Theology’s Fruitful Contribution to the Natural Sciences: Robert Russell’s ‘Creative Mutual Interaction’ in Operation With Eschatology, Resurrection and Cosmology Scott Derek Garcia Ventureyra Major research paper submitted to the Faculty of Theology, Saint Paul University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Theology Ottawa, Canada August 31st, 2009 © Scott Derek Garcia Ventureyra, Ottawa, Canada, 2009 Table of Contents I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. Acknowledgements Introduction Warrant for studying Robert Russell Russell‟s methodology: „creative mutual interaction‟ (CMI) 1. The vision and analogy of what CMI entails 2. The conceptual structure of the 8 pathways of CMI 3. The significant influences upon Russell‟s methodology 4. The first 5 pathways (SRPTRP) 5. The last 3 pathways (TRPSRP) 6. The thought of some of Russell‟s colleagues on his CMI 7. Potential research programs The test case: resurrection, eschatology and cosmology in CMI 1. The details of what the “test-case” entails 2. The predictions of physical cosmology regarding the future of the universe with the inclusion of some proposed responses 3. The resurrection of Jesus: subjective versus objective interpretations 4. Guidelines to stimulate scientific and theological research programs 5. Influence of eschatology on cosmology to form scientific research programs Conclusion Appendix 1: Image of the bridge for CTNS Appendix 2 : CMI diagram Bibliography 3 4 9 14 15 16 21 22 25 29 31 35 36 37 39 42 49 51 55 56 57 2 I. Acknowledgements I dedicate this paper to my parents for their support and their emphasis on the importance of education. I would like to thank Professor James Pambrun for his guidance, patience and valuable insights. My journey into the theological world has been an interesting one. Many people, books, ideas, conversations and insightful reflections of great diversity have led me to the current point I am situated in. I am indebted to all of these instruments, individuals and circumstances for shaping the way I come to understand. My experience as a human is, in large measure, a product of all these elements. Moreover, these elements have deeply influenced this research paper‟s focus and direction. This paper is an attempt to affirm, that truth can be attained, as opposed to many who think that truth itself is merely an illusion or a construct of the mind that is purely dependent on our relative subjective perspective/experience (without any ontological or objective relevance). It seeks to demonstrate, through the thought of Robert Russell (and his methodology), that perhaps the reason for the hope in Christian salvation and redemption can be discerned through theological and scientific tools that are at our disposal with the use of a mediating philosophy. Moreover, that the discernment of hope can be sought out with the aid of scientific tools when they are coupled with alternative presuppositions (alternate to the ones predominantly utilized in science, through the aid of philosophical and theological reflection). When current scientific tools are coupled with these alternative presuppositions they can potentially lead us to radically different vision of material existence and the future of the universe, one of which, can provide us with rationally justifiable lines of evidences that correspond to the Christian ideas of salvation and redemption. 3 II. Introduction The focus of this research paper concerns the dialogue between science and theology. The current state of the dialogue involves a wide range of points of intersection that both pose and provoke questions concerning the very viability and coherence of such a dialogue. Such points of intersection include big bang cosmology, the fine tuning of the laws of physics, quantum physics, origin of life studies, evolutionary biology, the concept of an unembodied mind and the mind-body problem in the neurosciences to mention a few. Without a doubt, the field of science and theology is such of breadth and diversity that approaches themselves to such a dialogue have become equally diverse. In order to promote some comprehensive understanding of the diverse approaches, a number of theologians have attempted to develop representative typologies of the approaches that define the dialogue. For example, Ian Barbour who is a pioneer of the science and theology dialogue and who was a recipient of the 1999 Templeton Prize for his contribution to the advancement of religion and science, has developed a well known fourfold typology for science and theology. In addition, there are typologies proposed by Ted Peters, Willem Drees and John Haught.1 However, some critics have maintained that even such typologies cannot encompass the full set of complexities and specific features of the dialogue between theology and science due to the fact that the very number of complexities and distinct features do not lend themselves to neatly designed categories.2 Given a recognition of these attempts and their acknowledged complexities, the aim of this research paper is to explore one approach distinct in character due to the nature of its approach as a research program, namely that of Robert Russell. Russell‟s work, by virtue of its 1 Ian G. Barbour, When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers or Partners? (New York: Harper Collins, 2000), 4. 2 Barbour, When Science Meets Religion, 4. 4 own methodological developments and its strategy of developing some precise guidelines for the dialogue deserves, in my judgement, particular attention. I wish to develop my warrant for selecting Russell‟s approach for study by prefacing it with a brief comment on the historical background of the relationship between theology and modern science and by specifying the nature of my own question that has led me to take up Russell‟s work for study in the research paper. While recent centuries may well document a divide that has developed between theology and science, prior to the age of Enlightenment the relationship between science and theology seemed more positive. Many of the leading scientists of the day assumed that the universe was intelligible, rational and could be discerned by the human mind. For example, both the theological assumptions of creation ex nihilo and the contingency of the world played a dominant role within the rise of modern science.3 Moreover, these assumptions came to shape much of empiricism used in science and the use of mathematics to describe natural processes.4 Indeed, theological insights and understanding inspired developments in scientific thought. This is especially true of great scientific minds such as Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Rene Descartes, Galileo Galilei and Nicolas Copernicus who posited that the structure of physical reality could be knowable.5 These explicitly theological ideas promoted a view in which scientists would want to perform a type of reverse engineering mode of thinking (where humans could possibly even modify and perfect Creation), in order to understand how things were Robert John Russell, “Eschatology and Physical Cosmology” in George F. R. Ellis, ed., The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective (Philadelphia: Templeton Press, 2002), 285. 4 Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 285. 5 Edward Grant, “Science and Theology in the Middle Ages” in David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, eds., God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986), 59. 3 5 created (this was precisely the mode of thinking possessed by Isaac Newton).6 This would in turn aid in the discernment of how the universe functioned. The point here is that scientists for the early modern period until the early twentieth century were explicitly aided by theological thoughts and notions to discern the existence and operation of nature. These theological notions set a framework for scientific research and discovery. Throughout history theological thought and science have gone hand in hand more often than not. They seem to be more partners than foes despite the popular depiction of their relation. However, in many instances science does the work of science and has nothing to say about theology. This is especially true when science deals with metaphysically neutral questions such as the number of elements in the periodic table or for instance the physical and chemical properties of water that permit it to change into three different states. Yet when one is dealing with questions such as cosmological or biological origins, Einstein‟s theories of special or general relativity and their implications on our views of times, the relationship is not so clear. Over 150 years ago, according to the majority of scientists, God‟s creation seemed to have a stronger affinity with that of a particular scriptural interpretation.7 Francis Bacon famously proposed his doctrine of “two books” in 1605 which was comprised of both natural revelation (physical reality) and the other supernatural revelation (biblical texts). He sought to achieve progressive form of understanding for both types of revelations.8 However, currently, for many scientists, such appropriations are neither apparent nor as obvious as they used to be and even non-existent to many in our “post modern” world. It is also important to note that Steve Fuller, Dissent over Descent: Intelligent Design’s Challenge to Darwinism. (Thriplow, Cambridge: Icon Books, 2008), 51. 7 James R. Moore, “Geologists and Interpreters of Genesis in the Nineteenth Century”, in David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, eds., God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986), 323. 8 Moore, in Lindberg and Numbers, God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, 322. 6 6 although many times philosophical or theological assumptions are not explicitly delineated they play a significant role in the development of scientific theories even if the scientist(s) may not be completely aware of such frameworks or presuppositions.9 In developing an understanding and background through the reading of a large number of works in the science and theology/religion field, I began to think further about some of the issues that were not directly addressed in most of the literature, at least in much of the literature I had read. Something struck my mind upon listening to Steven Fuller, in a debate with Jack Cohen, a reproductive biologist at the University of Warwick. Upon listening to this debate a key insight emerged which was necessary and significant for this entire research endeavour. Let me first mention a few words on Steven Fuller before revealing this insight. Steven Fuller is a professor of sociology at University of Warwick in England. Fuller earned his doctorate in the history and philosophy of science and he served as an expert witness in the trial in 2005 in Dover Pennsylvania in the case of, Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, over the teaching of biological evolution and intelligent design. He has published two books revolving around the Intelligent Design controversy in recent years: Science vs. Religion?: Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution and Dissent over Dissent: Intelligent Design’s Challenge to Darwinism. Fuller, who is religiously agnostic10, contends that the concept of Intelligent Design, irrespective of whether there exists a designer (whether it be a supernatural entity or a natural entity) or whether the proponents of ID are correct in assuming there is a designer or not, can lead to greater insights in discerning certain features of the universe as opposed to purely undirected natural processes. Some of the features include 9 Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 285-286. This came from an mp3 audio file of a debate over the teaching of Intelligent Design and Evolution between Steven Fuller and Jack Cohen at the University of Warwick on November 9 th 2005. A link to the debate can be found here: << http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/339033>> Date accessed: June 24th, 2009. 10 7 biological structures such as the bacteria flagellum and the information processing component (genetic code) of the double helical DNA molecule. The main point that Fuller attempts to iterate, is that ID can lead to fruitful notions in the discernment of how a certain biological feature (like the bacteria flagellum) functions and came to be built (regardless if it was through design or natural processes), much in the same way that scientists like Isaac Newton wanted to envision reverse type engineering scenarios in order to enter into the mind of God to discern the structure and function of the universe. It is important to note that the concept of Intelligent Design is extremely controversial in scientific, philosophical and theological circles. Intelligent Design is controversial because of its empirical claims and its epistemology since it seeks to challenge the very grounds of the scientific method – methodological naturalism. Intelligent Design adheres to a form of interventionist type of creation which runs contrary to the entailments of the research of this paper as appropriated through Robert Russell. Robert Russell‟s research program embodies a non interventionist objective divine action (NIODA) which attempts to explain how God may act (since God is both transcendent and immanent) in the universe without direct intervention or violation of the laws of nature.11 Aside from the mentioned controversies, I used this notion which was initiated by Fuller but transformed it into something more applicable to my research regarding the field of science and theology. My question became: “what fruitful contribution can theology make to the natural sciences?” So, if theological thought had an implicit influence on the history of modern sciences in which it aided many of the great scientists to unravel the natural world, that is to say God‟s creation, where can this place or relation be located today? 11 Robert John Russell, Cosmology, Evolution, and Resurrection Hope: Theology and Science in Creative Mutual Interaction - Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Goshen conference on Religion and Science, edited by Carl S. Helrich (Kitchener, Ontario: Pandora, 2006), 28-29, 78. 