Contingency in Complex Sy

8/19/2019 Contingency in Complex Sy

1/11

Abstract: Divine action and the contingency of

creation on God have been an ongoing topic of

discussion between theologians and scientists. This

paper begins with an introduction on contingency

by presenting two models of contingency: top-

down and bottom-up contingency models (section

1). I then proceeded to make the connectionbetween contingency and causation (section 2).

With the discourse of causation, contingency can be

approached starting from either the cause or the effect.

I propose to approach the issue by starting neither

from the cause nor the effect, but from the system

(section 3). This systems approach has the following

logical ow. The frst step is to consider the system

in itself (section 4). There is a continuum of system

complexity from simple to complex. The second

step is to delineate the differences between simple

and complex systems by considering four factors(section 5). Third is to locate the contingency of both

systems (section 6). By using the cell as an example

of a complex system, I demonstrated that modeling

complex systems as a network is superior to the serial

linearization method. Then I proceed to determine the

nature of God based on this new proposed systemic

relational contingency model (section 7). I fnd

Lossky’s Essence-Energies Trinitarian formulation

of divine action in creation is compatible with the

quantum randomness contingency model and the

relational systemic contingency model. Moreover,

in comparing the Trinitarian doctrines of Lossky

with Barth, I argue that Eastern Trinitarian model

in general overcomes both theological and scientifc

problems better than Western Trinitarian models. In

conclusion, I argue that the relational contingencymodel overcomes problems of the previous models,

provides novel implications that fts with the eastern

concept of trinitarian divine action, and is open to

future theological and philosophical development.

Keywords: divine action, contingency, complex

systems, trinity, essence and energies

I. P

This paper seeks to address several questionspertaining to contingency: Wherein doescontingency lie? Is it fundamentally located inthe quantum world of probabilities? If so, whatimplications does this have on theology proper?Many have wrestled with the aforementionedfundamental questions in the eld of theologyand science, and I will begin by discussingsome prominent concepts in the eld. I will rstdiscuss the strengths and weaknesses of thevarious models of contingency that have been

Contingency in complex systems and easterntrinitarian divine action in creation

t h e D i a l o g u e b e t w e e n S c i e n c e a n d T h e o l o g y

14. General Topic eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928

prinISSN: 2457-9297

ISBN: 978-80-554-1131-6

doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.1.31

Arvin M. Gouw, PhD.Science, Religion & Culure Program

Harvard Universiy School of DiviniyCambridge, USA

- 284 -


2/11

proposed thus far. Then, I will propose a system-based approach to locate contingency withthe hypothesis that the nature of the systemwill determine the nature of the contingency

of that system and that dierent systems willreveal dierent contingencies. Finally in thesecond half of the paper, I will discuss how asystems approach to contingency will t betterwith Eastern Orthodox doctrine of Essenceand Energies, especially that of Vladimir Losskywhen compared to Western Trinitarian models,especially that of Karl Barth.

II. I C

Christian theologians would mostly agree

that God creates the universe, and sustainsit, such that the universe is contingent uponGod. The question is then how the universeis contingent upon God. There are two majormodels: contingency on natural laws that I callthe “top-down” model, and contingency onrandomness as openness to God that I call the“bottom-up” model.

The top-down contingency model claims thatthe universe is governed by natural laws, whichare put in place by God. Therefore, the universeis contingent upon God via these natural laws[1]. Scientists and theologians have embracedthis concept, especially during the reign ofmechanistic classical physics up to the rst halfof the twentieth century. However this modelof contingency is not without its critics from theelds of both science and theology.

Theologically, deism arises from this model,because it seems that God sets some naturallaws to govern the universe then lets it run byitself. If one would like to avoid Deus ex machinaand maintain God’s activity within this law-

governed universe, one has two options. The rstoption would be to consider divine interventionas merely a human subjective experience ofseemingly natural laws. Schleiermacher is one ofthe major proponents of this subjective notionof miracles and divine intervention [2]. Thesecond option is to maintain the objectivity ofdivine intervention, where one has to concedethat God sometimes breaks natural laws in Hisact of intervention.

In addition to theological challenges to this

“top-down” contingency model, scientically,natural laws begin to be questioned with therise of quantum mechanics in the second halfof the twentieth century. The predictability and

deterministic nature of classical physics fallsapart in the microscopic world. Quantum physicsgives the fundamental constituents of mattera highly probabilistic and statistical nature. Inother words, classical natural laws are nothingbut the statistical average of the much moredynamic, probabilistic nature of the microscopicworld.

