RESEARCH
PROPOSAL
Thomas W. Woolley, Jr.
Templeton Oxford Seminars on Science and
Christianity
Bartholomew's approach to integrating
chance into Christian theology tends toward a traditional view of natural
theology that often gives knowledge of God through the world primacy over
revelation. As McGrath (A Scientific Theology, Volume 1: Nature,
Oxford University Press, 2001) and others have argued, a saving knowledge of
God proceeds through Biblical revelation and in the person of Jesus Christ,
though a deeper understanding of the nature of God may be arrived at through
observation of the natural world. In
other words, the Bible is illuminated, rather than contradicted, by science. Is there, then, an interpretation of chance
that acknowledges our understanding of the world acquired through science while
preserving orthodox Christian truths?
Nearly
thirty years before Bartholomew put his thoughts on paper, Oxford theologian
Leonard Hodgson in his Gifford Lectures (1955-1957) stated the following: "For the rational purpose of ensuring fair
play we create conditions in which decisions shall be left to chance; for the
furtherance of His purpose in creation God gives to His universe a mode of
reality which admits of the existence and occurrence of such irrationalities as
contingency, freedom and evil" (from "For Faith and Freedom,"
1968, p. 150). What appeals to me about
his theology is that it retains its orthodox elements while incorporating
chance as a positive tool that can be used by God to achieve his purpose. Clearly, Hodgson possessed insight far ahead
of its time.
Chance, though widely discussed, is a
surprisingly difficult concept to pin down.
Donald McKay, in his Riddell Lectures, takes a very conservative Christian
interpretation that denies the existence of pure chance ("Science, Chance
and Providence," Oxford University Press, 1978; echoed by more popular
accounts such as R.C. Sproul's, "Not a Chance:
The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology," Baker Books, 1994;
and D.L. Overman's, "A Case Against Accident and
Self-Organization," Rowman and Littlefield,
1997). Alternatively, Arthur Peacocke espouses a liberal theological interpretation of
chance viewed as a teleological tool used by God in creative processes
("Creation and the World of Science: The Bampton
Lectures," Oxford University Press, 1979), though many of the foundational
creedal Christian beliefs (e.g., the virgin birth, bodily resurrection) become
casualties. Going a step beyond simply
ideas, William Dembski describes a process very much
like statistical significance testing that he purports can eliminate the chance
hypothesis leaving "intelligent design" as the most likely
(probabilistically, speaking) alternative ("No Free Lunch," Rowman & Littlefield, 2002). In light of this and more, Bartholomew has
carefully argued (like Peacocke before him) that
chance is not the antithesis of purpose.
The case that chance is not inherently anti-teleological has been made
statistically through appeals to both stochastic processes and chaos theory,
among others. Finally, Dr. John Polkinghorne
describes at least five interpretations of chance that have been referenced in
the science and religion dialogue (personal communication, March 16, 2001, Faculty
of Divinity, University of Cambridge).
It is my belief that despite the frequency with which the concept is
used in both the lay and academic literature the fundamental nature of chance
remains ambiguous and needs to be critically examined.
The
research I propose to conduct in association with the Templeton Oxford Seminars on Science and Christianity can be
defined in three phases, roughly corresponding to the seminar years:
Phase 1:
Where and/or how did Hodgson's ideas about
chance (those that he incorporated into
his theology) originate? My intention
will be to thoroughly research Hodgson's writings, particularly those that are
among the holdings of the Oxford libraries.
The work of other contemporary theologians such as John MacQuarrie will be examined, as well. I anticipate that this research will
ultimately take the form of a summary paper or monograph
and should inform the investigations of Phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2:
What is the fundamental nature of
chance? Starting from Hodgson's concept
of chance, I will thoroughly evaluate other contemporary understandings of
chance from both the scientific and theological literature. I expect that an edited book of seminal writings covering the breadth of
thinking on the concept of chance will be the outcome.
Phase 3:
Building on the work of the first two
years, can Hodgson's theology be updated in light of Bartholomew's statistical
and probabilistic arguments, as well as the centrality of chance in
contemporary scientific thought, such that it provides the basis for a comprehensive theology of chance? In particular, from an orthodox theological
perspective, what implications does chance (clearly defined) have for such
theological issues as God's providence, foreknowledge and omnipotence?
Over the course of the project my desire
will be to engage Dr. Bartholomew in the development and maturation of my
thinking.
Between
McKay's premature denial of the existence of chance and Peacocke's
wide-ranging acceptance of scientific knowledge over orthodox Christian revelatory
truth, lies an accommodation of scientific chance within Christian theology.
I believe that Hodgson's theology may provide the necessary framework
for achieving this meeting of chance and the evangelical mind.