I want you to rewrite my paper to be better organized, with more flow between arguments and paragraphs.
Symmetry principles in physics represent some of the deepest insights into the natural world’s workings and their profound implications for faith. The fact that natural laws remain invariant under changes in observer perspective suggests a universe governed by impersonal forces, contradicting religious belief in a personal Creator who remains actively involved in the creation. From classical mechanics’ symmetries to general relativity’s remarkable insights, physics reveals a cosmos where matter, energy, space, and time behave according to universal mathematical regularities.
Despite the apparent tension between faith and the study of symmetries in physics, there have been attempts to reconcile the two. One example is the argument that the philosophy and physics conflict model is mistaken. Some argue that while physics provides a framework for understanding the universe independent of religious doctrine, it does not necessarily disqualify the existence of a higher power. It is possible to believe in physics and religion as long as one recognizes that they operate on different levels. Another argument is that symmetries in physics can be seen as revealing the beauty and elegance of the natural world, which can be appreciated as a reflection of the divine. For example, the mathematical symmetry of the hydrogen atom’s electron cloud is a beauty that can only be fully appreciated through the lens of quantum mechanics. This beauty can be seen as pointing to a higher power rather than contradicting it. While symmetries in physics may reveal a universe governed by impersonal forces, they also show a universe of immense complexity and intricacy that invites awe and wonder. Even if we cannot fully comprehend the universe’s workings, we can still appreciate its beauty and magnificence and see it as a reflection of the divine.
Furthermore, symmetries need not undermine faith so much as strengthen it through more profound humility and mystery. If natural processes behave as one according to symmetry, this highlights the immensity of creation’s scale and subtlety, instilling worship of the grandeur of existence itself. There remain far more unknowns than knowns regarding the universe’s origin, evolution, and mechanisms at every level. Symmetries shroud as much as they reveal, inviting us to see through a glass darkly and thus recall our place as creatures within an immense and incomprehensible whole. Faith is less about claiming to know than embracing mystery; less about how the universe works than why there is a universe at all.
One of the philosophical positions Rickles talks about is the Leibniz shift argument. He argues that introducing Leibniz’s notion of a “shift” in perspectives profoundly alters our understanding of reality. According to Rickles, undergoing the Leibniz shift means realizing that no absolute “world” exists independently of any observer (p. 50). Instead, there are many possible “worlds” or ways of describing reality, each corresponding to a different conceptual perspective or frame of reference. What exists depends on the conceptual categories we employ to carve up and interpret the world. There is no mind-independent reality, only realities that are relative to the conceptual schemes we project onto the world (p. 44). The Leibniz shift transforms our view of reality from absolute to relative and observer-dependent realities. One strength of this argument is that it highlights the issue of indeterminism in general relativity and its implications for the substantivalist and relationist views of space and time. The argument challenges the substantivalist view that there is a fact of the matter about the location of a point in spacetime, even if it is not observable, by showing that the same physical state can be represented by different spacetime points (p. 44). This raises questions about the ontological status of spacetime points and whether they are necessary to describe physical reality. Leibniz’ argument that “… two states indiscernible from each other are the same state …” (p. 50) has many flaws, such as the fact that there are counterexamples to the identity of indiscernibles. For example, in quantum mechanics, particles can be in identical states and yet be physically distinct from each other. His argument is also inconsistent with everyday experience because two identical balls may have different histories and thus be discernible from each other. Finally, it relies on circular reasoning: the identity of indiscernibles presupposes the notion of individual properties, which depend on the identity of indiscernibles. This creates a circular argument that fails to establish the identity of indiscernibles as a fundamental principle.
How, then, do physics and faith work together? Studying classical mechanics as a whole provides opportunities to see faith as complementary rather than contradictory to physics. For example, while translational symmetry suggests a cosmos consistent across space, faith recognizes each place as unique in relation to God, Creator of all. God’s sovereignty is conceived in the concept of love through the interpersonal Godly family. This sovereignty differs from physics’ laws and is tied to meaning, purpose, and value rather than mathematical description alone. Faith thus grasps personal relations more deeply than physics’ mathematical abstractions, providing comfort amid the aching questions of existence that physics inherently awakens. Reconciliation lies in humble openness to faith and reason, respectively.