8 III. Warrant for Studying Robert Russell With this particular question in mind, that of theology‟s contribution to the natural sciences, I began to examine and sift through the works of renown physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne (recipient of the Templeton prize in 2002). While examining Polkinghorne‟s work, I also read through the work of the physicist and theologian, Robert John Russell. Polkinghorne has proposed an intriguing idea with respect to eschatology, that of creation ex vetera where the new creation will be created out of the currently existing creation.12 Russell has found much value in Polkinghorne‟s notion of creation ex vetera since it can permit science to contribute something to the understanding of this type of transformation because it not only includes discontinuity but continuity as well.13 Although Polkinghorne‟s work is very insightful with respect to the natural sciences and the science and theology dialogue, it seemed to me that for the purposes of responding to my question there was a good level of applicability and depth in that of Robert Russell‟s work. The main point of separation between choosing to study Russell as opposed to Polkinghorne was that of his research program of „creative mutual interaction‟ which includes an avenue for theology to potentially fruitfully contribute to the natural sciences. This leads us to the task of examining some of the reasons as to why one should examine Robert Russell‟s work in an attempt to answer the question of theology‟s fruitful contribution to the natural sciences as was inspired indirectly through Steven Fuller. In other words what warrants do we have for examining Russell‟s work with respect to this question? 12 John Polkinghorne, the Faith of a Physicist: Reflection of a Bottom-Up Thinker (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994), 167. 13 Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 283. 9 It is significant to note that Robert Russell‟s accomplishments and work within the discipline of science and theology have not gone unnoticed but have been widely recognized and appraised. This has been exemplified with the publication of a book in 2006 titled, God’s Action in Nature’s World: Essays in Honour of Robert John Russell written as an honour and tribute to Robert Russell which was edited by the theologian Ted Peters and included contributions from scientists/theologian/theologian-scientists such as John Polkinghorne, Paul Davies, William Stoeger, Ian Barbour and other notable thinkers. Aside from the publication of this collection of essays in honour of Robert Russell, I believe there are several important reasons for examining Russell‟s work, these include his academic training, the fact that he is the founder of the Center for Theology and Natural Sciences (CTNS), his methodological approach to science and theology as embodied through the „creative mutual interaction‟ and his willingness to confront some of the toughest questions confronting the field of science and theology. Let us examine them. The first significant reason worth examining is that of Russell‟s academic/educational training. Robert Russell earned an undergraduate degree in physics from Stanford, an M.S. and Ph.D. in physics from University of California.14 He also received a minor in religion while completing his undergraduate degree in physics. Moreover, he had completed a M.Div. and an M.A. in theology from the Pacific School of Religion.15 This extensive academic training has given him an excellent background to assess the importance and significance of the field of science and theology. His background in physics has permitted him to have an in depth and nuanced understanding of modern physics which is made abundantly evident in the way he is able to communicate this in his writings. His training in physics has permitted him to have hands 14 Robert John Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega: Theology and Science in Creative Mutual Interaction (Minneapolis: Fortress Press), 1. 15 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 2. 10 on experience with much of the specifics that are involved in comprehending practical applications of physics and the interior understanding of much of its relevant theories. This is something that a theologian would lack who has not had the formal training in the natural sciences. Unless someone who is either a philosopher or theologian, as in the cases of such thinkers like Wolfhart Pannenberg and William Lane Craig, has done a great amount of research and reading on one‟s own. Despite exceptions or rare instances such as with the aforementioned thinkers, Russell possesses a great advantage over theologian/philosophers who lack training in the natural sciences. Russell‟s academic training will permit him to acquire invaluable insights that can be relevant to both the fields of science and theology. Although Russell does not possess a doctorate in theology he surely has demonstrated his competence in the field of theology and science and theology with his long publication list16 (he has also published nine papers within the discipline of physics). This strongly demonstrates that he has a profound understanding of science-theology and has spent a significant amount of time on researching. Russell‟s relevant academic training makes him as one of the most appropriate thinkers in the world to tackle the issue of theology‟s contribution to the natural sciences. Another important reason for studying Russell includes that of him being both the founder and director of the CTNS at University of California (Berkley).17 This center has been extremely fruitful for the discipline of science and theology. It has permitted Russell to develop much of his ideas. It has allowed Russell to write extensively in the field of science and theology with numerous significant publications in both journals and books. The CTNS has propelled such an environment whereby both scientists and theologians are able to critically question one another while offering support to one another in fruitful dialogue. There are many 16 17 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 328-336. Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, iii. 11 challenges facing each discipline and the discipline of science and theology. Through Russell‟s founding of the CTNS and directing it there has been a great advancement in the dialogue. What was unthinkable 30 years ago seems to be possible now, namely, the lively exchanges between theologians and scientists that permit a greater understanding of each field and their interaction with one another. This is especially true because of the insistence, “tireless effort, innovative vision, and boundless enthusiasm”18 of Robert John Russell. Russell‟s vision and the creation of the CTNS is responsible for cultivating much of the grounds for a rich „creative mutual interaction‟. The third valuable reason for studying Robert Russell is that of his development of his method of „creative mutual interaction‟. According to Ted Peters, Russell‟s „creative mutual interaction‟, is of his most important in comparison to his many other contributions to the field. In support of this, Ted Peters states that: “it seems to me, the single most valuable contribution of Robert John Russell to the blossoming field of Science & Religion is his conceptual contribution. Taking advantage of his training in both physics and theology, Russell has brought to the dialogue some of the most insightful and revolutionary proposals for breakthrough into a new domain of shared understanding. Beyond warfare, beyond two languages, beyond dialogue, beyond the pursuit of consonance, Russell has advanced us to the stage of creative mutual interaction between natural sciences and Christian theology.”19 This quote is highly significant since it delineates the extreme impact Russell has had extending the discipline of science and theology beyond the standard engagement to one in which there can be an avenue of reciprocal influence. What is important here, although not explicitly mentioned, is the potential theology can make to the natural sciences, which is the focus of this research Nathan Hallanger, Preface, in Nathan Hallanger and Ted Peters, eds., God’s Action in Nature’s World: Essays in Honour of Robert John Russell (Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2006), xi. 19 Ted Peters, “Robert John Russell‟s Contribution to the Theology & Science Dialogue,” in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 17. 18 12 paper. This is something that occupies a significant portion of Russell‟s research program as part of his „creative mutual interaction‟. The method of Russell‟s „creative mutual interaction‟ (CMI) is significant for a number of reasons. These reasons will be explored in greater depth in the paper‟s following section which describes what CMI entails. There is a further value in the works of Russell with respect to the question of theology‟s contribution to the natural sciences and this consists of his willingness to tackle questions that many other theologians and scientists seem unwilling or incapable of. This becomes quite evident when Russell proposes his „worst case scenario‟. Russell‟s worst case scenario entails that of the concept of resurrection and eschatology in theology and cosmology in science. Russell seeks to use eschatology and cosmology as a “test-case” through the use of pathways 6-8 (which are ones which correspond from theology to science) for the purpose of seeing what contribution the idea of eschatology can bring forth to cosmology. Russell‟s „worst case scenario‟ envisions what the bodily resurrection of Christ, as propounded by New Testament scholars that possess an objective interpretation of the resurrection of Jesus, can say to the future cosmological scenarios of the universe. This holds true in relation to either views of the future of the universe, whether it is an “open” or “closed universe with “freeze” or “fry” scenarios, respectively. This is evidently one of the most pressing and significant questions facing theology and science today since it undergirds the truth of the Christian faith and present scientific knowledge. Theology‟s potential contribution here could be a revision of the “freeze” or “fry” models with proposals to look at data through a different philosophical framework or to look for perhaps clues for a “new law” because of the first instantiation of such a law through the bodily resurrection of Christ. It is a tremendously difficult challenge for the CMI and all its pathways 13 but it is particularly troublesome for pathways 6-8 which are the focus of this research endeavour. This demonstrates that Russell is deeply interested in the progress of this field of theology-science and particularly that of the CMI. He is capable and dedicated to pushing the CMI to its outmost frontiers as is evident with his „worst case scenario‟20, this point has also been stated by Nathaniel Hallanger in the preface of God’s Action in Nature’s World. For many of these reasons that were outlined, I believe that the virtues and methodology of Russell‟s „creative mutual interaction‟ can help address the specific features, complexities and details of the field of science and theology. Moreover, it provides an avenue for theology to contribute something to the natural sciences which seems to be lacking in much of the other proposed methodologies. Let us now discuss the methodology that Robert Russell employs to explore the interrelations of science and theology. IV. Russell‟s Methodology: Creative Mutual Interaction (CMI) In the introductory section of this paper I had discussed what sparked my particular interest within the interrelations of science and theology. In this section of the paper I shall give a brief synopsis of how I came to find merit in the work of Robert Russell with respect to the pursuit of what contribution theology can make to the natural sciences. That is to say Russell‟s methodology of CMI and the details surrounding underlying it. It is worth mentioning that we have already seen that historically an intimate relationship between theology and science was far from being absent. Moreover, we have seen that theology and philosophy have come to influence scientists and scientific theories. It was undoubtedly a strong factor for the rise of modern science.21 This particular notion did not escape Russell and consequently helped him 20 21 Hallanger, Preface, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, xi. Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 20. 14 develop his CMI. Theology‟s influence upon the natural sciences occupies a significant portion of Russell‟s CMI. This simple fact makes the study of Russell‟s CMI extremely important and relevant for the purposes of this paper – to discern how theology can make a fruitful contribution to the natural sciences. In this section I shall discuss the vision and analogy of what CMI entails, the conceptual structure of the 8 pathways of the CMI, an in depth look at the specific details of the CMI and the application of the CMI with respect to three research programs. Let us discuss the inspirational vision and analogy of what CMI entails. 1. The Vision and Analogy of What CMI Entails Robert Russell‟s methodology concerning the interrelations of science and theology was in large measure born out of the creation of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS). The CTNS permitted a wide array of “interdisciplinary interaction” which included a number of different academic disciplines such as a set of sub-disciplines within theology, philosophy, mathematics and a variety of fields in the natural sciences.22 The image of a bridge came to symbolize Russell‟s methodology that is commonly referred to as „creative mutual interaction‟ in Russell‟s mind.23 Russell creates a powerful image of the interactions that occur with respect to his methodology when he creates an analogy between his methodology and that of the Golden State Bridge24 (a picture of it is put on the CTNS home page)25. This analogy is quite creative and appropriate since the flow of traffic on the bridge operates in two directions much like the relationship between science and theology in the „creative mutual interaction‟ 22 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 1. In his work, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega: The creative mutual interaction of theology and science, in his introductory chapter, Russell presents the metaphor of the golden state bridge that symbolizes his research program of CMI. 24 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 1. 25 Refer to picture in appendix 1. 