The rise of quantum physics gives room fora novel “bottom-up” model of contingency,where the randomness of the quantum worldis the very ground for God’s creatio continua inthe universe. In other words, there is no reasonfor any particular event to take place, butcertain things always happen in a certain way,thus God has faithfully guided randomness toproduce consistent outcomes, ergo laws. Fromthe viewpoint of scientists, there is nothing thatunderlies such randomness, simply becausescience is unable to address the question of‘why’ things are the way they are. On the otherhand, theologians are allowed to posit agency,the ‘why’, behind natural laws despite theirunderlying randomness.

However, just like any model, this bottom-up contingency model has some disadvantages.First, God’s role in sustaining this bottom-upcontingency has been considered as anotherexample of “God of the gaps”. As Russellcorrectly claries, this could be an epistemicgap that God is lling in, or an ontological one[1, 3]. He argues that this bottom-up contingencyis a problem only if it posits God to ll in theontological gap. Other than the theologicalproblem, there is a second scientic problemwith this bottom-up contingency model. Placing

contingency at the quantum mechanical level isvery limiting, because quantum physics appliesonly at the subatomic and atomic levels, asopposed to classical physics, which is applicableto the macro world. Extrapolating contingencybottom-up from the quantum world to themacro world is not trivial.

t h e D i a l o g u e b e t w e e n S c i e n c e a n d T h e o l o g yt h e D i a l o g u e b e t w e e n S c i e n c e a n d T h e o l o g y

htp://dialogo-conf.com 14. General Topic - 285 -


3/11

III. C G

Having discussed the two major models by

which theologians nd contingency in nature, Iwould like to rst reect on their approach andclarify certain concepts. In both models, it issafe to say that the task in nding contingencyinvolves nding the cause behind the behaviorof a certain system, and ultimately behindthe whole universe. I nd the discussion ofcontingency within the context of causation tobe more helpful, because it better claries whatcontingency relates to. Moreover, discussingcontingency with the language of causationallows us to use the abundant philosophical

resources that have been well established inthe discourse of causation. Specically, I willuse the probabilistic theory of causation as ameans to discuss the top-down and bottom-upcontingency models.

The probabilistic theory of causation statesthat if it is more likely for B to happen in thepresence of A instead of in the absence of A,then A is most likely the cause of B. When appliedto our particular case of contingency on God, wecan say that an event is contingent on God only ifgiven the existence of multiple possibilities and

randomness, it is more likely for the event tohappen if it was contingent on God than if it wasnot. In other words,

1. Ǝx (possibilities A,B,C,…)

2. P(A) > P(~A)

3. P(A |God) > P(A | ~God)

4. Therefore God => A and A is contingenton God

This probabilistic theory of causation is

commonly accepted and consistent with theCopenhagen school interpretation of quantumphysics. Thus for the purposes of this paper,though I acknowledge that there other causationtheories that could be used, I choose to use theprobabilistic theory of causation.

3. Possible Approaches

Having delineated the working denitionand criteria for assessing contingency usingthe probabilistic theory of causation, I will rstdiscuss two approaches to this contingency

problem. Upon analyzing the top-down modelof contingency where the universe is contingenton God-given natural laws, I argue that the logicof the reasoning starts from the cause to the

eect. Their reasoning goes as follows: (a) God isomniscient and omnipotent, (b) God is providentand orderly, (c) God sets natural laws to governcreation, (d) thus creation is contingent on God’snatural laws. Though this deductive top-downapproach has proved to be very powerful, it isdicult to deny that a priori reasoning on God’snature could be quite arbitrary.

The second, bottom-up contingency modelbegins with the eect, or natural phenomena,then proceeds to assess the cause. The logic ofreasoning goes as follows: (a) In nature we seestatistical mechanics and quantum mechanicsgoverning the microscopic world, (b) There isno explanation why one outcome happens asopposed to the other possibilities, (c) thus theremust be a God who modulates the quantumprobabilities to generate the directed outcomes.This inductive approach is less subjective andcircular than the previous top-down approach.However, as previously discussed, statisticalmechanics and quantum mechanics may notalways play an important role in the systemthat is being analyzed due to the microscopic

scope of quantum mechanics. This approachmay result in overimposing quantum physics oneverything (biology, psychology, etc).

Thus it seems that the top-down approachbegins with the cause and explains bestmacroscopic systems within the realm ofclassical physics. On the other hand, the bottom-up approach begins with the eects and explainsbest microscopic systems within the realm ofquantum physics. Neither approach begins withthe system itself. Due to the importance of thenature of the system that is being considered in

deriving contingency and causation, I proposea third approach to contingency that will startwith the system itself.

In both top-down and bottom-upapproaches, the starting point of the approachis crucial in determining the contingency ofthe system. Since my systems approach beginswith the system, I hypothesize that the natureof the system will determine the nature of thecontingency of that system and that dierentsystems will reveal dierent contingencies.


htp://dialogo-conf.com14. General Topic - 286 -


4/11

The systems approach that I am going to usein this paper can be outlined as follows:

a. Consider the system in which we seek

to locate contingency and causation: simple vs.complex (section 4).

b. Delineate the dierences betweensimple and complex systems (section 5).

c. Locate the contingency of both systems(section 6).

d. Determine the nature of the God basedon this contingency (section 7).

