God, the truth of the Bible, the relationship between faith and science, the meaning of life, the question of theodicy - are often based on outdated world views and systems of thought as well as unproven hypotheses and imprecise definitions. The book provides important arguments on the truth of the Bible and leads to a deeper access to basic concepts of theology and to a strengthening of the Christian faith.

Leseprobe

Preface

As a mathematician who mainly deals with the fundamentals of geometry, I am always fascinated by the way in which mathematics developed over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries from a discipline tainted with intuition and metaphysics to a scientifically rigorous discipline. This was achieved by replacing inadequate definitions, eliminating unjustified hypotheses and recognizing new structures as conceivable and internally consistent. As a result, open problems could be solved, existing contradictions resolved and various areas of mathematics placed on a solid foundation.

Changes also took place in physics in the 19th and 20th centuries, that led to a replacement of the classical physical world view. The special and general theory of relativity as well as quantum physics meant saying goodbye to a world view that was characterized by the principle of cause and effect. The new theories made it possible to find solutions to open problems and to classify experimental results that contradicted existing theories. We will explain this in more detail in chapter 2.

Similar developments have not taken place in theology. Arguments about topics of the Christian faith - such as God, the devil, creation and evolution, the relationship between faith and science, the meaning of life, suffering and the theodicy problem, Israel - are often based on an outdated frame of thought and world view, on concepts that are inadequately defined and on unproven hypotheses. As a result, theology has developed in very different directions over the last two to three centuries. The conviction that a clarification of this situation will contribute to a better understanding and a deepening of faith was the trigger for writing this book.

I try to show

that the arguments concerning the bible and the Christian faith are often based on a limited thought framework, questionable hypotheses and inadequate definitions of the terms used, and therefore the conclusions are often ambiguous and not valid,

that there are numerous rational reasons that testify to the authenticity of the Christian faith and the truth of the bible,

that the Christian faith and the natural sciences do not represent a contradiction and that the findings of modern natural sciences can help to confirm and strengthen faith.

To prove the second statement it is shown

that the content of the Christian faith and the bible is in many ways so different from the content of other religions and philosophies and from what people think up, wish for and long for that it cannot have been invented by people and be a mere human construct,

that various prophecies in the bible have been fulfilled in the course of history,

that world events are increasingly converging towards a state that is predicted in the bible.

I am aware that the book does not provide a mathematical proof of the existence of the God presented in the bible and the truth of the Christian faith. The final decisive step remains faith. But it aims to help Christians and theologians to have a well-founded approach to the bible and the basic contents of the Christian faith and to strengthen it. It aims to inspire atheists and religious skeptics to reflect and encourage them to engage with the God presented in the bible, to deal with the gospel themselves and, even if they do not understand everything in the bible, to face the challenge mentioned by Mark Twain (1835-1910):"It is not the parts of the bible that I do not understand that challenge me, but the parts that I do understand."It aims to help overcome disappointments caused by negative experiences with Christians or in church classes.

The book is structured as follows:

Chapters 1 and 2 deal with the fundamental significance of the above-mentioned basic problems for science, theology and the Christian faith, as well as for the relationship between faith and science.

Chapter 3 demonstrates the high probability of the truth of the bible and thus serves as preparation for the following chapters.

Chapter 4 deals with the understanding of God, chapter 5 with creation and evolution, chapter 6 with various aspects of the Christian faith and chapter 7 with the people of Israel and their significance for Christianity.

As the bible is the most important source of information for the Christian faith and the topics dealt with in chapters 4-7, we already deal with the question of the truth of the bible in chapter 3. It provides the decisive basis for the content of the following chapters.

For clarification, specific examples are included in each chapter with statements by theologians, philosophers and scientists and with situations from churches, faith communities, state and society.

.

1: Challenges of human thinking

1.1: Introduction

In discussions about a particular topic, ambiguities and misunderstandings often arise due to one or more of the following causes:

P1: The underlying frame of thought is not clearly defined and therefore the thinking assumptions are not consistent.

