I own his
Mind of God (along with
God and the New Physics and several other popular science books by him). He describes Whitehead's process theology like he does most other theologies and worldviews in the book (and sometimes elsewhere) : as positions that others hold. In the few places where he is clear about his position, I can't find him anyway clearly saying he subscribes to process theology or any other theology, but he is
fairly clear here:
"I would like to make my own position clear at the outset. As a professional scientist I am fully committed to the scientific method of investigating the world...I have always wanted to believe that science can explain everything, at least in principle. Many nonscientists would deny such a claim resolutely. Most religions demand belief in at least some supernatural events, which are by definition impossible to reconcile with science. I would rather not believe in supernatural events personally. Although I obviously can't prove they never happen, I see no reason to assume they do."
At no point in the book does he claim that there is evidence for God or any religious claims. He does address claims made about the theological or religious significance of findings in physics, but never without also addressing counterarguments. He distances himself from believers with statements. He does argue (whilst providing counterarguments that he does not agree with) that the universe has some deeper purpose, but explicitly states that he is not religious. He has, so far as I know, never once in any of his books or papers (technical or otherwise) identified the "deeper meaning" he subscribes to as "god". After all, in his contribution () to the volume
God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, he writes:
"Where do we human beings fit into this great cosmic scheme?
Can we gaze out into the cosmos, as did our remote ancestors, and declare: “God made all this for us!” Well, I think not."
("The Appearance of Design in Physics and Cosmology", p. 152, emphasis aded)
He does subscribe, it seems, to what may be called "process thought" in that he doesn't not believe in the theologically-based conception of the laws of physics as the immutable, changeless, and god-like. In the paper, he quotes from Hawking. I have reproduced a fuller quote from Hawking for additional context out of the same source (his
A Brief History of Time) :
"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equation. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have another effect on the universe? And who created him?"
For Davies, the standard answer is
too dependent about early Modern Christian/Deist thought, as well as Platonism.
Now perhaps Steve Surprenant, the author of the above, is out in left field here, but it left me with the impression that Davies does indeed believe in a god, albeit a very peculiar one.
I think that that it is very easy to interpret what even staunchly atheistic physicists say as implying belief in God (for one thing, it is standard for physicists even when teaching to refer to "God" giving a physical system a kick or push or to imagine systems from "God's point of view". Like the theological model behind the scientific conceptualization of physical laws, this is usually a vestigial God left over from the language of bygone days. Even when this "God-dabbling" is deliberate, it can seldom be taken at face-value to be interpreted as proposing god actual exists, as one can see in e.g., this comparison between Tipler and those like Hawking or Davies:
"Other researchers have already softened up the God-seeking audience. Physicists far more mainstream than Tipler have equated God with such fundamental entities as a set of equations or the Higgs boson, a hitherto undiscovered elementary particle. Particle physicists flock around ‘Theories of Everything’ (which claim to explain the very basis of existence) like moths around a flame. Even observational cosmologists have entered the God stakes. George Smoot, the leader of the NASA team that discovered fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, described his achievement as seeing ‘the face of God’. Paul Davies, seldom far from the forefront of cosmology, has already written two books in which the casual reader might infer that he identifies God as a quantum cosmologist. Never one to be bashful, Stephen Hawking declared God unnecessary. Hawking proposes that the universe has no boundary in space or time, rendering a divine Creator superfluous. Even experimentalists have joined the party: the US particle physicist Leon Lederman talks of searching for the God particle.
Tipler takes a very different, personal tack that carries him into uncharted territory
light years beyond the other God-dabbling scientists such as Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking, and their ilk."
Silk, J. (2006).
The Infinite Cosmos: Questions from the frontiers of cosmology. Oxford University Press.
Apparently, even fellow physicist Joseph Silk can't quite figure out exactly what Davies' actual position is, and neither can I. I was sort of hoping you might have known of a clear example that I wasn't aware of.