IV. C

Fundamentally there is a continuum ofcomplexity of systems from simple to complex.For example, a simple system could be a ballrolling down a hill, and a complex system wouldbe a dividing cell.

Let us rst consider a simple system of a ballrolling down the hill. There are certain conditionsand boundaries for this system: the initial push,mass of the ball, surface of the hill, and degree ofdecline. In this particular example, both the top-down and bottom-up models of contingency are

applicable.Let us now consider a complex system of a

dividing cell. There are various conditions forthis system: DNA content, nutrient availability,biomass availability, membrane availability, andthe correct cellular program to execute the celldivision. First a cell must receive a proliferatingsignal either internally or externally, then it needsto increase its biomass prior to doubling, whichis possible only if there are enough nutrientresources to do so. Last but not least, the wholeprocess needs to be orchestrated in an orderly

manner. Upon looking at this particular system,some have argued that the major and primarycause of this system is the DNA. Thus thecontingency lies with the DNA make-up of thecell which is quite specic given the enormouspossibilities of various DNA sequences within the‘sequence space’ (Bernd-Olaf Kuppers in [3]). Iargue that in the particular example of a dividingcell above, the DNA is not the primary cause. Infact, it is dicult to pinpoint any one cause as theprimary cause, because the system processes are

very complex. Neither the top-down nor bottom-up contingency model t because neither couldnd the cause behind this complex system.

V. D

This then prompts me to carefully considerthe factors that make the second example, acomplex system, while the former, a simplesystem. I propose the following four factors:

I. Number of initial conditions or factorsand causes

II. Distance between cause and eect

within the systemIII. Interactions between various conditions

– possibility of network or feedback loops

IV. Closed, or openly interacting system

Let us now consider these four factors withinthe two previous examples. (I) The number ofinitial conditions of the rolling ball are few: theinitial push, mass of the ball, surface of hill, anddegree of decline. However, the conditionsof the dividing cell are many: DNA content(46 chromosomes must be in good shape

with no damage), nutrient availability (theincreased uptake of nutrients may involve theorchestration of multiple metabolic pathways),biomass availability (every organelle in the cellhas to be doubled), membrane availability (thephospholipid membrane along with the variouschannels and transporters need to be doubled),and cell division program (involves a timelyand ordered sequence of cellular processes).It is obvious that the complex system hasdramatically more conditions than the simplesystem. (II) The distance between cause and

eect is quite direct for a rolling ball, namely theinitial push directly causes the rolling of the balldown the hill. On the other hand, the distancebetween cause and eect is much greater ina dividing cell because of the multiple layersof chains of events that need to take placein a dividing cell. (III) Interactions betweenconditions in the case of a rolling ball are alsoquite simple, compared to the orchestration thatis required in the case of dividing cell. Last butnot least (IV), the rolling ball can be consideredas a closed system that receives an initial push


doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.1.31



5/11

to roll down the hill. However, a dividing cellcannot be considered purely as a closed system,because the assurance that the DNA contenthas no damage and nutrient availability depends

largely on microenvironmental conditions.Thus far, I have shown that complex systems

have more initial conditions/boundaries (I), moredistance between cause and eect (II), moreinteractions between the various conditions (III),and more open interactions with factors externalto the system (IV). With these dierences in thefour factors in mind, now I would like to employthe previously described probabilistic causationtheory to both systems to test if my hypothesisholds true that dierent systems will revealdierent modes of contingency.

VI. F

A. Causation in complex systems

To locate the primary cause in this complexscenario, we rst identify a specic state, sayD, then nd its directly inuencing factors,namely A, B, C, then determine P(A), P(B), andP(C), then assess the likelihood of D happening

in the absence of A, B, and C. However, given acomplex system, it is dicult to say whether A, B,C are causes, because there are often feedbackloops from D backwards. Suppose there is afeedback of (D,C) -> B, implying that D couldbe both a cause and an eect simultaneouslyin this dynamic system. Instead of focusing onany particular variable, as ‘eect’ to determinethe ‘cause’ and the status of its contingency,I argue that there is no ‘cause’ or ‘eect’ butonly relations between events and propositions.Thus the causation takes place not within anycause or eect but in the relations between thepropositions and events within the system.

As previously mentioned, philosophers andtheologians often place contingency on thevariability of the DNA sequence itself. It is indeedquite common to model a complex systemby linearizing a series of simple systems, thusexpanding the distance between the cause andthe eect (Factor II). For example, subatomicparticle properties -> atomic properties ->molecular properties -> DNA properties ->protein level interactions -> cellular level ->

organ level -> organismal behavior. From thislinearization modeling approach, though newproperties emerge at dierent levels, theindeterminacies at each level ultimately arise

from the indeterminacies at the quantum level. Iconsider this a common problem in the bottom-up model of contingency from randomness,namely, the fact that in complex systems QMoftentimes do not play a major role.