P2: Hypotheses are used that are not clearly declared as such.

P3: Terms are used that are insufficiently defined.

These three problem areas may partially overlap. For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to the entire problem area they represent asP123.

The development of mathematics and physics in the last two centuries has been decisively promoted by the fact that consideration of this problem area has contributed a great deal to the clarifying the fundamentals. We will go into this in more detail in Chapter 2.

There was no similar development in theology. This repeatedly led to misunderstandings and the emergence of different theological currents when it came to theological topics and questions of Christian faith. I will go into this in more detail in the following chapters, among other things in connection with the concept ofGodin chapter 4, the question"What is truth?"and thequestion of truthin relation to the bible in chapter 3, thebiblical image of Godin chapter 4, thebiblical account of creationin chapter 5, and generally in connection with statements for whose "biblical justification" bible verses were taken out of their context and considered in isolation.

The problem area P123 is not a question oflogic. Human thought is based on a universally valid logic. Such a logic is necessary for communication between people to be meaningful at all and for the message sent to be understood by the recipient. The sender and receiver have the same logic. Problems with communication are usually related to the problem area P123. For example, it is not correct to describe a statement in the bible as "not logical"; the point is rather that the statement leads to a contradiction with the generally valid logic within the underlying thought framework and with the underlying hypotheses and definitions.

1.2: Frame of thought

My grandchildren only knew my wife with gray hair. There was a photo of her as a young girl with black hair. One of the grandchildren asked:"Grandma, did you dye your hair back then?"The way we think about and explain our environment depends on the underlying thought framework.

The following example is intended to illustrate that when we expand our frame of thought by moving to a higher dimension, new possibilities open up and seemingly unsolvable problems can be solved.

Let us imagine living beings that live on a flat surface, i.e. in a 2D world. They are faced with the task of fitting together the two pieces of the puzzle on the left in the figure below without any gaps. They come to the conclusion that this task is unsolvable. One day they meet a person. He lives in a 3D world and solves the problem by rotating the second piece by 180° and then pushing the two pieces together. The creatures are faced with a miracle.

Our frame of thought is co-determined by our world view. The classical world view is shaped by the Enlightenment and greek-humanist thinking and is based on what can be perceived with our senses and deduced from this with reason. The development of physics in the 19th and 20th centuries has shown that the reality surrounding us is more complicated than previously assumed, that the overall reality is much more complicated than the material, sensually perceptible space-time world, that more dimensions than the 3 spatial dimensions are necessary to describe the reality surrounding us. Since thetheory of relativityat the latest, we know that the true reality is not the one we perceive in the 3 spatial dimensions; the world is 4-dimensional. The addition of time as the fourth dimension and the description of the world as a 4-dimensional space-time continuum makes it possible to classify various experimentally confirmed findings (such as the constancy of the speed of light in uniformly moving systems) that contradict 3-dimensional classical Newtonian mechanics.

This development has shed a new light on many statements in the bible and has also contributed to a relaxation in the relationship between faith and science. It has led to a world view that often makes it easier to accept biblical statements and to overcome apparent contradictions between faith and science. For example, it is easier for a scientist today to believe in miracles, answers to prayer, certain statements in the bible and God's intervention in the world without intellectual contortions. This development has enabled a deeper understanding of the contents of faith and further answers to questions of faith, contents and questions concerning topics such asGod,truth,creation,evolutionand theexistence of suffering.

The expansion from 3 to 4 dimensions in the theory of relativity inspired me to choose the title of this book. It is intended to express that an expansion of the human frame of thought through a "divine dimension" can help to recognize a universal reality that transcends our sensually perceptible world, to overcome apparent contradictions between faith and natural science or faith and experience, and to concede to God possibilities of action that go beyond our understanding. For the sake of simplicity, in the following I will also speak symbolically of the3Dor4Dframe of thought when referring to the human frame of thought or when including the divine dimension.