Reconciliation between faith and science lies in recognizing each as a means of grasping at truth rather than as truth itself. Faith sees God at work behind and through material phenomena; physics sees mathematical order and regularity. Yet, in championing meaning or logic alone, each merely obscures the deep mysteries on which human joy and flourishing are founded. A robust faith engages reason rather than fearing it; reason respects humbleness before mystery rather than denying it. Religion and science open our eyes to scales of being, purpose, and value beyond any single perspective.
Faith and reason need not see mathematics and personal will/subjectivity as strictly opposed. Just as God creates through the Word, His personal will, conceiving and ordaining all that has existence according to His eternal characteristics, so too the universe may reflect forms ultimately rooted in the divine mind. The language of mathematics could thus represent creation’s symbolic grammar, a means through which the verities of God are expressed as a world of space, time, matter, and energy. Rather than contradicting faith, physics invites us to see creation as the outward reflection of infinite depth, a mirror eternally reflecting upon itself. God is not banished but grasped anew through seeing the Creator as a mathematician with characteristics present as principles that make everything in harmony through quantum tunneling or cosmic expansion alike. Wolfhart Pannenberg argues for understanding nature as a revelation of the divine, a “theophany” disclosing being beyond human conceptual schemes. We can thus know God “through” nature and its lawful workings, not just despite them. Seeing physics as revelation expands rather than contradicts faith, granting deeper insight into Creator and creation alike. Cosmic symmetries and evolutionary processes glow with spiritual significance rather than implying a universe bereft of meaning, purpose, or final cause. The universe’s coherent, orderly workings bear witness to God’s sublime rationality, revealing elements of metaphor within creation even as mathematical necessities shape fundamental law. Through physics alone, we discern pattern but not purpose; through faith, we discern meaning transcending mathematical form.
Thomas Nagel’s thought experiment “What is it Like to be a Bat?” reveals profound limitations in the human ability to transcend our subjective experience. Just as a bat perceives the world through echolocation in a mode profoundly foreign to human senses, faith and physics translate experience through different conceptual schemes. Disciplines are thus based on perspective, each gaining partial yet limited access to truth. However, the thoughtful consideration of perspectives in relation can produce insights that transcend any narrow framing or epistemological vantage. Ian Barbour continues this thought through his categories of “conflict,” “independence,” and “dialogue” between science and religion. Reconciliation sees faith and physics as distinct in “independence” yet convergent at the innermost levels of meaning through “dialogue.” Each perspective translates experience faithfully yet imperfectly like distorted lenses focus light. Together, they grant a multidimensional vision of truth. Alvin Plantinga, a third author, argues that faith and reason, religion and science, need not be inherently at odds. Religious beliefs can be “properly basic” – reasonable and justified without needing further proof or evidence – without contradiction as long as faith is grounded in good reasons, not just blind faith. When faith grows out of reason rather than transcending or contradicting it, there will be a spirit of finding what he calls “supernatural proof” – proof that comes through evidence and logic, not just subjective religious experience – rather than relying solely on intuition, poetry, or metaphor. As such, faith and reason grasp truth properly in the form of non-competitive dialogue.
Far too often, the modern world falls into the trap of what Charles Taylor calls “exclusive humanism”: the rejection of transcendence and spirituality in pursuit of reason-based control alone over meaning, purpose, and value. In the faith/science relationship, one rejects neither in favor of the other to find life’s hardest questions best contemplated through multiple lenses rather than obscured by a single, limited frame. Transcendence proves inextricable from immanence, eternity from temporal flow, as mathematics gives way to metaphor and philosophical reflection to humble prayer.
If faith and physics each represent a path to truth, the stories they tell must converge at some innermost level. Consider how physics reveals a cosmos evolving according to natural law while faith narratives divine purpose and redemptive grace alike. Purpose need not oppose law but underlie it as a foundation; grace can emerge as the logical consequence of radical openness to love’s transformation. Through all the years of cosmic and biological evolution, love has shaped beauty, creativity, and solidarity – virtues mirroring the divine nature itself. Christian theology, for example, holds that God creates through and as love, openly giving all being in imagination and desire for shared joy. From this perspective, natural law and divine will coincide as love’s expression, governing creation with purpose and meaning transcending mathematical form. God labors to birth new beauty, for in creating the universe, God created space not just for calculation but for choice – freedom by which new possibilities arise through each act of love. Amid suffering and death, the light of love breaks forth as hope, guiding cosmic and human destiny alike to a more just, loving, and fruitful being.