To overcome this problem, I argue that thereare additional ways of modeling and analyzing acomplex system (by looking at factors I, III, & IV).One can do more than simply lining up a series ofsimple systems into complex systems, but onecan create relations between simple systems ina network. This would be better because rst, itis impossible to nd the ‘primary cause’ withina complex system because there are multiplecauses (factor I). Second, it is impossible tolocate the ‘cause’ within a complex systembecause of the fact that complex systems ofteninvolve feedback loops (factor III) which thenblur the distinction of cause and eect. Third,in a complex system we also have interactionsacross layers in the emergence pyramid scheme(factors III & IV) which means one cannot simplysay that ontologically quantum indeterminaciesof the molecules of the DNA are prior to

everything else (as proposed by Kuppers andRussell).

B. Example against the Serial Linearization

modeling of complex systems

Since serial linearization modeling of complexsystems is becoming quite a common practice,especially in interpreting biological phenomena,I will provide an example to demonstrate theproblem in biological systems.

DNA seems to be the primary cause behind

other cellular programs, which are dictated bythe specic DNA sequence. Contingency then islocated in the ‘sequence space’ [3] of the variouspossibilities of DNA sequences that could bemanifested in a cell. This is valid only becauseone assumes that this complex system of a cellis a linear series of simple systems that beginsfrom the DNA to RNA to proteins to organelleto cell.

However, let us consider a particularDNA sequence in a human cell, which would




6/11

constitute about 20,000 to 30,000 genes. Let usconsider that gene X, an oncogene that causescancer, is present in this DNA. Gene X is notnecessarily transcribed into messenger RNA

(mRNA) despite its presence. The expression ofgene X depends on several factors and severallayers of regulation. First, DNA is not stretchedout open for transcription all the time, in factDNA strands are wound around histones,causing certain regions of the DNA to be in‘open’ or ‘closed’ conformation [4-6]. If gene Xhappens to be in a closed conformation due tothe histone-DNA architecture on gene X, thenthat gene X will never be expressed and will notcause cancer. Second, the histone changes ofopening and closing the gene X locus could be

eected by various factors such as metaboliteavailability and histone modiers [7, 8]. Third,even when gene X is in open conformation,upon transcription, the mRNA of gene X maybe degraded by mircoRNAs, preventing it frombecoming an oncoprotein that causes canceror vice versa [9-12]. These are just three simpleways by which the presence of gene X in the DNAof that particular cell does not dictate that cell’sfate to become cancer. Epigenetics, metabolism,and posttranscriptional modications, amongmany others, contribute to the possibility ofgene X in causing cancer [13, 14]. The complexitygrows exponentially as we consider the factthat the histone modications both aect andare aected by microRNAs and metabolism ofthe cell [7, 15]. This ne balance of networksmake it impossible to say that the contingencyand primary cause of a certain event lies in theDNA sequence alone. This is not to deny thequantum phenomena behind a specic DNAsequence, but the system is dramatically morecomplex than that. It is precisely the interactionsbetween these various factors (metabolism,epigenetics, post-transcriptional modications)

that create innite possibilities for the fate of thecell. Though each of the aforementioned factors(metabolism, epigenetics, posttranscriptionalmodication) will have their own quantumcontingency by themselves, their relationshipamongst each other adds multiple layers ofcontingencies that are not quantum mechanicalin nature.

In conclusion, instead of the top-bottomand the bottom-up models of contingency thatdepend on nding the cause within the system,

I propose a systemic contingency model wherecontingency lies neither at the top (with the laws)nor at the bottom (with quantum randomness),but within and through every layer of a complex

system. This alleviates the need to nd theprimary cause, and leads to an understandingthat the complex system is interconnected andallowing contingency to be found throughoutthe whole system.

VII. T G

Provided the proposed novel ‘systemicrelational’ contingency model, I now turn totheology to seek for the best possible divineaction model for this systemic contingencymodel. Various contingency models will denitelyinuence our thinking on how God interactswith creation. In turn, His mode of interactionwith the world will tell us something about Hisnature. Having demonstrated the novelty ofthe systems-approach to nding a ‘relationaland systemic contingency’ model in complexsystems, I would like to proceed to considerwhat theological models of God would t withthe relational systemic contingency model thatI proposed.