There are numerous situations in the bible that show that man, with his 3D frame of thought, does not do justice to the divine dimension of the 4D frame of thought and is therefore unable to grasp the scope of the divine revelations and the new kingdom of God that has dawned with Jesus Christ. Impressive examples are Jesus' conversation with the Pharisee Nicodemus (Jn 3.1-8) about"rebirth" as a prerequisite for access to the kingdom of God, Jesus' reference in the conversation with the Samaritan woman to the"living water"that quenches spiritual thirst (Jn 4.1-41), and Jesus' words about"eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man"with regard to the Lord's Supper (Jn 6.31-59).

The astrophysicist and philosopherHarald Lesch(* 1960) [43] has aptly expressed the fundamental limitations of the human mental framework in terms of understanding the world: "Just as a fish in an aquarium will probably never understand where it is and what is outside its world, humans certainly have their limits in terms of their understanding of the universe."and"We may never unravel the ultimate mysteries of the universe. One reason for this is that we humans are ultimately limited to our 'aquarium', another perhaps is that the universe may have the property that some of its mysteries cannot be solved by the means that the universe itself provides."If we disregard this possible fundamental limitation and restriction of our ability to think, there is a danger that man will try to squeeze the highly complex reality of God's creation, and therefore also God himself and his work, into the 3D frame of thought and thus fail to do justice to the greatness of God and his works. Several passages in the bible also point this out (e.g. Job 42.3, Ps 145.3, Isa 40.28 and 55.8).

1.3: Hypotheses, definitions and circular reasoning

One difficulty that often arises in discussions and analyses is that the arguments usehypothesesandinsufficiently defined termsthat are not explicitly mentioned and not substantiated in detail. I would like to illustrate this with a few examples:

The statement

"The good and the divine exist beyond all being and thought"

by the Roman Neoplatonist philosopher

Plotinus

(205-270) is meaningless without a more precise definition of the concept of

being

.

The medieval philosopher, theologian and mathematician

Nicholas of Cusa

(1401-1464) teaches that man is the creator of spiritual being and artificial forms, just as God is the creator of real being and natural forms. Such a statement only makes sense if man with his creative power is not regarded as part of the real being created by God and thus not as a work of God's creation.

In the case of statistics, hypotheses that are not clearly stated lead to misinterpretations. One example is a Swedish study that attempted to prove that cell phone users are 40% more likely to develop brain tumors than non-users. However, this study did not compare a group of cell phone users with a group of non-users, but rather asked a group of people with brain tumors about their cell phone use!

In mathematics, it was recognized in the course of the 19th century that certain implicit hypotheses must be explicitly declared as axioms and that a theory is only valid if these axioms are added. It was also recognized that it is necessary to dispense with a definition of certain basic concepts and that these can only be described implicitly by certain axioms. We will go into this in more detail in the next chapter.

Insufficient definitions and undeclared hypotheses often lead tocircular reasoning, i.e. the statement to be derived is already used in whole or in part as a presupposition. This can be compared to the contradictory idea of a person pulling himself out of a swamp. Circular reasoning is usually not immediately recognized as such. They often arise because a term used in the derivation of a result already contains parts of the result in its definition. In the following chapters, for example, we will see that often in statements about concepts such asGod,truth,the meaning of lifeandchanceproperties are derived that are assigned to these concepts by definition. Here we will only point out one such circular argument in relation to the concept of God. In his book"Theological Relativity Theory", the catholic theologianKurt Mahnig[53] argues that God is something relative and that every person creates their own image of God. God thus becomes, by definition, a construct of human thought. With such an approach, the existence of man with his ability to think is already assumed in order to form an image of God, and thus an image of God defined in this way only contains no circular reasoning if man himself is not already a work of God's creation. If man is not understood as a work of God's creation, circular reasoning is avoided, but the question then arises as to the origin of man and his spiritual (and physical) potential.

This question and the circular argument will be discussed in more detail in the next three chapters in connection with the biblical image of God and the creation account.

1.4: Greek and Hebrew thinking

In Christian theology, the problem area P123 is essentially related to the difference between theGreek-analyticalandthe Hebrew-holistic way of thinking.