23 15 (symbolizes the pathways flowing from science to theology and theology to science). There is a flow from both directions; from science to theology and from theology to science. Russell provides a lively depiction of this bidirectional reciprocal relation when he states: I was inspired by the Golden Gate Bridge that unites San Francisco with its neighbours to the north. It was built, not from one side to the other, but starting from both sides and meeting in the middle. Each community, scientific, and religious, must first find bedrock in its own field of inquiry and according to its own intellectual standards. Each must then raise towers to soar upward into the sky above them, troll cables across the waters between them, and haul these cables to the towers‟ tops. Finally, bold adventurers from both communities would climb out on the slender cables hanging in space above the churning cold ocean, and while pointing across the gulf that still separates them, drop suspension cables to support an emerging highway below, hoping that in the fullness of time this highway will finally meet at the center and bear fruitful traffic in both directions.26 This image is a vibrant one which beautifully captures part of the interactions between science and theology that both have been actualized and that can be potentially actualized. 2. The Conceptual Structure of the 8 Pathways of CMI A more conceptualized expression of Robert Russell‟s CMI can be found in a diagram that he developed in order to delineate the interactions between science and theology. It is one constantly incorporated throughout Russell‟s articles and books. This undoubtedly stresses the importance of the visual dimension of the method of the „creative mutual interaction‟.27 The significance of the CMI diagram is that it names the basic interactions between science and theology and theology and science. These interactions are presented as pathways, 8 in all, 5 of which flow from science to theology and 3 of which flow from theology to science. These pathways integrate a number of philosophical assumptions. These pathways can make 26 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 1-2. This diagram has been included in every paper and book that has been consulted for this paper and been written by Robert Russell. For an illustration of this diagram of the CMI see appendix 2 of this paper. 27 16 scientists, theologians and philosophers more aware of the philosophical assumptions at work between both theology and science. For example, a practically universal philosophical assumption used in the natural sciences is that empirical knowledge is “valid knowledge”.28 This type of assumption is necessary for performing science but it is not a necessity when this particular assumption leads to another assumption namely that of declaring that empirical knowledge (“valid knowledge”) is declared as the sole form of valid knowledge.29 This is where the significance of theological reflection can help tease out the validity of some philosophical assumptions over others and the role they play in the formulation and operation of scientific theories. The awareness that philosophical assumptions undergird both science and theology is a very important one that is very often overlooked by both scientists and theologians that I shall say a word about later.30 The pathways are applicable to all of the natural sciences including physics, cosmology, chemistry and biology. There is a relational element common to both the methodologies of science and theology (cf. Barbour). The CMI methodology contains a level of asymmetry between theology and science which is important to take note of. The data that is used for theology from science is not the same as the data science can potentially use from theology. Furthermore, there exists an epistemic hierarchy which is present in the methodology (cf. Peacocke). For example, the discipline of physics would be on the lower level of the epistemic hierarchy and would place constraints on disciplines which are on higher levels such as biology, psychology and theology.31 In order for Russell to successfully construct a CMI methodology for the interrelationships of science and theology he integrated various important 28 Russell, Cosmology, Evolution, and Resurrection Hope, 65. Russell, Cosmology, Evolution, and Resurrection Hope, 65. 30 Russell, Cosmology, Evolution, and Resurrection Hope, 46. 31 Robert John Russell, “Bodily Resurrection, Eschatology and Scientific Cosmology: The Mutual Interaction of Christian Theology and Science” in Ted Peters, Robert John Russell, and Michael Welker, eds., Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2002), 11. 29 17 elements. Some of these elements include: Ian Barbour‟s analogical methodology, Arthur Peacocke‟s epistemic hierarchy and Nancey Murphy‟s Lakatosian theological research programs – these conceptual elements that came to influence Russell‟s CMI will be examined in greater depth upon examining the details of the CMI. Through Russell‟s insightfulness it was possible to bring all these elements together to create an “interactive” methodology (through the CMI). In order to gain full appreciation of this methodology it will be important to discuss Russell‟s inspirational vision and analogy of what the CMI entails. A closer and more in depth look at the three aforementioned elements of Russell‟s interactive methodology will be crucial to understand the structure and operational basis for his methodology. Then a discussion of the specific details with reference to the “method of creative mutual interaction (CMI)” diagram will elucidate the different directions and components of the interactive relations between science and theology. A look at the application of these pathways into research programs will help bring clarity into how these pathways have heuristic validity. It will also be useful to take a look at what some of Russell‟s colleagues thoughts are on his CMI. Some of the colleagues that will be consulted include that of William Stoeger, Philip Clayton and Nancey Murphy who reveal some important insights regarding Russell‟s CMI. Let us take a look at the pathways that make the CMI. There are 8 distinct pathways within the CMI (which can be seen in the CMI diagram) between science and theology. Pathways 1 to 5 of the CMI diagram represent the usual role theology plays in the science-theology dialogue where science speaks to theology and theology listens and limits or constrains itself to the information presented to it by the natural sciences. These 5 pathways are demarcated by Russell through “SRP TRP”. The notation of SRPTRP signifies that of scientific research programs (SRP) speaking to, influencing or 18 informing (TRP) theological research programs.32 I will clarify this notion of research programs further into this section. The innovative aspect of the CMI relates to pathways 6 to 8 (the key notion behind this research paper) where there is a movement from theology to science which is labelled by Russell as “TRP  SRP”. In these pathways, theology attempts to contribute something fruitful to the natural sciences through creative insights which can potentially influence particular research programs within science (an example would be the “test-case” of eschatology and cosmology which will be examined in the last portion of this paper). Robert Russell‟s CMI allows for an interaction between science and theology where both challenge one another but permit each discipline to remain authentic to their respective domain. Philip Clayton refers to Russell‟s CMI as a research program which has been presented as such by Russell in his own articles.33 Russell adheres to research programs in the way they are carried out by Imre Lakatos. Lakatos views a research program as including a “negative heuristic” which comprises a set of beliefs as the main components of a particular program.34 Clayton suggests that for CMI this would be the bidirectional dialogue of science and theology. A research program under Lakatosian methodology would also include a “positive heuristic”, that is a long term research plan where in application to CMI, the proponent of the CMI would look at a particular sub-discipline of science and would examine how the 8 pathways function with respect to that sub-discipline of science (i.e. evolutionary biology). An important aspect of Lakatosian research programs is the attempt to transform anomalies within a scientific program into potential victories or areas of positive grounds for cultivation that fortify the research 32 Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 276. Philip Clayton, “„Creative mutual Interaction‟ as Manifesto, Research Program, and Regulative Ideal,” in Hallanger and Peters, eds., God’s Action in Nature’s World, 55. 34 Clayton, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 55. 33 19 program.35 This promotes the creation of more complicated models where simpler ones have been falsified but then later built upon.36 Clayton, while in accordance with Russell suggests that CMI permits both science and theology to make contributions to each other beyond solely the perspective of one but rather from the perspective of each field as understood within its own conditions.37 Clayton claims that the most difficult paths of interaction are the ones in which theology can influence science.38 Clayton goes on to intimate that the dialogue between science and theology within CMI works on a similar principle to that of the Golden Rule, namely, that it acts in such a way to the other field that it wishes the other field would act towards it.39 This in a sense, with respect to the contribution theology can make to science, can perhaps serve to alleviate the elements of suspicion that the side of science may feel in terms of the possibility and suggestion of such a contribution and level of interaction. It should be mentioned that it is meant to create an atmosphere where theology does not attempt to constrain science but to potentially create a positive effect or benefit to the field of science not a dogmatic or doctrinal imposition without empirical or rational merit. Yet, as Clayton points out, the mutuality of the CMI is only mutual “if fundamental theoretical decisions in physics are sometimes made for theological reasons, in this case „on the basis of revelation‟.”40 Taken together these 8 pathways help further the field of science and theology into areas which have previously gone unexplored since each pathway has been examined separately. 41 The totality of the CMI, given its bi-directionality between science and theology can broaden the Clayton, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 57. Clayton, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 57. 37 Clayton, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 55. 38 Clayton, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 57. 39 Clayton, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 55. 40 Clayton, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 55. 41 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 22. 35 36 20 dialogue within the field of “science and theology” where both the work being done in theology and in science can have a fruitful/mutual interaction extending the dialogue into the future. 3. The Significant Influences upon Russell‟s Methodology We now turn to the question of how Russell‟s methodology came to take the shape it did. A large influence on Russell and his methodology stemmed from the work of Ian Barbour. Barbour‟s approach of „critical realism‟ functioned as a bridge for relating science and religion. This approach was compatible with a large variety of “non reductionistic metaphysical perspectives, including physicalism (cf. Murphy), emergent materialism (cf. Peackocke, Clayton), dual-aspect monism (cf., Polkinghorne), panexperientialism (cf. Ian G. Barbour) and [Russell‟s own choice of emergent monism.]”42 It was Barbour‟s insight that: “the basic structure of religion is similar to that of science in some respects, though it differs at several crucial points” that came to play an inspirational role within Russell‟s own methodological thoughts.43 This key insight and the careful attention that Barbour paid to the similarities and differences between science and religion which he transposed into diagrams provided Russell with the profound insights into the development of his own methodological ideas leading up to his methodology of „creative mutual interaction‟. William Stoeger, an astrophysicist, intimates that this realization and utilization of “methodological analogies” between science and theology has been an important component of Russell‟s CMI. That is to say, that the fact that Russell, following the thought of Ian Barbour 42 43 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 5. Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 6. 21 with respect to tracing crucial similarities between the sciences and theology (as mentioned earlier), has facilitated the possibility of a critical evaluation of the contents of both fields.44 It seems quite evident that Barbour‟s notions regarding the similarities between science and theology allowed for a development of Russell‟s CMI. The CMI, because of Barbour‟s insight, was able to take the shape it did, namely a structure involving interaction between science and theology while being mediated through philosophy. Let us look at the structure of the CMI with respect to the different paths and their significance/implications. 4. The First 5 Pathways (SRPTRP) The first 5 paths (as we have already seen can be denoted by SRPTRP). Stoeger suggests that the CMI can be applied in general to all the natural and human sciences not solely physics.45 The first four of these paths involve theories of physics with the empirical data interpreted by them acting as information/data for theology in either a direct sense, as suggested by paths 1 and 2 or in an indirect sense involving philosophical thought as suggested by paths 3 and 4.46 These pathways with respect to Russell‟s approach, affirm physics imposing limitations and influencing/guiding theology. Russell suggests this is to be done so for reasons of simplicity.47 It is worth mentioning that this point was elucidated by William Stoeger.48 Let us examine the details and implications of each of the first five paths of the CMI. William R. Stoeger, SJ, “Relating the Natural Sciences to Theology: Levels of Creative Mutual Interaction,” in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 31. 45 Stoeger, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 31. 46 Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 276. 47 Robert Russell, “Eschatology and Scientific Cosmology: From Conflict to Interaction,” in J. Stanley Mattson and Harry Lee Poe, eds., What God Knows: Time, Eternity and Divine Knowledge, (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press: 2006), 101-102. 