Though one’s concept of contingency neednot inuence one’s theology proper, we cansee that top-down and bottom-up contingencymodels naturally t with certain theologicalmodels of God and divine actioin. The top-downnatural law contingency model t better with anomnipotent, omniscient God who is the Designeror the Watchmaker. Such a God interacts withthe universe through natural physical laws. Onthe other hand, an evolving God of processtheologians would work well with the bottom-up randomness contingency model where the

universe and God are in a creative dialecticwith creation between chaos and order. Thisthen begs the question: which theologicalmodel of God and divine action would be mostcompatible with the systemic relational modelof contingency? Moreover, since the systemicmodel of contingency does not negate, butsimply adds to the quantum contingency model,then ideally the theological model of God shouldbe compatible with bottom-up contingencymodel as well. Here I would briey compare and


doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.1.31



7/11

contrast western and eastern Trinitarian modelof interacting with the world. I will furtherargue that the Eastern Orthodox doctrine ofEssence and Energies t very well with systems

contingency model that I proposed.

A. Eastern Orthodox relational model of God

through His energies

Given the scope of the paper I will focus onone of the best proponent of the doctrine ofEssence and, Vladimir Lossky, a great Orthodoxtheologian. I will briey compare his theologywith Karl Barth’s as an example of a westerntheological model. Lossky has always sought tointerpret the interaction of the universe with its

creator in a less dialectic and opposing mannerthan western theologians, i.e. Barth. Losky’sEssence and Energies distinction is a reactionagainst the overemphasis on cataphatic ways onthe one end and apophatic ways on the other.Lossky’s doctrine of divine action in creation isintricately bound to the classic eastern doctrineof Essence and Energies. Lossky argues that Godis unknowable in His Essence, but the triune Godhas decided to be present in His Energies, whichare knowable to us [16]. God is present withcreation in His Energies. Through His presence inEnergies, we may know God as Love, Wisdom,

etc [16]. Thus the Energies are the attributes ofGod. However, Lossky maintains that there is nodistinction in quality between the attributes ofGod as Energies and the Essence of God. God isnot part in Essence and part in Energies. God iswhole in Essence and whole in Energies. It is justthat the Essence is the mode of existence of Godwhere He is unknowable[16]. The Energies makeGod knowable.

Thus he proposes that Energies penetratethe whole creation in that it gives the wholecreation “rationality”- making it possible forus as God’s highest creation to make senseof creation at every level from subatomic tomacrolevel [16]. To overcome cataphatic andapophatic ways in theology, Lossky proposesthat there is something spiritual in every materialphenomenon, since God’s Energies penetratesevery level of creation and sustains them.Interestingly enough, Lossky avoids the tendencyof western theologians to overemphasize theHoly Spirit in interacting with the world. Instead,Lossky uses the Trinitarian doctrine and Energy

and Essence doctrine to preserve the Trinitariantranscendence, order where the Father is arche,while allowing the Triune God to be immanent inthe universe [16].

B. Eastern Trinitarian model of interacting with

the universe

Now, having discussed generally theconcepts of Essence and Energies, I will presentVladimir Lossky’s Trinitarian view. Lossky beginsby arguing that God is unknowable [16]. Losskyargues that the cataphatic approaches toGod are false, because we are projecting ourimperfect nature to God [16]. Following Gregory

Palamas, Lossky believes that in order to lookinto the mystery of God, we need the apophaticapproach, however he will transcend this aswell in mystical union [16]. Lossky points outthat the apophatic approach is not simply thenegation of the cataphatic approach. Negationof a sentence has the same level of knowledgeas the negated sentence. To say that God is notevil would be meaningless if we do not knowhow good is opposed to evil. Thus inherent toevery negation is a positive knowledge such thatall true theology is fundamentally apophatic

[16]. This theological epistemology then leavesus only to God’s descent (katabasis) as our onlymeans to know God (anabasis) [17].

God has made Himself knowable in HisEnergies through His redemptive act. Thus, likeBarth, Lossky seeks to explain the triune Godin light of atonement which involves renewalof all creation. Lossky sees there are twofundamental acts: redemption and deication[17]. Redemption, related to katabasis, can beattributed to Christ while deication, relatedto anabasis, can be attributed to the Spirit [17].

The two acts are dierent, but they are notunrelated. The underlying doctrine that Losskyuses to explain redemption and deication iskenosis. The act of emptying is done by theSon to perform redemption. The Son leaves Hisdivine nature to take human nature and creatednature so that we can be redeemed. But indeication, there is also the kenosis of the Spirit,because the Spirit hides Himself behind thecreated universe to bring creation to harmonywith the divine nature through the Energies [17].




8/11

Lossky uses the dichotomy of hypostasis andphysis to explain the relationship between theSon and the Spirit. Moreover, the kenosis of theSon and the Spirit are interrelated to the kenosis

of the Father where the Father has hidden HisEssence in His Energies. Thus Lossky followsIraeneus in that the Son and the Spirit are thetwo hands of the Father in the act of salvation[16]. This monarchy of the Father should notbe understood as subordination, because thismonarchy only points out to the mon-arche, onesource, of personhood. The monarchy of theFather brings unity to the Godhead[16, 18].