The bible tells the story of God's relationship with the Jewish people and contains the teachings of the Jew and Hebrew Jesus Christ. It and the Christian faith are therefore strongly influenced by Hebrew thought.

The Western European way of thinking is significantly influenced by the Greek philosophersPlato(428/427-348/347 BC) andAristotle(384-322 BC) - the corresponding world view is dualistic: the world is divided into a visible physical part, which contains matter and the body and is perishable, and an invisible part, which consists of ideas, the spirit and zhe souls and is imperishable. In contrast, Hebrew thinking does not assume a division of reality into a visible and invisible realm, but rather a break in the relationship between God and man. Hebrew thinking is oriented towards relationships, it is figurative and often gets to the heart of things through exaggeration; Greek thinking asks about the essence of things and persons and is characterized by precision, objectivity and exact reasoning. The catholic theologianHerbert Vorgrimler(1929-2014) [76] defines the concept ofessenceas follows:"The 'essence' is that which is not accessible to experience and the senses, but only to thought; the question of essence is: What is that? What makes it what it is and what distinguishes it from everything else?"

Greek thinking - like that of many other cultures and religions - is circular; the processes of history and nature repeat themselves. Hebrew thinking is linear and goal-oriented.

It is essential for a deeper understanding of the Christian faith and the bible that we people of Western culture with a Greek-analytical background incorporate the Hebrew way of thinking. This will prove helpful several times in the following, for example in connection with the concepts ofword,body,soul,spirit,punishment,creation, theattitude towards the human bodyand theunderstanding of time. The deeper meaning of biblical statements is often not fully grasped because too little account is taken of the difference between these two ways of thinking.

1.5: Open problems - the limits of our thinking

There are still numerous open problems in mathematics and physics today and it is quite conceivable that not all of these problems can be solved by humans because of the aquarium situation mentioned in 1.2.

The so-called Goldbach conjecture provides an example of an open problem in mathematics that is easy to formulate. It states that every even number greater than 2 is equal to the sum of two prime numbers (e.g. 10=3+7, 18=11+7, 32=3+29). The validity of this conjecture has been proven for all numbers up to4The proof that it is valid for every even number is still pending.

One example of a still open problem in physics can be found in the theory of the structure of matter. This theory has been refined more and more over the course of the last century. It used to be assumed that the smallest building blocks of matter, the so-called elementary particles, were atoms and molecules; later it was discovered that these particles consist of even smaller components, such as electrons, protons and neutrons. Today, 37 elementary particles are known, including the antiparticles there are even 61. In theoretical (partly plausible, partly very speculative) models, further elementary particles have been postulated whose existence has not yet been proven by experiments.

In all attempts to explain the structure of matter, the question of the origin of elementary particles ultimately always remains - a question that theology brings into play and which we will deal with in chapter 5. The Nobel Prize-winning physicistWolfgang Pauli(1900-1958) puts it in a nutshell when he marks the limits of natural science where questions of origin come into play.

The topic of open problems in Christian faith and theology is characterized by all thequestionsaboutexistence, originandcause:"Is there a God?","Is there a creation ex nihilo?","Where does evil in the world come from?", "How is suffering in the world compatible with an omnipotent God of love?","Why do experiences often not correspond to the promises in the bible?"We expect answers within the human 3D framework of thought that provide a cause for every event and resolve contradictions. In most cases, however, the answers provided do not do justice to the complexity of the topic, as they do not adequately consider the problem area P123. Here, too, we must be aware of the aquarium situation and acknowledge the limits of our cognitive capacity and accept that we do not have an answer to every question.

2: Science and faith

2.1: Introduction

In conversations about the Christian faith, we often hear statements such as: "Faith is incompatible with reason", "Faith begins where thinking ends", "Either someone thinks rationally or they simply believe", "The bible is not up to date, it no longer corresponds to today's scientific world view".