48 William Stoeger is an astrophysicist who wrote the article “Relating the Natural Sciences to Theology” in the tribute to Robert Russell, God’s Action in Nature’s World. 44 22 The first path deals with the notion that theories within physics place restrictions upon theology. 49 An example of this would be that of a “theological theory about divine action should not violate special relativity.”50 The second path has to do with scientific theories providing data that can either be explicated by theology or act as a starting point for erection of a theological claim. An example would be t=0 within the big bang model.51 The third path involves theology gaining data in a non-explicit way through scientific theories that have undergone philosophical analyses. Russell suggests an example of this path consisting of “an indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics [functioning] within theological anthropology by providing a precondition at the level of physics for the bodily enactment of free will”.52 A source of inspiration for Russell‟s methodology of CMI, particularly with respect to paths 1 to 3, is that of Arthur Peacocke‟s methodology of epistemic holism.53 One virtue of epistemic holism that plays a vital role in Russell‟s CMI is that of disciplines such as physics which are placed in lower levels, place constraints on disciplines of higher levels such as economics and theology. This makes disciplines of higher levels accountable to the science of the lower levels – where the higher levels cannot violate what a discipline like physics tells us about the world in order to remain coherent.54 However, the upper levels are considered to be “emergent” and cannot be reduced to lower levels which protects these disciplines from what is called “epistemic reductionism”. So, for instance, physics places constraints on theology, where any serious theology must be attentive to what modern physics tells us about the universe but theology at the same time cannot be reduced entirely to theories such as relativity or big bang 49 Russell, in Peters, Russell and Welker, Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, 13. Robert Russell, “Sin, Salvation and Scientific Cosmology: is Christian Eschatology Credible Today?,” in Duncan Reid and Mark Worthing, eds., Sin and Salvation: Task of Theology Today III (Australian Theological Forum Press: 2003), 136-137. 51 Russell, in Mattson and Poe, What God Knows: Time, Eternity and Divine Knowledge, 102. 52 Russell, in Reid and Worthing, Sin and Salvation: Task of Theology Today, 137. 53 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 7. 54 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 7. 50 23 cosmology. It has been a significant element present in Russell‟s methodology which has operated as an underlying assumption with his engagement in various fields such as biological evolution, physics and cosmology.55 As Russell states clearly “the transformation of the New Creation must face this challenge from scientific cosmology squarely and exhaustively” 56 which is a crucial point for the “test-case” that will be explored in the final component of this research paper. In essence, all 8 paths of the CMI are grounded upon “epistemological discoveries”57. The fourth path, similar to the third, involves theology gaining data in a non-explicit way through scientific theories that have been integrated into a particular philosophy of nature (such as Whitehead‟s process philosophy). 58 An example of this would be the thought and theories of philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead. The fifth and final path of SRP TRP has to do with theories in physics functioning as an aid and providing inspiration on multiple levels to theology. An example of this could be the fine tuning of the laws of physics inspiring an experience of God‟s transcendence and immanence through our existence and ability to reflect upon such things. Through this methodology, various fields of the natural sciences such as physics, cosmology, chemistry, evolutionary biology and other areas have been brought forth to theological thought on various doctrines include that of God and creation. It is important to note that although there has been much progress between theology and science and how theology can interpret scientific data in a meaningful way there has also been areas of contention and problems. Some problematic areas includes the significance of t=0, the open universe models where the universe will expand infinitely, the problem of evil and theodicy59 (why have 55 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 9. Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 7. 57 Stoeger, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 31. 58 Russell, in Peters, Russell and Welker, Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, 13; Stoeger, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 32. 59 Russell, in Peters, Russell and Welker, Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, 7. 56 24 99.9 % of the species on our planet gone extinct?). Another area of contention is the methodology itself. The methodology of the first 5 paths by their very nature place serious constraints on theology as is seen by theories in physics and cosmology, theology must come to grips with what science tells us and their implications. A crucial point should be reiterated here which was mentioned earlier with respect to the hierarchical order of disciplines. Russell states that there is an asymmetry between science and theology where the data theology takes from the natural sciences is not reciprocal. Theological theories/notions do not function in the same way as data for the natural sciences.60 Russell further explicates this notion and suggests that this is precisely where there occurs an epistemic hierarchy, in which disciplines like physics operating from the bottom put heavy limitations upon disciplines higher up the epistemic hierarchy such as psychology, theology and philosophy.61 Let us now turn to the paths whereby theology when addresses the natural sciences. 5. The Last 3 Pathways (TRPSRP) The last 3 paths of the CMI, paths 6 to 8, as we already have seen can be denoted by TRPSRP. These 3 paths signify how theology can influence or bring something fruitful to the natural sciences. These pathways are very important to the critical interaction between science and theology since science is not only influencing theology and speaking with grand authority but where theology is provided an opportunity to perhaps guide science into new worthwhile directions and fruitful insights. Path 6 deals with how theology can bring forth thoughtful philosophical assumptions to the natural sciences. 60 61 Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 287. Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 287. 25 For instance, Russell states that: “historians and philosophers of science have shown in detail how the doctrine of creation ex nihilo played an important role in the rise of modern science by combining the Greek assumption of the rationality of the world with the theological assumption that the world is contingent. Together these helped give birth to the empirical method and the use of mathematics to represent natural processes.”62 These assumptions undergird much of modern science. Russell suggests that perhaps it would be of interest of re-opening certain concepts revolving around ex nihilo that were abandoned by the natural sciences such as the “goodness” and “purpose”.63 Another important example in which theology can aid science with the selection of philosophical assumptions is to clear up certain misunderstandings or apparent confusions certain scientists may have. This regards the move of taking scientific theories to assume that the implication is materialism or atheism. Theology and philosophy in such instances can guide what aspects of metaphysics are actually implied by science as is seen with the concepts of rationality and contingency not necessarily a deductive argument for a worldview (such as theism, atheism, Buddhism etc...).64 This path can indeed clarify muddled theological and philosophical thinking. Path 7 involves theology with its particular doctrines and/or theories acting as a source of guidance or inspiration that could lead to the development of scientific theories 65 or paradigm shifts. Theology in this path can provide particular suggestions and/or reasons for constructing a particular scientific theory. An example would be if one commences with a theological theory then the theological theory would delineate what factors or observations would be necessary to confirm or provide the theological theory with intelligibility. Russell iterates as a historical example, the progenitors of quantum theory, were influenced by outside theologies or philosophies where “Vedanta [influenced] Schrodinger, 62 Russell, in Mattson and Poe, What God Knows: Time, Eternity and Divine Knowledge, 105. Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 285. 64 Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 286. 65 Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 286. 63 26 Spinoza [that of] Einstein and Kierkegaard [influenced] Bohr.”66 As mentioned in other portions of the paper, another example would be that of Hoyle‟s atheism influencing him for the construction of his Steady State Model. Path 8 deals with the notion that theological theories can provide a means of selecting (“selection rules”) the particulars in a given scientific theory.67 In other words, to make a choice between existing scientific theories, one that has the greatest explanatory power with respect to the available data or for making a decision over “what data the theory should seek to explain”.68 Russell provides an example, when he states: “if one considers a theological theory as true, then one can delineate what conditions must obtain within physics for the possibility of its being true. These conditions in turn can serve as motivations for an individual research scientist or group of colleagues to choose to pursue a particular scientific theory.”69 A prime example of both paths 6 and 8 would be that of Hoyle‟s Steady State Model. Hoyle was propelled to reject t=0 because of his presupposed atheism (path 7) yet none of the existing theories of gravity fulfilled his “selection rules” (path 8) therefore he constructed his own theory of gravity and by implication was able to develop his steady state cosmology (path 7). It is worth mentioning that throughout the writings of Robert Russell it is clear he has been extremely impressed (so impressed that Russell regarded Hoyle as a hero for following his beliefs to guide scientific research) with Fred Hoyle's ability to follow his theological (that is atheological) notions to furnish his own scientific theory. That is, Hoyle was able to formulate a scientific response to the big bang model‟s suggestion of t=0 through his Steady State Theory which suggested that the universe was eternal. Hoyle‟s methodology of bridging his worldview with his science impacted Russell so much that Russell began to wonder if such a thing was 66 Russell, in Mattson and Poe, What God Knows: Time, Eternity and Divine Knowledge, 105. Russell, in Mattson and Poe, What God Knows: Time, Eternity and Divine Knowledge, 105. 68 Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 287. 69 Russell, in Mattson and Poe, What God Knows: Time, Eternity and Divine Knowledge, 105. 67 27 possible for a theist to do with respect to cosmology which stimulated Russell and helped him into the direction of the CMI. However, it should also be noted that Russell does not agree with other aspects of Hoyle‟s methodology or assumptions when applied to biology or chemical evolution for instance.70 Russell means to suggest that scientist‟s philosophies may turn out to be incoherent or false but that they should be judged “by the scientific results and his fellow scientist.”71 Moreover, it is important to note that while theological theories can influence scientific theories they should not influence how scientific theories adhere to the “process of testing”.72 That is, theological theories can come to influence how data is discovered but they should never skew the actual data that is observed and be used to justify a scientific theory.73 Following this though, an important point to iterate regarding the CMI is the stress Russell emphasizes between theology and science. He suggests that theological theories should not act as a means of providing data in the same way that science does for theology. 74 This is in accordance with the epistemic hierarchy applied to his methodology which places constraints on higher disciplines (i.e. physics constraints biology, theology etc...). It also protects science from theology trying to make standardized empirical claims that have not been verified. Despite all this, it does allow for the potential of well grounded philosophical and theological assumptions/commitments to come to serve as a guide to search for new theories or to choose amongst existing theories. These 8 paths in their asymmetric structure formulate what Russell has dubbed „creative mutual interaction‟.75 There is a mutual respect between science/scientists 70 Russell, Cosmology, Evolution, and Resurrection Hope, 72. Russell, Cosmology, Evolution, and Resurrection Hope, 72. 72 Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 287. 73 Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 287. 74 Russell, in Mattson and Poe, What God Knows: Time, Eternity and Divine Knowledge, 105. 75 Russell, in Mattson and Poe, What God Knows: Time, Eternity and Divine Knowledge, 105. 71 28 and theology/theologians where each challenges one another and do not take their theories as a “fait accompli”. 