In summary, Lossky begins with a denial ofcataphatic theology. But he explains clearly thatnegative theology is not apophatic theology.Apophatic theology transcends armation andnegation. Thus there is no way to know God otherthan through His descent. Since God is Love, Hehas decided to present Himself in His energies.Though we will not be able to know God fullyin His Essence, we can have his full presence inHis energies[16]. The doctrine of the Trinity thatcomes out of this is that the energies cannot beattributed to any single Person. The Energies andattributes of God must be appropriated to thebeing of God as a whole, all three Persons. Thedistinction of the Persons comes when we see

God’s act of atonement. God’s atonement is intwo parts: redemption and deication. The Sonredeems humanity by assuming human natureand hiding His divine nature. The Spirit deieshuman nature by assuming the human personand hiding His divine person. But, these twointerdependent processes of kenosis are bothdependent upon the Father’s kenosis wherein revelation He has decided to be present inHis Energies and hide His Essence. Thus, thedistinction of the Persons is known to us fromthe works of God, while the unity of God is

known to us in the monarchy of the Father[16].

C. The Essence and Energies vs. the Holy Spirit as

a model for God to interact with Creation.

Lossky argues that the Western notion of theSpirit as the medium by which the physical realmof the universe is aected by God is imbalanced,which we can nd in the pneumatologies ofBarth and also Moltmann, Pannenberg, andCongar. The reason that is imbalanced is thatthroughout the Scripture, we see various

Persons of the Trinity interacting with theuniverse. In the Old Testament, we see God theFather interacting with Israel. In the gospels wesee the second person of the trinity interacting

with this world [16]. In fact, the Holy Spirit doesnot play major role in interacting with the peopleuntil the church age. Such an interaction of thethree persons with the universe also predisposeswestern theologians to an overly speculativecataphatic theologies as can be seen in medievaltheology.

There are several strengths of arguing thatthe universe is contingent on Energies. First,it works with the eld ontology of modernphysics, where most philosophers of physicswould agree that the most fundamental fabricof the universe is eld-based and energy-based.Though quantum physics could work withparticle ontology, eld ontology is superior toparticle ontology because eld ontology canexplain particle ontology but not vice versa [19,20]. In other words, physicists could explainparticles as quantization or corpuscles of elds[21]. This would make the notion of energies andelds more compatible with the aforementionedquantum model of contingency.

Second, the notion of Energies gives

plausibility and room for interactions betweenthe Energies and networks of relations withincomplex systems. It is more plausible to think ofinteracting Energies as opposed to interactionbetween a network and a spatiotemporallyembodied entity [22]. In addition to supportingthe quantum contingency model, this wouldsupport the relational model of contingency aswell.

Last but not least, the concept of Energies canillustrate God’s creatio continua in the world inpreserving grace, sovereignty, and ecclesiastical

life. It works with classical Biblical notions ofGods immanence that is better balanced aspreviously discussed.

Third, theologically, western theologians,especially Protestant theologians like Barthargues that we cannot know God primarilybecause of human depravity. Lossky arguesthat we cannot know God primarily becauseGod is ineable[23]. For Barth, the depravityin knowledge is overcome when Christ isrevealed. For Lossky, the ineability of God is


doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.1.31



9/11

not overcome just because God is present in HisEnergies. This dierence in epistemology bringsus to a disagreement in revelation. For Barth,God has revealed Himself fully in Christ, such

that the economic trinity and the immanenttrinity are identical. But inherent in Lossky’sdoctrines of Energies and trinity, there are threelevels in the existence of the trinity. First, theimmanent trinity exists within the Godhead in itsdivine Essence, completely unknowable to us.Second, as an outowing of this divine Essence,the trinity exists as three persons in the divineEnergies. Third, the economic trinity exists inrelation to creatures through the divine Energies,knowable to us[24]. Thus, through apophatictheology we can only leap from the economic

trinity to the level of the Energies, where wecan somewhat fathom the immanent trinity, butnot in its fullness in the divine essence. The thirdand second levels of existence are congruent,but the rst level of existence is far beyond ourreach, even after deication [25].

While Barth uses the Holy Spirit as sourceof revelation and divine action to overcomehuman depravity, Lossky uses the concept ofEnergies to allow God to do that. However,in doing so, Barth’s third person of the Trinitybecomes overemphasized in the Trinitarian

order, and might jeopardize the ineabilityand transcendence of God. On the other hand,Lossky preserves the Trinitarian order andtranscendence while allowing all three Personsto relate immanently within creation.