We often encounter the following attitude: Faith and reason, belief and thought, faith and science represent irreconcilable opposites - concepts such asthe big bang,evolution,creationlead to contradictions between natural science and faith. The processes in the entire cosmos are deterministically determined by fixed, scientific laws. Scientific knowledge cannot be reconciled with God's intervention in the course of events. Nothing can happen that deviates from our experience. The course of human history is determined by man.

This was clearly expressed by the British zoologist and biologist Richard Dawkins (* 1941) in his book"The God Delusion"when he said that religious belief is a delusion that has been refuted by modern science. He sees the world as the result of a meaningless and purposeless process of development based on the laws of nature and chance, and the characteristics of living beings as the result of a meaningless and purposeless process of evolution. Faith is a blind acceptance of dogmatic doctrinal statements that must not be questioned. The British chemist and atheistPeter Atkins(*1940), a colleague ofDawkins, argues similarly.

2.1.1: The Homo Mensura theorem and the hidden circular argument

The Enlightenment, which was strongly influenced by Greek-humanist thinking, and the theory of evolution founded byCharles Darwin(1809-1882) contributed to this view. This theory teaches that the origin and change of species is based on chance and that life arises from dead matter by chance. There is no room for a creator God. It also lacks any reference to moral and ethical values and to a God who has claims on man with regard to such values, as well as any awareness of man's responsibility towards a God.

This view is based on the so-calledHomo Mensura theorem, which the SophistProtagorasformulated as early as the 5th century BC:"Man is the measure of all things."This theorem is based on the idea that man isin principlecapable of solving his problems and explaining the world with his reason, knowledge and ability. This idea particularly characterised the early 20th century. At that time, the numerous possibilities opened up to mankind by advances in science and technology led to a widespread belief in progress.

The attitude behind this theorem leads to man himself determining his image of God, decides for himself how his relationship with this God is lived and how their responsibility towards him is perceived, that man himself judges justice and injustice, makes himself the judge and puts the biblical God in the dock because of all the injustice and all the suffering in the world.

The Homo Mensura theorem presupposes the existence of man with all his spiritual potential in order to form an image of God and creation. This means that the theorem is based on the circular argument mentioned in chapter 1.3 in connection withMahnig's image of God, if man is understood as a work of God's creation.

2.1.2: The relationship between science and theology in history

Throughout history, the relationship between science and theology has depended decisively on the extent to which the problem area P123 was taken into account in the understanding of science and the interpretation of the bible. For a long time, this relationship was characterized by outdated scientific thinking and a diffuse understanding of certain contents of the bible.

In scholasticism (800-1400), attempts were made to justify the truths of faith rationally and to eliminate objections to the Christian faith with rational arguments. From the 14th century onwards, the synthesis of faith and reason sought by scholasticism proved to be increasingly difficult as a result of new scientific knowledge. As a result of the changed understanding of science, observations and experiences were given priority and induction was permitted as a scientific method alongside deduction.

Since the Enlightenment, the bible has also been viewed more and more critically in light of the changed world view. A pioneer of biblical criticism in the early days of the Enlightenment was the grammar school teacherHermann Samuel Reimarus(1694-1768). For him, only what was scientifically possible and explainable was historically possible. The scientific world view of his time served him as an absolute background assumption.

The demythologization of the New Testament (NT), as founded by the theologianRudolf Bultmann(1884-1976), the biblical-critical theology, is also a logical consequence the world view of the 19th century. According to this view, nothing can have happened that contradicts our experience - including the miracles of the bible. The theologianHeinz Zahrnt(1915-2003) [86] writes:"For us, there is only one reality that surrounds us and in which we live."How the view of the bible has developed in the light of science since the middle of the 19th century is considered in more detail in chapter 3.

We will see in the next section 2.2 that the development of science and mathematics in the 19th and 20th centuries led to a change in mathematical and scientific thinking, which had a decisive influence on the relationship between science and theology. This change has helped to clarify contradictions between faith and science. One expression of this change is the growing number of biographies of believing scientists.