6. The Thought of Some of Russell‟s Colleagues on His CMI Stoeger suggests that Russell has brought forth fruitful contributions to the science and theology dialogue with respect to “enriching” epistemological dimensions through his development of the CMI delineated by his 8 pathways.76 As was mentioned earlier, Stoeger, suggests that Russell‟s CMI although it is geared centrally towards that of physics it can be applied to the natural and human sciences in general.77 Not only has Russell made significant headways with respect to the epistemology of the science-theology dialogue but he has also been able to provide a mutual appreciation and understanding between scientists, theologians and philosophers whether they are believers or non believers. Stoeger alludes that this mutual engagement enriching both fields is a “powerful confirmation of its validity.”78 This critical engagement among theologians, philosophers and scientists is of tremendous significance for the potential and ability of theology to make contributions to the natural sciences since it provides a fertile ground for the open exchange of ideas. This becomes possible only through an open mindedness to the understanding implicit within the disciplines of theology and philosophy by scientists through the CMI. Let us examine now some of the potential research programs that can stem from Russell‟s CMI. It is worth mentioning that, Philip Clayton believes that the CMI as a research program from a Lakatosian perspective does not meet a “progressive problemshift”. According to Stoeger, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 31-33. Stoeger, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 31. 78 Stoeger, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 34. 76 77 29 Clayton this is true when the research program is applied to a particular “test-case”.79 Clayton believes this to be a very difficult challenge since science presently appears “to be as insulated from the impact of religious ideas they could possibly be [, indeed more so than at any point in history.]”80 Nancey Murphy, a philosopher and theologian, has indicated that Russell has rightfully credited his predecessors for his own fruitful insights.81 She states: “typically, then, most of what he has written on methodology begins with the work of others: Ian Barbour, Arthur Peacocke, John Haught and Ted Peters on typologies of way for relating science and theology; Barbour and Sallie McFague on the uses of metaphors in theology and the sciences; Barbour, Peackocke and Ernan McMullin on critical realist accounts of science and theology.” She also suggests, as I have mentioned earlier, in the warrant, that Russell has moved decidedly beyond the work of his predecessors. Murphy goes on to iterate that Russell was able to solve some of the problems that his predecessors were not able to because of the strength of his methodology. She discusses Russell‟s application of Imre Lakatos‟s idea of a research program. She suggests that Lakatos‟s proposal of repairing a theory when a potential falsifier appears by adding additional hypotheses has been successfully implanted. A particular case is when t=0 is amidst potential falsification through quantum cosmology.82 He has been able to do this by clarifying the distinction between temporal finitude from temporal origin. Nancey Murphy in her essay provides an application of Russell‟s 8 paths with respect to quantum cosmology and theology.83 Clayton, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 58. Clayton, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 58. 81 Clayton, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 39. 82 Clayton, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 46. 83 Clayton, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 46-47. 79 80 30 An important aspect of Murphy‟s appraisal/analysis of Russell‟s CMI is that she elucidates the significance of the use of philosophy as a mediating principle between the fields of science and theology.84 Moreover, that there are interactions between science and philosophy and philosophy and theology. The three disciplines of theology, philosophy and science have contributed significantly to the world views of cultures/subcultures while at the same instance draw from metaphorical and conceptual ideas from the cultures themselves.85 7. Potential Research Programs A component of tremendous importance to Russell‟s CMA is the employment and adaptation of a Lakatosian scientific research program. Nancey Murphy completed her second doctorate in theology utilizing Lakatosian methodology.86 Consequently, Murphy influenced Russell in adopting the methodology of Imre Lakatos.87 Lakatos outlined a set of criteria that permits one to decide whether one scientific research program is more progressive than others. The significant element of a Lakatosian scientific research program is that of its predictive capacities. That is to say, its power to predict “novel facts” that will be demonstrated within the theory later.88 Murphy slightly altered the notion of “novel fact” in order for it to be applied to disciplines outside of the natural sciences, namely that of theology. Murphy‟s insight contributed to an understanding of the scientific status of theology. Philip Clayton has also seen much value in Lakatosian research programs. He suggests that from a theological appropriation of Lakatosian methodology that the key element consists of Lakatos‟s prerequisite of criteria that Clayton, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 48. Clayton, in Hallanger and Peters, God’s Action in Nature’s World, 48. 86 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 16. 87 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 16. 88 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 16. 84 85 31 has already been delineated by a particular community whereby rival hypotheses can be considered.89 In light of the Lakatosian scientific research programs as applied by both Murphy and Clayton, we see how Russell articulates the relevancy of the interrelations of science and theology and to his idea of CMI. Russell suggests three particular Lakatosian research programs, these include the following: 1) finitude in the changing models of cosmology in relation to the doctrine of creation, 2) Non-interventionist divine action and scientific candidates (NIODA) and 3) “Predictions” based on the Cosmic Christ.90 Let us say a brief word about each research program. The first is relevant with respect to the relation of cosmology and theology. It is a means for theology to be able to deal with the uncertainty of the significance and “physical status” of t=0 within big bang cosmology.91 Following the element of progressiveness present in Lakatosian research programs Russell reasoned that there still would be an indicator of finitude in these changing models of cosmology but that we must search for it rigorously.92 Moreover, Russell realized the contingency of our universe as a whole with respect to the fine tuning of the physical laws which permit life to evolve. I would add that not only do these laws permit the possibility of evolution but they also permit the coalescence of atoms which is obviously rudimentary to the existence of any type of matter based life. Yet, Russell is correct in saying with respect to the finely tuned laws of physics, that: “their role as the physical preconditions for the possibility of biological evolution of life underscores the theological insight that God created 89 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 17. Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 17-18. 91 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 17. 92 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 17. 90 32 our universe to be a home for life.”93 Russell sees the changes of cosmology when applied through a Lakatosian methodology shedding light on theological issues which may or may not have become apparent otherwise. The second research program deals with the issue of how God acts in nature. Historically theology in part because of deterministic views of causality in nature through classical mechanics has been forced to make a decision between God suspending the laws he created in order to intervene or that God acts in the laws but one cannot make the distinction between God‟s action and the actual natural processes we observe.94 But because of twentieth century science there has been a way out of this false dichotomy between God as an interventionist and God‟s action as being indistinguishable by the processes of nature, this way out encompasses the concept of non-interventionist objective divine action (NIODA). 95 Russell has assessed a quantum mechanics methodology to NIODA. He suggests that such an approach it is the best there is with respect to God‟s action but it is still problematic. This concept of quantum mechanics as applied to NIODA (QM-NIODA) entails God created the universe ex nihilo in such a way that God can act within the universe without intervening or disrupting the laws of nature.96 From the view of a Lakatosian methodology QM-NIODA can be fruitful with respect to theistic evolution where quantum mechanics can be intricately involved in genetic mutations. Essentially the actual means for the genetic mutations to even transpire occur at the quantum level with the breaking of a hydrogen bond which is necessary for a mutation to happen. These mutations when are gradually built up and preserved through natural selection lead to all the diversity we see around us. The only caveat I would suggest with this proposal is that it can 93 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 18. Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 19. 95 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 19. 96 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 19. 94 33 make God in a direct way responsible for all the genetic mutations (which according to the standard neo-Darwinian model are said to be random). Not only are they random but most of them are deleterious and do harm to the organism. Only the rare instances of beneficial or neutral ones can lead to the preservation of biological complexity. Russell, does not explicitly state this problem of deleterious mutations but does acknowledge that this “exacerbate” the problem of natural theodicy because of God‟s intimate involvement with nature. Russell suggests that the answer to suffering and evil lies not in a theodicy, nor with the doctrine of creation, but in that of eschatology which as aforementioned is the last component of the paper – the “test case”. Nonetheless, Russell considers this to be a progressive example of a Lakatosian research program of NIODA. I now wish to turn to the application of CMI with respect to what Russell refers to a “test-case”, namely that of eschatology, resurrection and cosmology in CMI. The third research program is directly relevant to the “test case” that will be examined in the final portion of this paper. It deals with the concept of cosmology within science and eschatology within theology. In this research program one examines the transformation of the universe that is a result of Christian belief in a New Creation suggesting that the universe requires redemption. So, if an actual transformation is taking place or has taken place perhaps one is apt to finding evidence for the need of redemption. Russell makes the “empirical prediction” that the human species may not be the only ones in need of redemption and that perhaps conscious and intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos is in need of redemption as well. Another “empirical prediction” that Russell makes is that the extraterrestrial beings will also “share the ambiguity of moral behaviour found in humankind.”97 97 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 18. 34 V. The “Test-Case” Resurrection, Eschatology and Cosmology in CMI In our examination of Russell‟s methodology of Creative Mutual Interaction (CMI) we have seen a variety of ways in which science98 and theology interact with one another. Moreover, we have witnessed that both disciplines through the CMI can influence or provide means of potentially influencing the other through the delineation of specific pathways which outline particularities between the interactions of the two fields. Now the most important of tasks is at hand, given the aim of this paper, namely that of ascertaining the contribution theology can make to the natural sciences. In other words I wish to examine what Russell has named a “test-case”. The “test-case” seeks to apply the CMI to an actual case of mutual interaction. The chosen example relates the concepts of resurrection and eschatology within Christian theology to that of big bang cosmology in modern physics. I shall examine the following: 1) the details of what the “test-case” entails; 2) what modern physical cosmology tells us about the future of the universe, 3) a glance at modern debates over how to interpret historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, 4) a look at guidelines that can potentially advance the science and theology (in this particular case resurrection, eschatology and cosmology) dialogue into more progressive territories and 5) look at how eschatological notions in Christian doctrine can come to influence big bang cosmology in the form of new scientific research programs. Attention will be also given to how eschatological notions in Christian doctrine can come to influence big bang cosmology. Robert Russell‟s used his CMI with the natural science of physics kept in mind. William Stoeger modified this to demonstrate the CMI‟s applicability to all the different disciplines and kinds of sciences. 98 35 1. The Details of What the “Test-Case” Entails Russell suggests that a double challenge exists within this “test case”. The two challenges include a challenge from cosmology to eschatology and another challenge from eschatology to cosmology.99 The challenge from cosmology to eschatology represents how science influences and constrains theology (the first 5 pathways (1 to 5) represented by SRP  TRP). Whereas the challenge from eschatology to cosmology represents how theology can come to guide or influence science (the last 3 pathways (6 to 8) represented by TRPSRP, which will be the greater focus of this portion of the paper). In the last section of this paper, we had examined both directions (SRP  TRP & TRP  SRP) of the CMI and looked at a number of examples applicable to eschatology and cosmology. Since in the last section I have already examined the 8 pathways flowing in different directions, I shall in this section focus our attention on particular guidelines that eschatology must take into account because of cosmology and ones that cosmology will have to take into account because of eschatology. Russell indicates the importance of these guidelines to give one a worthwhile trajectory and direction. Russell uses the analogy of a needle in “multiple” haystacks.100 The point that Russell is making with this analogy is that one must make a reasonable hypothesis as to which “haystack” one should search in, in order to locate the needle, hence the necessity for guidelines to lead us to the proper “haystack”. Russell also indicates that this endeavour is a longer term one which necessitates the involvement of scholars from a vast variety of fields including philosophy, theology and 99 Robert Russell, “The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus as a First Instantiation of a New Law of the New Creation: Wright's Visionary New Paradigm in Dialogue with Physics and Cosmology,” in James Haire, Christine Ledger and Stephen Pickard, eds., From Resurrection to Return: Perspectives from Theology and Science on Christian Eschatology, (Adelaide: ATF PACT Series, 2007), 82. 