C

Having discussed everything above, I wouldlike to conclude with some advantages of therelational contingency model. It overcomesthe disadvantages of the previous models

because of several reasons. First, the relationalcontingency model would avoid having Godintervene at the quantum mechanical level allthe time, and therefore avoid the ‘God of thegaps’ critique. Second, this model would avoidsuperimposing quantum physics to complexsystems which often happens with the quantumcontingency model. Third, the relational modelwould not view supernatural events as theunnatural breaking of some physical laws orproperties of a system’s constituents. Rather,supernaturalness comes from the relation that

a system has with something outside of itsnatural system or network. The novel dynamicrelations that a complex system has with thesupernatural is what brings it from the natural

to the supernatural (this would be in line withAquinas’ notion of the supernatural as not beingunnatural). This is thus another supportiveproposal for Russell’s Non-InterventionistObjective Divine Action (NIODA) model.

In addition to overcoming issues of theprevious two contingency models, the systems-approach contributes several implications thatare novel and unique to this relational model.First, though quantum mechanical propertiesare the fertile grounds for contingency for bothsimple and complex systems, a complex systemhas contingency that can be found within itsnetwork of interactions. Second, God doesnot have to act or intervene physically via alinear, downward causation from culture to ourthoughts, to our brain, to neurons, to our cells,then to our genetic make-up. God can interactwith us relationally as an open system whichthen changes the dynamics of the whole system.Third, this model proposes a God who is morerelational and not spatiotemporally localized,tampering with various causes as means tointeract with the system.

However, just like any model, there areinteresting areas for further development. First,the system considered here is predominantlybiological, therefore we do not know how thiswould change as we consider more complexsystems such those found in sociology, orpsychology. But I would speculate that thevarious contingencies considered by RobertJ. Russell would work well with my proposedrelational contingency model. Second, it wouldalso be interesting to explore the notionof downward causation of the emergence

paradigm with this network relational model ofcontingency. Third, it would be challenging toconstruct a model by which the Energies andelds interact within various networks in theuniverse, but perhaps that is beyond the realmof science altogether.

In summary, I began by giving an introductionon contingency by presenting two modelsof contingency: top-down and bottom-upcontingency models (section 1). I then proceededto make the connection between contingency




10/11

and causation (section 2). Under the lens ofcausation, contingency can be approachedstarting from either the cause or the eect.Both approaches have severe limitations, and I

decided to approach the issue by starting fromthe system (section 3). This systems approachhas the following logical ow. The rst step is toconsider the system in which we seek to locatecontingency and causation (section 4). There isa continuum of system complexity from simpleto complex. The second step is to delineate thedierences between simple and complex systemsby considering the four factors (section 5). Thirdis to locate the contingency of both systems(section 6). Locating causation and contingencydepends largely on how one models complex

systems: as a linear series of simple systems oras a network of simple systems (section 6.2). Byusing the cell as a complex biological system, Idemonstrated that modeling complex systemsas a network is superior to the serial linearizationmethod. Fourth is to determine the nature ofGod based on this contingency (section 7). I thenproceed to argue that Lossky’s Essence-EnergiesTrinitarian formulation of divine action in creationis compatible with the quantum randomnesscontingency model and the relational systemiccontingency model. Moreover, in comparingthe Trinitarian doctrines of Lossky with Barth,I have shown that Eastern Trinitarian modelin general overcomes both theological andscientic problems better than WesternTrinitarian models. In conclusion, I argue thatthe relational contingency model overcomesproblems of the previous models, provides novelimplications, and is open to future theologicaland philosophical development.

Thus if we are to take contingency of complexsystems seriously and how such contingencyinforms our theology of divine action in creation,

then I argue that the relational Trinitarian modelof Lossky ts very well with such complex-systems contingency. Moreover, the doctrineof Essence and Energies preserves God’stranscendence in His immanence. This avoids thepantheistic, process God that is often associatedwith quantum “bottom-up” contingency modelon one end, and this also avoids the deistic Godthat is often associated with “top-down” law-governed contingency on the other extreme.

R

[1] Russell, R.J., et al., Chaos and complexity :scientic perspectives on divine action. Series on“Scientic perspectives on divine action”. 2000,Vatican City State, Berkeley, Calif. Notre Dame,Ind.: Vatican Observatory Publications; Center forTheology and the Natural Sciences; Distributed(except in Italy and Vatican City State) by TheUniversity of Notre Dame Press. 416 p.

[2] Russell, R.J., N.C. Murphy, and C.J. Isham,Quantum cosmology and the laws of nature :scientic perspectives on divine action. A Serieson Divine action in scientic perspective. 1993,Vatican City State, Berkeley, Calif.: VaticanObservatory ; Center for Theology and the NaturalSciences. 468 p.

[3] Russell, R.J., et al., Evolutionary and molecular biology : scientic perspectives on divine action.Series on “Scientic perspectives on divine action”.1998, Vatican City State, Berkeley, Calif.: VaticanObservatory ; Center for Theology and the NaturalSciences. xxxiv, 551 p.

