Time&Eternity

176 chapter 3
what is objective truth and what is not proved to be more complicated
than previously anticipated, although this reservation is far removed from
the assertion that it is actually impossible to decide what truth is. Within
certain references, rigorous criteria for truth are (still) valid. Complementarity
and indeterminacy indeed point to the boundaries of possible knowledge,
but the fruit of all striving for knowledge still lies more in the finding
than in the fabrication of truth. In his 1954 Nobel lecture entitled “Statistical
Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,” physicist Max Born described
the normative implications of the situation created by quantum physics as
follows:
I believe that ideas such as absolute certitude, absolute exactness, final truth, etc. are
figments of the imagination which should not be admissible in any field of science.
On the other hand, any assertion of probability is either right or wrong from the
standpoint of the theory on which it is based. This loosening of thinking seems to me
to be the greatest blessing which modern science has given to us. For the belief in a
single truth and in being the possessor thereof is the root cause of all evil in the
world. 323
It is not the truth per se that has been lost. Instead, the simplistic,
closed-minded perception of truth has been lost. What has been gained in
its place is a complex, open-minded truth.
Results and Outlook
What have we learned from this chapter? Was it much ado about nothing?
Are the gains from understanding physical theories proportional to the
effort involved? Is it not generally true that, within the context of the interdisciplinary
dialogue, science speaks and theology more or less silently listens?
Is it only theology that benefits from natural scientific knowledge, or
could natural science also learn from insights gained by theology?
The answers lie on two levels. First, it is the task of theology to stay informed,
because, like philosophy, it is an academic subject that deals with
life as a whole. Precisely because it makes statements about life in general, it
must also keep nonphilosophical and nontheological knowledge in mind in
order to gain insights that satisfy both intellect and intuition. Seen from
this perspective, theology is by nature interdisciplinary. Although a theologian
can be criticized for being ignorant of relevant natural scientific facts,
this does not apply conversely in exactly the same way to natural scientists
with regard to theological insights. 324 In this sense, the natural sciences may
in fact have reasons to indulge in some self-satisfaction. Theological considerations
may indeed do more harm than good in natural scientific research.
Insights gained by theologians can nevertheless also make important contri-