100 Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 288. 36 science.101 It is a work in progress but a work in progress that needs good directions in order to make thoughtful impact on one of the most primordial questions facing us, namely, whether or not we can discern a coherent picture of our destiny that offers some intelligibility with reason, science and Christian belief. An examination of the guidelines will be developed at the end of this portion of the paper. Let us first take a look at the first challenge that of scientific/physical cosmology to eschatology. The challenge of contemporary big bang cosmology to eschatology is one of tremendous importance. A theology that seeks to address difficult questions concerning existence must always face head on the evidences that are revealed through modern science and must be able to interpret and/or account for such findings. Eschatology must be able to take into account what big bang cosmology suggests about the future of the universe, otherwise our beliefs cannot be grounded upon reason and science. This would inevitably lead one to believe whatever they choose to believe without an appeal to a meaningful ontology (how things “actually are” in reality). 2. The Predictions of Physical Cosmology Regarding the Future of the Universe with the Inclusion of Some Proposed Responses The future picture of the universe as predicted by big bang cosmology is a very grim one. One in which the future of humanity (and all living organisms – as we currently know them to exist) and material existence will individually and collectively cease to exist since the universe will become so sparse that the distances between the sub-atomic particles will eventually equate to the current distances of the galaxies. There are three big bang models that give particular views of the future of the universe. The first two which are typically labelled under “freeze” 101 Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 288. 37 models (include both open and flat models) entail the universe expanding infinitely towards the temperature of absolute zero.102 The third model which is often referred to as the “fry” model is termed to be a closed model since it will expand for roughly 100 to 500 billion years then eventually re-collapse.103 It seems that contemporary big bang cosmology seems to favour a “freeze”/open model which is “marginally open (approximately flat) and destined to expand forever.”104 Either one of these three models poses a tremendous challenge to Christian eschatology and must be properly addressed in order to for Christianity to have any ultimate significance beyond the current Creation and existence. If any of these models turn out to be true, is all hope announced by Christianity is in vain? Or as Russell poses the question concerning Christian eschatology and big bang cosmology, “Can Christian eschatology be seen as consistent with these scientific scenarios?”105 It is important to note that there are number of different approaches in how one is to deal with the problem posed by big bang cosmology upon Christian eschatology. A brief mention of these approaches will help one understand the variety of methodologies that Russell identifies in his work that have been thought out with respect to relationship of Christian eschatology and cosmology. These include the inability of eschatology to be reconciled with cosmology – a view which was promulgated both by Bertrand Russell and Steven Weinberg.106 A second approach is one which was in large part a reaction and a response to both Russell‟s and Weinberg‟s view of the irreconcilability of eschatology with cosmology. This second approach tended to reduce eschatology to cosmology (also known as physical eschatology). Two key proponents of this 102 Russell, in Peters, Russell and Welker, Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, 13 Russell, in Mattson and Poe, What God Knows: Time, Eternity and Divine Knowledge, 98. 104 Robert John Russell, “Cosmology and Eschatology,” in Jerry Walls, ed., Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 566. 105 Russell, in Peters, Russell and Welker, Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, 13 106 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 280-282. 103 38 view include two Christian physicists, Freeman Dyson and Frank J. Tipler.107 A third approach includes that of eschatology being viewed as irrelevant to cosmology where a number of distinct approaches have been presented that attempt to support this view.108 Despite the existence of a number of different approaches to the problem, the test case attempts to explore the potential contribution eschatology can make to cosmology. For Russell, the three other responses obviously fall short with respect to the exploration of Christian eschatology‟s potential influence and perhaps offering of guidance or insights into furthering research in cosmology in light of Christian doctrine. Let us now turn to modern debates on how one should best interpret the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. 3. The Resurrection of Jesus: Subjective vs. Objective Interpretations The resurrection of Jesus with respect to the natural sciences is of great importance particularly in relation to certain aspects of theological reflection such as the question of evil, suffering, theodicy, salvation and Christian eschatology.109 In Russell‟s discussion concerning the resurrection he distinguishes among New Testament scholars/historians with respect to their views concerning the resurrection of Jesus. He divides these scholars into two groups; those who interpret the resurrection of Christ as “subjective/existential” and those who interpret it as “objective/bodily”. The subjective view tries to reduce the resurrection “event” to a psychological imposition or a way of communicating the experience the disciples shared of 107 Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 281. Russell, in Walls, Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, 569. 109 Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 267. 108 39 Jesus.110 It is concerns what the first disciples experienced, not something occurring to Jesus. The objective interpretation concerns something actually happening to Jesus after his death and burial, namely that God resurrected Jesus and that he can be known and experienced by his followers today.111 It is important to realize that the issue of resurrection is a central issue with respect to Russell‟s view on eschatology. The resurrection of Christ embodies a first moment in the transformation of the universe which can permit the general resurrection. Moreover, it reaches deeply into the question of hope which is an issue at the heart of Christian belief (hope coupled with the idea of redemption and salvation). It seeks to attempt to respond to what cosmology suggests about the fate of the universe which is one of great despair because of man‟s ability to discover such science and reflect upon its implications. So, if the resurrection of Christ did actually transpire then perhaps what cosmology tells us about the future of the universe cannot be entirely true. This provides a conviction for the believer to search for clues and evidences that the universe is transforming or is endowed with such capacities. Russell iterates in all of his articles (ones that discuss resurrection) that he does not wish to enter the historical debate over the best interpretation of what the gospels suggest about the resurrection. Although Russell does indeed state that he wishes not to enter into a debate regarding the historicity of Jesus‟ resurrection, one can only speculate that there are motivations at work that have propelled him to apply the objectivist approach to the resurrection for his “testcase”. This seems to be true since he states that he is in accordance with NT Wright‟s suggestion about the bodily resurrection of Jesus acting as the best explanation for the “rise of the early 110 111 Russell, in Peters, Russell and Welker, Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, 8. Russell, in Peters, Russell and Welker, Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, 8. 40 church.”112 Yet, in the bulk of his articles concerning the resurrection he indicates that he wishes, for the purposes, of his “test-case” to utilize the “worst case” possibility, namely the “objective/bodily” interpretation of the resurrection to be applied to the “test-case”. Russell wishes to do this because it presents the largest challenge in its defence against modern cosmology and suffers harshest criticisms from atheists (making it very “vulnerable”). It also serves as a strong force behind the selection/adoption of the subjective alternative.113 Russell delineates the motivation and purpose of his pursuing of this “test-case” in his paper titled, “Sin, Salvation and Scientific Cosmology”, through the following statement: “Therefore it is worth pursuing, since it represents a „test case‟ of the highest order which is particularly germain to those of us who urge that „theology and science‟ should be in a posture of „creative mutual interaction‟ and not in one of „conflict‟. The purpose of this paper is to begin to address these conflicts. This paper will be entirely in the style of „research in progress‟ and is meant as an open-ended conversation with others in the problem.”114 An important element worth mentioning about the objective interpretation is of significance to the “test case” namely that there are both elements of continuity and discontinuity between Jesus of Nazareth and the resurrected Jesus.115 There seems to be here an element of continuity with Jesus‟ physical, personal and spiritual dimensions.116 The majority of scholars who are proponents of the objective interpretation of the resurrection associate Jesus‟ resurrection with a future general resurrection of humanity (other organisms?) and that of a New Creation at the “end of time”.117 This notion of continuity and discontinuity is of outmost significance for the future state of the universe in light of the resurrection of Jesus. Just as Jesus of Nazareth and the 112 Russell, in Haire, Ledger, Pickard, eds., From Resurrection to Return: Perspectives from Theology and Science on Christian Eschatology, 61. 113 Russell, in Reid and Worthing, Sin and Salvation: Task of Theology Today, 131. 114 Russell, in Reid and Worthing, Sin and Salvation: Task of Theology Today, 132. 115 Russell, in Peters, Russell and Welker, Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, 9. 116 Russell, in Peters, Russell and Welker, Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, 9. 117 Russell, in Mattson and Poe, What God Knows: Time, Eternity and Divine Knowledge, 100. 41 resurrected Jesus share elements of continuity and discontinuity, so too will the original Creation and the New Creation.118 Russell notices that the challenge posed by scientific cosmology is almost never addressed here with respect to resurrection and Christian eschatology.119 Let us now examine guidelines that can potentially advance the science and theology dialogue into more progressive territories. 4. Guidelines to Stimulate Scientific and Theological Research Programs It is worth mentioning that the idea behind continuity and discontinuity seems to play a role in the formulation of the proposed guidelines for Russell. These guidelines seem indicate that there should be openness to the continuous and discontinuous elements within the universe. The guidelines in a sense make room for the possibility of the eschatological claim of Christianity with respect to universe‟s transformability in terms of the concept of New Creation (which will be both continuous and discontinuous with the original crated universe). There are 10 guidelines that Russell proposes. Each of the guidelines is important in order to stimulate research for both science (cosmology) and theology (resurrection-eschatology). It is true that the focus of the paper is on what theology can suggest to science but an overall coherent operation of the CMI will promote fruitful stimulation from theology to science. Moreover, the assumptions utilized within science must also be assessed and clarified. The assumptions used in science are fundamental to how science operates and their potential influence on theological thought since science at a certain level does indeed place limitations and constraints on theology 118 119 Russell, in Mattson and Poe, What God Knows: Time, Eternity and Divine Knowledge, 100. Russell, in Mattson and Poe, What God Knows: Time, Eternity and Divine Knowledge, 100. 42 because of epistemic hierarchies. The first 5 guidelines take a look at such assumptions.120 Guidelines 1 to 5, that Russell delineates deal with “philosophical and methodological issues in constructive theology” (SRP  TRP).121 Guidelines 6 to 7 deal with theological construction with what science tells us. Guidelines 8 to 10 deal with guidelines that can aid with the provision of directions for scientific research (TRP SRP). 122 It is important to realize that these guidelines play a significant role in the ultimate aim and purpose of this research paper, namely, to see whether theology contributes something to science. The first 5 guidelines set constraints and limitations on science that allows theology to be able to intimately interact with it. The notion of asymmetry is strongly present within these first 5 guidelines. However, it is ultimately both theological and philosophical notions that shape the first and third guidelines. This demonstrates that theology (with the mediation of philosophy) can indeed make a fruitful contribution in questioning certain assumptions utilized in science. These 5 guidelines predominantly involve science speaking to theology. However, there is a strong theological/philosophical influence present within the first guideline in order to question particular assumptions that lie at the heart of science. The first guideline in a sense sets up the rest of the guidelines in an attempt to question the unquestioned philosophical assumptions that are always present in the natural sciences. It gives one the sense that theology is intimately involved within science and its notions that are in accordance with the purpose of this research paper. I shall address these guidelines briefly in turn. 120 The fifth guideline delineates the set of metaphysical options available to one which are limited but not forced upon one. Science does not determine which of the metaphysical options one must choose. 