[4] Chen, Q.W., et al., Epigenetic regulation and cancer(review). Oncol Rep, 2014. 31(2): p. 523-32.

[5] Byler, S., et al., Genetic and epigenetic aspects of breast cancer progression and therapy. AnticancerRes, 2014. 34(3): p. 1071-7.

[6] del Mazo, J., J. Garcia-Lopez, and M. Weber,Epigenetic traits of testicular cancer: from

primordial germ cells to germ cell tumors.Epigenomics, 2014. 6(3): p. 253-5.

[7] Chen, L., et al., PKM2: the thread linking energymetabolism reprogramming with epigenetics incancer. Int J Mol Sci, 2014. 15(7): p. 11435-45.

[8] Gupta, V., et al., Interplay between epigenetics &cancer metabolism. Curr Pharm Des, 2014. 20(11):

p. 1706-14.

[9] Mets, E., et al., MicroRNA-193b-3p acts as atumor suppressor by targeting the MYB oncogenein T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia,2014.

[10] Vire, E., et al., The breast cancer oncogene EMSYrepresses transcription of antimetastatic microRNAmiR-31. Mol Cell, 2014. 53(5): p. 806-18.

[11] Tanaka, M., et al., EVI1 oncogene promotes KRAS pathway through suppression of microRNA-96in pancreatic carcinogenesis. Oncogene, 2014.33(19): p. 2454-63.

[12] Li, Y., et al., MYC through miR-17-92 suppresses


doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.1.31



11/11

specic target genes to maintain survival,autonomous proliferation, and a neoplastic state.Cancer Cell, 2014. 26(2): p. 262-72.

[13] Hanahan, D. and R.A. Weinberg, The hallmarks of

cancer. Cell, 2000. 100(1): p. 57-70.

[14] Hanahan, D. and R.A. Weinberg, Hallmarks ofcancer: the next generation. Cell, 2011. 144(5): p.646-74.

[15] Johnson, C., et al., Epigenetics and cancermetabolism. Cancer Lett, 2013.

[16] Lossky, V., The mystical theology of the EasternChurch. 1976, Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’sSeminary Press. 252 p.

[17] Lossky, V., In the image and likeness of God. 1975,London: Mowbrays. 232 p.

[18] Hunt, A., The Trinity : insights from the mystics.2010, Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press. xv, 190

p.

[19] Healey, R., Gauging what’s real : the conceptualfoundations of gauge theories. 2009, Oxford ; NewYork: Oxford University Press. xix, 297 p.

[20] Auyang, S.Y., How is quantum eld theory possible? 1995, New York: Oxford UniversityPress. viii, 280 p.

[21] Kuhlmann, M., H. Lyre, and A. Wayne, Ontologicalaspects of quantum eld theory. 2002, River Edge,

N.J.: World Scientic. xi, 362 p.

[22] Maudlin, T., Philosophy of physics : space andtime. Princeton foundations of contemporary

philosophy. 2012, Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress. 183 p.

[23] Lossky, V., Orthodox theology : an introduction.1978, Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s SeminaryPress. 137 p.

[24] Bradshaw, D., Aristotle East and West : metaphysicsand the division of Christendom. 2004, Cambridge,UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press. xiv,297 p.

[25] Reid, D., Energies of the spirit : trinitarian modelsin Eastern Orthodox and Western theology.American Academy of Religion academy series.1997, Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. xiv, 149 p.

B

Arvin M. Gouw, Ph.D. is a Research Associateat Harvard University School of Divinity, Fellow atStanford University, Visiting Scholar at Universityof California, Berkeley, and Adjunct Facultyat San Francisco State University. His main

interest is in the intersection between science,theology, and ministry. He served as associatepastor in Harvest Fellowship of Churches duringwhich he did his fellowship on science and

theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. Hereceived his Ph.D. in pathobiology from JohnsHopkins University School of Medicine, M.Philin philosophy from University of Pennsylvania,M.A. in theology from St. Mary’s Seminary &University’s Ecumenical Institute of Theology,B.A. & M.A. in neuroscience from UC Berkeley.

Dr. Gouw serves as the director of theBeHEARD (Help Empower & AccelerateResearch Discoveries) division of Rare GenomicsInstitute where he leads crowdfunding eortsfor rare disease personalized medicine researchpredominantly for children. Dr. Gouw is also thesenior editor for biological sciences at CancerInCytes Magazine, a magazine that discusses thehealthcare needs of disadvantaged populations,especially victims of human tracking andslavery. Dr. Gouw has been an active memberof several professional societies: AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science,American Academy of Religion, Society forBiblical Literature, and Center for Theology andthe Natural Sciences.



Contingency in Complex Sy

Documents

Transcript of Contingency in Complex Sy