ISOLATING THE INDIVIDUAL: THEOLOGY,THE EVOLUTION OF RELIGION,AND THE PROBLEM OF ABSTRACT INDIVIDUALISM

Debates about the theological implications of recent research in the cognitive and evolutionary study of religion have tended to focus on the question of theism. The question of whether there is any disagreement about the conceptualization of the individual human being has been largely overlooked. In this article, I argue that evolutionary and cognitive accounts of religion typically depend upon a view of cognition that conceptually isolates the mind from its particular social and physical environmental contexts. By embracing this view of the mind, these accounts also unwittingly embrace an abstract individualist view of individual personhood that Christian theologians have explicitly battled against. Taken as a whole, the field leaves sufficient room for supplementary theories that are compatible with theological accounts of the relational individual, but in practice, no effort has been made to engage, or even to accommodate, any other view of individual personhood.     

WISING UP: THE EVOLUTION OF NATURAL THEOLOGY

Abstract This essay is in response to Professor Celia Deane‐Drummond's 2012 Boyle lectures. The first part calls attention to the value and significance of her “sophianic theo‐drama hypothesis” for the contemporary engagement between Christian theology and evolutionary science. In a sense, her proposal itself is a religious “adaptation” to changes within an international, interdisciplinary academic environment. The second part of the essay explores the rapidly shrinking “niche” of Christian natural theology and briefly summarizes an alternative set of hypotheses from the biocultural sciences of religion.     

A CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY OF EVOLUTION AND PARTICIPATION

Recent controversies surrounding the discernment of design in the natural world are an indication of a pervasive disquiet among believers. Can God as creator/sustainer of creation be reconcilable with the belief that God's work is indiscernible behind secondary evolutionary causes? Christian piety requires that the order experienced in the natural world be evidence of God's love and existence. Theistic evolutionary models rarely examine this matter, assuming that God is indiscernible in the processes and order of the world because only secondary causes can be examined. This leaves antievolutionary perspectives to interpret and address the problem of seeing God in the world. I examine these issues in order to gain more credibility for the religious longing to discern God in nature while at the same time affirming the indubitable truth of an evolutionary history. I argue that God's trinitarian nature, hiddenness, and incarnation give us reason to believe that God's presence in the natural world will be discernible, but only within the natural processes, and thereby only in an obscured fashion. I also argue that newer understandings of evolutionary mechanisms are more consistent with theological appropriation than are strictly Darwinian ones.     

FALLIBILISM,FAITH AND THEOLOGY: PUTTING NICHOLAS RESCHER TO THEOLOGICAL WORK1

This essay explores the possible theological relevance of Nicholas Rescher's pragmatic‐idealist account of human reason. An initial case is made for the prospective hospitality of Christian theology to Rescher's thought, contrary to his early misgivings. The intrinsic relationship between Christian faith and a fallibilist self‐regard is then explored. Next Rescher's more recent constructive reflections are considered and their limitations identified. Finally the lineaments of a thoroughgoing Trinitarian appropriation of Rescher's thought are traced together with its implications for the character of Christian theology and ecclesial reality.     

THE SOCIOLOGY AND THEOLOGY OF CREATIONIST OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION: HOW BLOOD MARKS THE BOUNDS OF THE CHRISTIAN BODY

The staying power of creationist objections to evolution needs explanation. It depends on the use of “blood” language. Both William Jennings Bryan and, a century later, Ken Ham connect evolution with the blood of predation and the blood of apes, and both also connect evolution with the blood of atonement. Drawing on Mary Douglas and Bettina Bildhauer, I suggest that blood becomes important to societies that image the social body on the human body. Blood reveals the body as porous and vulnerable and therefore needing social work to be constructed as whole and bounded. Blood is the place where society conducts this work. I conclude that blood language is ineliminable from Christian discourse and indeed from discourses that model the social on the individual body. The solution, I suggest, is not to avoid the language of blood, but to continue to use it in ways that broaden its focus from human sin to human and animal suffering.     

THEOLOGY,SCIENCE, AND CLOUD OF THE IMPOSSIBLE

As a work of constructive theology attentive to the deconstructive edge of theology itself, Cloud of the Impossible offers a contemplative space for fresh transdisciplinary encounters. The ancient apophatic practice (of “unsaying,” docta ignorantia) here fosters a knowledge tuned to its own currently indeterminate edges. The present conversation surfaces issues of religion in relation to both science and ethics. It effects a multilateral advance in thinking the “apophatic entanglement” by which a relational ontology, with its attention to the materiality of our fragile planetary interdependence, is intensified through a theology of disciplined uncertainty.     

FAITH,BELIEF, AND THE COMPATIBILITY OF RELIGION AND SCIENCE

Recent attacks on the compatibility of science and religion by the “militant modern atheists” (Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens) have posed serious challenges for anyone who supports the human importance of religious faith (particularly their identification of “faith” with “believing without evidence”). This article offers a critical analysis of their claims compared with those who do not equate faith with belief. I conclude that (i) the militant modern atheist interpretation of faith undervalues transformative religious experiences, (ii) that more people of faith hold it for this reason than their opponents acknowledge, and (iii) that meaningful dialogue between religion and science is both possible and desirable.     

COSMOLOGY AND THEOLOGY: THE REEMERGENCE OF PATRIARCHY

Abstract. Recent developments in cosmology have enticed several thinkers to follow leads from cosmology into new possibilities in theology and philosophy. Thus, we have seen an increasing number of books and essays offering proposals for creative relations between theology and cosmology. New constructions for theology are appearing that lead us toward a new rationality in theological thinking. This rationality seems especially familiar for anyone working in feminist thought, not so much as a repristination of Enlightenment philosophy and its strongly patriarchal overtones, but rather as a new form of postmodern patriarchy that grows out of revolutions in cosmology, mathematics, and quantum physics. This sense should be tested especially by comparing these new “theologies” with other feminist visions or alternative perspectives. This comparison will not only uncover signs of a reemergence of patriarchy within the new cosmologies, but will also suggest ways in which new cosmological views can both provide a source for new creative thinking in theology and be sensitive to the best of feminist thought.     

BIOLOGY AND THE THEOLOGY OF THE HUMAN

We will consider two Christian responses to the enormous advances in recent years in the connected sciences of genetics, evolutionary biology, and biochemistry, a dualist one by Pope John Paul II and an “emergentist” one by Arthur Peacocke. These two could hardly be more different. It would be impossible within the scope of a brief comment to do justice to these differences. What I hope to do instead is more modest: to draw attention to troublesome ambiguities in some of the key concepts on which discussions of human uniqueness depend, to recall very briefly some of the difficulties philosophers have encountered in their attempts to define the relation of the human powers of mind to the material capacities of body, and finally to ask what the theological significance of all this is.