121 Russell, in Peters, Russell and Welker, Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, 18. 122 It should be noted that there are slight variations from article to article with respect to how the guidelines are presented and some of the details within the description of each. For the sake of simplicity I have followed the general structure of the article titled “Eschatology and Scientific Cosmology” since it has been written the most recently (2006). I have also consulted the other articles dealing with the research guidelines as well. There is a large amount of continuity with respect to the description of each guideline from article to article. 43 The first guideline deals with what are typically “unquestionable” philosophical assumptions (or ones that are typically just taken for granted without much reflection) that permeate science and permit it to operate in the empirical form that it does. In this first guideline Russell proposes a dismissal of both the argument of analogy and that of nomological universality. The argument from analogy simply refers to the assumption that future events will be similar to the past in terms of following physical laws.123 Nomological universality refers to the laws of nature that have governed the past will govern the future.124 This guideline directly deals with the future predictions of “freeze” or “fry” cosmological models and their implications and affect on Christian eschatology. If they are true then the resurrection of Christ never happened and the general resurrection is therefore impossible. Russell suggests that perhaps the philosophical assumptions utilized in science are the problem and not necessarily the science itself. The science itself may be entirely accurate but the assumptions should be questioned. An important question regarding this issue deals with asking whether the laws of the universe are prescriptive or descriptive. William Stoeger believes that the answer is not one in which science can deal with entirely on its own. Russell suggests that philosophically there are good reasons to believe the laws are descriptive and not prescriptive. Theologically speaking, if the processes and laws of nature are part of God‟s sustaining action then God can alter them at will.125 Moreover, if God raised Jesus the dead then God could have transformed/transfigured the universe through the “first instantiation of a new law of the eschatological new creation.”126 So, the physical laws of the universe do not have to be necessarily unchangeable nor do they have to 123 Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 289. Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 289. 125 Russell, in Peters, Russell and Welker, Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, 19. 126 Russell, in Haire, Ledger, Pickard, eds., From Resurrection to Return: Perspectives from Theology and Science on Christian Eschatology, 85. 124 44 be static. Interestingly enough, the principle of analogy has been criticized from the perspective of historical scholarship since much of historical scholarship at times seems to be permeated with the argument from analogy (which has not been substantiated philosophically in history or science). For example, by criticizing the argument from analogy/principle of analogy NT Wright is able to construct a plausible case for the resurrection of Jesus based on historical facts. The resurrection of Jesus therefore functions as a historical explanation and calls for a transformation in our worldview (how we view/do history and science).127 This touches deeply into the question of both continuity and discontinuity. The challenging of the philosophical assumptions within science that suggest the past will be similar to the future, permit the idea that perhaps the future will actually be discontinuous from the past while retaining certain elements making it also continuous (similar to the nature of Jesus after his resurrection). This first guideline is important for guidelines 6 to 10 and especially 8 to 10. It sets those guidelines up with the possibility that there can be a transformation of the universe alongside the notions of continuity and discontinuity. The second proposed guideline iterates that eschatology should follow methodological naturalism and that God should not be placed to explain certain aspects of nature. This seems to be done to avoid “God-of-the-gaps” type argumentation and to distinguish itself from “Intelligent Design”.128 The third guideline stresses the importance of Christian eschatology following what big bang cosmology tells us about the history of the universe while temporarily ignoring what it tells us about the future of the universe.129 The fourth guideline follows pathway 1 (SRP  TRP) insofar as big bang cosmology places a limitation and constraint on eschatology. Theology in 127 Russell, in Haire, Ledger, Pickard, eds., From Resurrection to Return: Perspectives from Theology and Science on Christian Eschatology, 55. 128 Russell, in Peters, Russell and Welker, Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, 20. 129 Russell, in Mattson and Poe, What God Knows: Time, Eternity and Divine Knowledge, 108. 45 other words must always be conscious of what the best science of our time says and shape its methodology with this kept in mind. The fifth guideline deals with the limitation of metaphysical options to us that include “physicalism, emergent monism, dual-aspect monism, ontological emergence and panexperientialism (Whiteheadian metaphysics).”130 Let us take a look at guidelines 6 to 7. Guideline 6 stresses the ability of the universe to undergo transformability into a New Creation. A New Creation should be regarded as a new creation from the pre-existing world and not a second creation ex-nihilo. Russell here suggests that John Polkinghorne‟s idea of creation ex vetere is fruitful since similar to the resurrection where there is continuity and discontinuity between Jesus prior and post resurrection, so too the universe undergoes a transformation that is similar in nature possessing both continuities and discontinuities.131 The idea behind this guideline is that God created the universe in such a way that it has the possibility/preconditions to be transformable. Science can eventually unravel through research these potential preconditions that will permit the universe to be transformed into a New Creation. Science in essence could help us delineate which elements will be of continuity and which will be of discontinuity.132 An important question regarding discontinuity that Russell raises is with respect to thermodynamics, whether the New Creation will be absent of thermodynamics (as a force which increases entropy and inevitably leads to death). This is strongly correlated to the question in physics of the “what is the relationship between general relativity [(gravity)] and thermodynamics.”133 Guideline 7 is strongly linked to that of 6. Russell suggests that relationship between continuity and discontinuity should be changed into a sort of inversion. 130 Russell, in Peters, Russell and Welker, Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, 20. Russell, in Ellis, The Far Future: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, 283. 132 Russell, in Haire, Ledger, Pickard, eds., From Resurrection to Return: Perspectives from Theology and Science on Christian Eschatology, 91. 133 Russell, Cosmology, Evolution and Resurrection Hope, 52. 131 46 This is true since a radical transformation has occurred with the precursors of time, space, matter and natural processes which create a change with the physical laws of the universe.134 Let us now turn to guidelines 8 to 10. Here we finally turn to the very tentative set of guidelines which are intended to stimulate and propel scientific research into a direction ultimately guided by Christian eschatological notions. Even if science as a whole enterprise may not take recognition of such guidelines perhaps individual theorists who are Christian or believe God to exist may take an interest as individuals in pursuing whether such guidelines can indeed provide fruitful directions for scientific research and discovery. Guideline 8 follows pathway 6 in the CMI, a more centered theological view of the universe while forcefully using the concepts of “creation” and “new creation”. These notions could initiate a reconstruction or revisions of the philosophy and its assumptions that are utilized within physics and cosmology (as was touched upon guideline 1).135 Guideline 9 suggests that theology can perhaps help choose between different theories/theoretical programs that are already available in science. So, the theological predilections of a particular scientist can play a significant factor in choosing certain criteria or variations of scientific theories.136 Guideline 10 deals with theology actually propelling, influencing or directing potential scientific research programs. Russell is careful to state that all these programs would be tested by the scientific community in order to develop them into scientific theories which are based on confirmed and potentially repeated observation. He calls 134 Russell, in Haire, Ledger, Pickard, eds., From Resurrection to Return: Perspectives from Theology and Science on Christian Eschatology, 93. 135 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 311. 136 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 311. 47 this “context of justification” which is separate to how a particular theology or philosophy came to influence the scientific hypothesis or theory.137 There remain several questions that arise from this research task and the outlined guidelines. One of them has to do with the principle of analogy/argument of analogy. This principle/argument questions the assumption that the future will be the same as the past but what about questioning whether our knowledge of the past is accurate – could it be that our current methodology for discerning the past leaves out many details that cannot be accessed and leaves parts of the past non-discernable. Is accepting the philosophical assumptions required to discern the past and not the future arbitrary and convenient? Should there be given more justification for doing this? Another set of questions revolve around the resurrection of Christ and theological notions/assumptions associated with it. For instance if we suppose that the bodily resurrection of Christ is a first instantiation in the New Creation (as Russell seems to support this possibility) – what made Jesus resurrection possible roughly 2,000 years ago? What was it about the laws of nature or the creation of a new law or transformation of pre-existing laws that made this possible? Do the laws or new laws have to be altered further for the possible general resurrection of all of humankind? Does this resurrection include other and perhaps all organisms (this touches at the heart of the questions of suffering, natural evil and theodicy)?138 Did the first instantiation that occurred during the period of Jesus‟ resurrection prevent the possible resurrection of other humans – do the laws have to evolve in order for them to be apt for the possibility of a general resurrection? Was it only “just right” for Jesus‟ resurrection? Why or 137 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 311. Russell does suggest that every creature should have an eschatological future in the New Creation in Cosmology, Evolution and Resurrection Hope, p 52-53. Russell justifies this by suggesting that other organisms are not “means to meet ends” but ends in and of themselves. Russell explores this possibility through re-examining our concepts of time and how the eschatological future can come to determine the past – in the sense that there is more hope placed in the future than in the past and the future can potentially redeem the past and its events - this notion of Russell‟s has been influenced by the work of Wolfhart Pannenberg with his views on time and eternity. 138 48 why not? It would be interesting to devise some adequate responses to these questions and see perhaps if research programs in both science and theology can assist in this task. Let us now take a look at how eschatological notions in Christian doctrine can come to influence big bang cosmology in the form of new scientific research programs. 5. Influence of Eschatology on Cosmology to form Scientific Research Programs It seems evident that if one takes into account the predictions of modern science, particularly that of big bang cosmology alongside the “test-case” of the bodily resurrection and the future cosmological transfiguration of the universe, we have a stark contradiction between what science predicts and what Christian eschatology foresees. Russell admits that even the revision of eschatology in light of science is still quite premature and thus limits the ability of eschatology to provide something fruitful to cosmology.139 Russell suggests some research programs for cosmology that Christian eschatology can inspire. The concept of time within theology and its potential impact on scientific research programs has occupied part of Russell‟s thought with respect to theology‟s (eschatology) ability to contribute something fruitful to the natural sciences (cosmology) since at least the year 2000 with his publication of his article in Dialog, titled: “Time in Eternity: Special Relativity & Eschatology”. Moreover, Russell is currently working on a forthcoming book that will be titled Time in Eternity: Eschatology and Cosmology in Mutual Interaction140. Theology, with respect to its view of time and eternity, can promote looking for new interpretations of the theory of Special Relativity for instance or even suggest particular revisions that could be more fruitful to the theory or even perhaps suggesting a 139 140 Russell, in Mattson and Poe, What God Knows: Time, Eternity and Divine Knowledge, 115. Russell, Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega, 328. 