For manyChristian scientists, the world as we perceive it is a physical reality and not just a"shadow"of this reality in the sense ofPlatoor an "illusion" or an"appearance" ("maya")of this reality in the sense of Indian philosophy. They were and are convinced that order in nature did not develop out of chaos or by itself, but that it was created by a god.It is the belief in a creative order in nature that prompts people to pursue science.People will not understand and search for natural laws if they are convinced that nature is directly controlled by gods, spirits and demons. Thus, Chinese monks and Hindu sages were not motivated by their philosophy to pursue science; rather, they strove for inner happiness and to break the eternal cycle of life, death and rebirth and to arrive in nirvana. It was Christian scientists who significantly promoted the scientific development of the 16th and 17th centuries and thus had a decisive influence on Western science. One example is the important English physicist, mathematician and natural scientistIsaac Newton(1643-1727). He believed that the solar system only came into its order through divine intervention.

2.1.3: Different questions posed by natural science and theology

Natural science and theology pose different questions about the world and provide different approaches to reality. They work with different methods and have different goals. Natural science, with its empirical approach, is interested in causalities, while theology is more concerned with the purposefulness of the phenomena in question.

In the natural sciences, man tries to form a picture of reality by observing and measuring nature using measuring instruments and then using mathematics to describe the results in the form of laws. He assumes that the theory derived from the results is universally valid, i.e. that it is valid for all phenomena that correspond to those on which the observations and measurements are based. This presupposes that the laws of nature are universally valid. This cannot be proven either by experience or by scientific research.

Theology attempts to interpret the world with the help of the bible. The theologian and philosopherAnselm of Canterbury(1033-1109) put it this way:"Theology is faith that seeks insight."It presupposes God as the creator of the world and as the one who brings salvation to the world. It is concerned with the question "Who is God?", with the question of the meaning and significance of human existence, with the relationship between God and man.

While the scientist askshowthe universe came into being, the theologian askswhyandfor what purposeit came into being. Natural science and theology can complement each other in a fruitful way, provided they are aware of their limitations and recognize that they each only grasp a part of reality, and provided they are willing to engage in dialogue.

2.1.4: Compatibility of natural science and theology

Unfortunately, in discussions with people who critically question the bible or the Christian faith on the basis of supposedly scientific arguments, Christians often respond with the statement:"You have to trust God and the bible more than human knowledge and, when there are different views, give priority to the Word of God."In doing so, they often point to certain bible passages - e.g. the (misinterpreted) verse: "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding."(Prov 3.5 NIV) I don't find such a reaction very helpful for questioning critics. Most of the time, their questions are related to the problem area P123 and, when this is pointed out, lead them to question their own point of view.

We will see that faith is possible without violating the intellectual conscience and ignoring scientific facts, that there is no need to do violence to the interpretation of the bible and"to engage in a deceptive double-entry bookkeeping by writing what one believes in one account and what one scientifically recognizes as true in the other"[31]. I will show that reason and Christian faith are not only compatible, but that they can mutually enrich each other, in that reason leads to a deeper understanding of faith and faith helps reason in its function of achieving good goals and doing the right thing.

2.2: The change in the classical world view

The foundations for classical mathematics and physics were laid in the ancient world by Greek naturalists and philosophers. The approaches they developed determined the paradigm of the foundation of a scientific discipline per se. The "Elements" by the Greek mathematician and philosopherEuclid, written around 300 BC, was used as a textbook on geometry for 2000 years. This work could only have been written under the influence of the rationalist spirit of Greek philosophy;Euclidhimself may even have been a student atPlato'sAcademy.

Thegeocentricview of the world, according to which, according to the Greek mathematician and astronomer Aristotle, the moon, sun, planets and fixed stars move at a constant speed in circular orbits around the earth as the center, was the prevailing view in Europe (and also in China and the Islamic world) for around 1800 years. At the time of the Renaissance, it was replaced by theheliocentricview of the world.Fernando de Magellan's (1480-1521) circumnavigation of the globe in the 16th century removed the last doubts about the spherical shape of the earth. The laws discovered by the astronomerJohannes Kepler(1571-1630) enabled the mathematical calculation of planetary orbits.