49 new theory to be discovered in the long run.141 Russell also suggests that focussing on the concepts of both time and eternity are useful since the majority of working theologians view the world as being created by creation ex nihilo.142 So, there is a consistency with what theologians claim about both time and eternity with respect to its applicability to the universe. Russell lists a total of 5 potential scientific research programs that can be constructed through current Christian eschatology. All of the proposed research programs are directly related to the concepts of time and eternity. He suggests that the concepts of time including “flowing time” and “duration” can play a significant role in understanding the potential transfiguration of Creation in association to the notions of continuity and discontinuity.143 In the first proposed SRP Russell wishes to have a new view of “special relativity which is consistent with „flowing time‟ ”.144 The second SRP suggests a preference of “flowing time” over that of block universe. The third research program would be the formulation of a distinct interpretation of quantum mechanics that strongly supports “flowing time”. A fourth research program entails the utilization of the Schrodinger equation in the exploration of “actual formalism of quantum mechanics which support flowing time.”145 A fifth scientific research program that can be inspired by Christian eschatology where one can follow the suggestions put forth by Wolfhart Pannenberg in finding a way to ascribe mathematical values to time as duration and by exploring this relation to physics.146 Robert Russell, “Time in Eternity: Special Relativity and Eschatology” in Dialog: A Journal of Theology, Vol. 39, No.1 (Spring 2000), 50. 142 Russell, in Peters, Russell and Welker, Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, 29. 143 Russell, in Mattson and Poe, What God Knows: Time, Eternity and Divine Knowledge, 115. 144 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 315. 145 Russell, in Mattson and Poe, What God Knows: Time, Eternity and Divine Knowledge, 116. 146 Russell, Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, 316. 141 50 VI. Conclusion The main purpose of this research was to be able to find and explore whether theology could make a fruitful contribution to the natural sciences. Upon pondering this question, I was lead through the consideration of several thinkers including Steven Fuller and John Polkinghorne to eventually making a decision to follow the physicist/theologian Robert John Russell. For the reasons delineated in the warrant I decided to further explore Robert Russell‟s and his methodology of „creative mutual interaction‟ with the inclusion of his test case involving resurrection, eschatology and cosmology. Through this academic exploration I have come to realize that perhaps the tip of the iceberg has only been touched. Most of Russell‟s research tended to focus on what science can say to theology namely what cosmology can say to eschatology with respect to the test case, although a fair bit of research and writing was devoted to theology‟s contribution and potential influence on science. Despite the bulk of the research focusing mostly on one direction with respect to the science-theology dialogue, many steps forward and fruitful suggestive research programs (such as the 5 enumerated in the previous section with respect to time and eternity; the concept of finitude in cosmology to concept of creation; concept of NIODA and its operation in science; the transformability of future universe (strongly correlated with test-case presented in paper)) were proposed that will be hopefully taken to the task of discovery. It is important to realize that many of the philosophical assumptions that are present within scientific theories and ideas have been delineated in order to decipher them between the actual science and inspiring or guiding science. This realization is especially profound since it is primordial to scientific theories but often goes unrealized by scientists and is absolutely taken for granted. The delineation of these assumptions plays a crucial role also for theology‟s potential fruitful contribution to the natural sciences since theology can act as a source of inspiration that seems to have been lacking in the natural sciences 51 for a long period of time (arguably centuries because of the conflation of methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism). We have come to see that theology can potentially inspire and influence research programs in science with varying concepts of time and eternity which can possibly bring clarification or new outlooks to theories in physics and cosmology with different assumptions and guidelines. One thing can be taken for certain from this research experience. That certainty is that Robert Russell‟s methodology with its 8 pathways has the potential to lead to great insights and ideas through the proposed guidelines and research programs. It is a momentous step forward into the right direction since as Russell denotes that not much work, responses or considerations have been given by theologians with respect to the cosmological fate of the universe. There has not been a real engagement of theologians and theology and its ability to respond to scientific challenges of cosmology. It is important to note that Russell even admits himself that such an endeavour is just the beginning of research that is to come through the collaboration of scholars from the fields of theology, philosophy and science. In order for there to be genuine progress, especially, with respect to theology‟s potential fruitful contribution to the natural sciences, it will have to be a collaborative effort that extends through various fields and with many minds. The test case of resurrection, eschatology and cosmology which Russell progressively tackles in much of his work undoubtedly puts to task his methodology of „creative mutual interaction‟ (CMI). This test case unravels some interesting questions into the nature of time, the future of the universe, and its laws. It opens a great opportunity for theology to perhaps demonstrate that science is not entirely correct in its current methodology and that the philosophical assumptions that are at play may not be as viable as one thought. Moreover, these 52 suggestions and guidelines provided by Russell can be just the beginning of future fruitful scientific research programs that are inspired by theological thought. These have the potential to lead to great insights and new scientific theories that one day may be able to be demonstrated that the universe was originally endowed with the capacity for transformation and the instantiation of a new law. A new law that came into being through the resurrection of Christ and will begin to transform the rest of creation into a New Creation (through Polkinghorne‟s concept of creation ex vetere – New Creation through existing creation and not creation ex nihilo) and eventually be possible for the general resurrection of all humankind without the suspension of any physical laws. What is quite remarkable behind these ideas is that it has the potential to ignite a new paradigm in science which will be able to discern such laws that lie at the heart of the hope of Christian theological thought. Russell has iterated over and over again in his writings that if the resurrection of Christ is not possible and has therefore never transpired then Paul‟s words from 1 Corinthians 15:14: “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain”, rings with definitive truth. Moreover, Russell‟s CMI, the proposed guidelines and research programs within the test case drives forth the meaning behind Peter 3:15: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have”, since this can be a powerful response to the harshest of sceptics and critics. It is a response that can potentially bring about empirical confirmation through laborious scientific researching and theological reflection. Before starting on this research project, I had no clear view of what to expect. I had only the question in mind, of: “what fruitful contribution can theology make to the natural sciences” but no clear direction once it was posed. I was surprised to find that theology‟s contribution would stem from the concept of eschatology within theology and have the opportunity to impact 53 cosmology within science. The depth of the question and its potential was unknown to me at the time of the beginning of this research project. I had no realization that such interactions between science and theology would touch upon the essence of our existence and the reason for our hope. I was surprised and amazed to discover such a connection existed that touched upon the greatest questions facing humanity. There remains a lot of research to be done but the foundations as set down by Robert Russell form the beginnings of something that can possibly radically transform how we view science, theology and also their relations. 54 VII. Appendix 1: Image of Golden State Bridge for CTNS (Center for Theology & Natural Sciences) 55 VIII. Appendix 2: CMI (Creative Mutual Interaction) Diagram *This diagram has been taken from Robert Russell‟s book Cosmology: from Alpha to Omega, p.320. I used the program Snagit to capture the image from an online preview of the book. 56 IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY General Works: Barbour, Ian G. When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers or Partners? New York: Harper Collins, 2000. Clayton, Philip. “„Creative Mutual Interaction‟ As Manifesto, Research Program and Regulative Ideal.” In God’s Action in Nature’s World: Essays in Honour of Robert John Russell, edited by Nathan Hallanger and Ted Peters. Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2006. Cohen, Jack and Fuller, Steven. “Debate Over Teaching of Intelligent Design Between Steven Fuller and Jack Cohen At the University of Warwick.” [http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/339033]. 2005. Date accessed: June 24th, 2009. Ellis, George F.R. ed. The Far Future: Eschatology From a Cosmic Perspective. Philadelphia: Templeton Press, 2002. Fuller, Steve. Dissent Over Descent: Intelligent Design’s Challenge to Darwinism. Thriplow, Cambridge: Icon Books, 2008. Grant, Edward. “Science and Theology in the Middle Ages.” In God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science, edited by David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986. Ledger, Christine, Stephen Pickard and James Haire, eds. From Resurrection to Return: Perspectives From Theology and Science on Christian Eschatology. Australia: Australasian Theological Forum, 2007. Lindberg, David C. and Ronald L. Numbers, eds. God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986. Moore, James R. “Geologists and Interpreters of Genesis in the Nineteenth Century.” In God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science, edited by David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986. Murphy, Nancey. “Creative Mutual Interaction: Robert John Russell‟s Contribution to Theology and Science Methodology.” In God’s Action in Nature’s World: Essays in Honour of Robert John Russell, edited by Nathan Hallanger and Ted Peters. Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2006. 57 Peters, Ted, and Nathan Hallanger, eds. God’s Action in Nature’s World: Essays in Honour of Robert John Russell. Vermont, USA: Ashgate, 2006. Peters, Ted. “Robert John Russell‟s Contribution to the Theology & Science Dialogue.” In God’s Action in Nature’s World: Essays in Honour of Robert John Russell, edited by Nathan Hallanger and Ted Peters. Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2006. Poe, Harry Lee and J. Stanley Mattson.eds. What God Knows: Time, Eternity and Divine Knowledge. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006. Polkinghorne, John. The Faith of a Physicist: Reflection of a Bottom-Up Thinker. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994. Reid, Duncan and Mark Worthing, eds. Sin and Salvation: Task of Theology Today III. Hindmarsh, Australia: Australasian Theological Forum, 2003. Stoeger, William R. “Relating the Natural Sciences to Theology: Levels of Creative Mutual Interaction.” In God’s Action in Nature’s World: Essays in Honour of Robert John Russell, edited by Nathan Hallanger and Ted Peters. Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2006. Walls, Jerry. Oxford Handbook of Eschatology. Edited by Jerry Walls. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006 Works by Robert John Russell: *Both the works of Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega (pp. 328-336) and God’s Action in Nature’s World (pp. 35-41) include a full bibliography of Russell‟s work. Russell, Robert John. “Time in Eternity: Special Relativity and Eschatology.” Dialog: A Journal of Theology 39, no. 1 (2000). ________. “Bodily Resurrection, Eschatology and Scientific Cosmology: The Mutual Interaction of Christian Theology and Science.” In Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, edited by Robert John Russell and Michael Welker Ted Peters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. ________. “Eschatology and Physical Cosmology.” In The Far Future: Eschatology From a Cosmic Perspective, edited by George F.R. Ellis. Philadelphia: Templeton Press, 2002. 58 Russell, Robert John, Michael Welker and Ted Peter, eds. Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2002. Russell, Robert John. “Sin, Salvation and Scientific Cosmology: Is Christian Eschatology Credible Today?” In Sin and Salvation: Task of Theology Today III, edited by Duncan Reid and Mark Worthing. Australia: Australian Theological Forum Press, 2003. ________. Cosmology, Evolution and Resurrection Hope: Theology and Science in Creative Mutual Interaction, Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Goshen Conference on Religion and Science. Edited by Carl S. Helrich. Kitchener, Ontario: Pandora Press, 2006. ________. “Eschatology and Scientific Cosmology: From Conflict to Interaction.” In What God Knows: Time, Eternity and Divine Knowledge, edited by Harry Lee Poe and J. Stanley Mattson. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2006. ________. “Cosmology and Eschatology.” In Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, edited by Jerry Walls. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. ________. “The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus As a First Instantiation of a New Law of the New Creation: Wright‟s Visionary New Paradigm in Dialogue with Physics and Cosmology.” In From Resurrection to Return: Perspective From Theology and Science on Christian Eschatology, edited by Christine Ledger and Stephen Pickard James Haire. Adelaide: ATF PACT Series, 2007. ________. Cosmology From Alpha to Omega: Theology and Science in Creative Mutual Interaction. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. 59 60