The greatest progress in the mathematization of natural science, especially physics and astronomy occurred in the 17th century with the discovery of thelaw of gravitybyNewtonand the invention of theinfinitesimal calculusbyNewtonand the philosopher and mathematicianGottfried Wilhelm Leibniz(1646-1716). As a result, man's relationship to nature changed fundamentally, as his view of nature increasingly shifted from a purely contemplative to a practical and utilitarian one. This also decisively promoted the development of technology.

The development of mathematics and physics in the 19th and 20th centuries led to a reappraisal of the fundamentals, to a change in the physical world view and to a change in the way mathematicians and physicists thought. Theuncertainty principlein physics and theincompleteness theoremin mathematics are impressive witnesses to this development!

2.2.1: The change in physics

The classical physics founded byNewtonsees the universe as an infinite absolute space, which is described by the visual geometry we are familiar with and which is filled with matter whose basic building blocks are indestructible and unchangeable atoms (Greekatomos"indivisible"). The world composed of these atoms has areality that is independentof theobserver and objectively recognizable to him. The events in nature occur according to the laws of cause and effect (causality) and predetermination (determinism), i.e. there is a cause in the past for every event and the behavior of a physical system can be predicted for any point in time given a known state at an earlier point in time. In this mechanistic view of the world, the universe is comparable to a machine that functions according to fixed laws. From the perspective of classical physics,timeisunchangeable,uniformandcontinuouslyflowing, regardless of the underlying reference system.

The natural scientists of the 19th century were convinced that the laws of nature completely describe all of reality. The complete predictability through scientific laws left no room for miracles, answers to prayer and divine intervention.

In the first third of the 20th century, there were findings that revolutionized the scientific world view and revealed that the reality of our world is more complicated than we perceive it at first glance with our five senses and that it is represented by the classical world view. The revolutionary findings led to two new theories, the (specialandgeneral)theory of relativitydeveloped byAlbert Einstein(1879-1955) andquantum mechanics(also known asquantum theoryorquantum physics), which was founded byMax Planck(1858-1947) and whose development is still ongoing. These theories were developed to resolve contradictions that arose due to deviations between the predictions of classical physics and the measured results.

(Special) Theory of Relativity

At the end of the 19th century, it was experimentally established that thespeed of light, in contradiction to the laws of classical physics, isconstant, i.e. independent of the speed of the underlying reference system. This contradiction can only be explained theoretically by assuming that there is not, as classical physics teaches, an absolute space and an absolute time independent of it, but that neither space nor time are absolute - they are inextricably linked and dependent on the respective reference system. This new view of space and time was developed byEinsteinat the beginning of the 20th century in his (special) theory of relativity. We do not live in a3D world with a three-dimensional space and an absolute time independent of it, but in a4D world, the so-called 4D space-time continuum,with time as the fourth dimension. This fact leads to strange phenomena: length and time are dependent on the observer, are relative. The time in a moving train is slower than the time of an observer at rest (time dilation) and the length of the moving train is shorter than the length of the train at rest (length contraction). As the speeds occurring in everyday life are infinitesimally small compared to the speed of light, the effects of the theory of relativity (on space, time and mass) are so tiny in normal everyday life that they do not affect our lives.

Quantum mechanics

The deterministic world view of classical physics was abolished with quantum mechanics, in which indeterminism, the unpredictable, became an important component. In principle, quantum mechanics only allowsprobability statements to be madeabout the occurrence of events in the atomic and subatomic world. Here there are no longer any fixed laws of nature as there are in the macroscopic world in which we live and think. The laws of causality of the old classical physics only apply in the macro world.

In quantum theory, some experiments with one and the same object of investigation result in behavior similar to that of particles, while other experiments result in behavior similar to that of a wave or a field. According to this theory, the objects described by quantum mechanics, such as light and matter, areneither waves nor particles, but both waves and particles (particle-wave duality). Neither the particle nor the wave model alone is capable of describing physical phenomena; instead, a dualistic understanding is required.