Chapter 3: An adequate Christian ecological theology
3.1 Ecological cosmology
3.1.1 Scientific cosmology
It should be noted at the outset that contemporary scientists do acknowledge that there is a large degree of regularity in nature, but that it is also characterised by novelty and chance. P.
Davies believes there are immutable natural laws of such a nature that when they are applied to matter result in openness and change in the created order (2004: 104).
Insights from science inform us about the origin/s of the universe. Boff writes,
Once we were all together in the form of energy and the original particles. We are all made of the same elements (1997: 45).
According to Ian Barbour, quantum theory has seriously challenged Newtonian physics (1990:
96-108). Quantum theory articulates the interconnectedness, interrelatedness and
interdependence of life. Newton's understanding of the universe as deterministic and reductionistic is questionable. It was believed that the future condition of the matter in a system in motion could be predicted by acquiring knowledge of its current state. Moreover, universal laws controlled everything from a tiny particle to a planet in space. Newtonian thinking also held that parts affect the whole. In other words this was bottom-up causation, where the smallest particles determine the reaction of the whole. Change occurs when the parts are rearranged; however the parts themselves never change. The result of this was that nature came to be viewed as a machine (: 96). The world is sub-ordinate to natural laws and does not need divine agency. This removes any potential for novelty or freedom in creation. In other words according to a mechanistic worldview, creation is not a living entity. It is simply composed of lifeless atoms.
However, Barbour indicates that the "Heisenberg Uncertainty" principle demonstrates that there is a large degree of "indeterminacy in nature" (: 101). There is novelty in nature, because entities have possibilities for becoming available to them and thence the potential to change.
The future is indeterminate and entities have a range of alternatives, which they can pursue and actualise. Time does not repeat itself, as the "world would not repeat its course if it were restored to a former state" (: 103).
Quantum theory also challenges Newtonian reductionism. Previously, matter was believed to be constituted by indivisible protons, neutrons and electrons, but is now shown that these particles are composed of smaller parts known as "quarks" (: 104). Quarks cannot exist alone, as they require the larger whole. Large amounts of energy fail to separate quarks and merely generate new ones, which then combine with the ones already there. This results in the genesis of new particles. At the atomic and sub-atomic level there are complex systems, which build themselves up, and these have characteristics that were not seen in only the components. In other words, it is important to look at the larger whole and not just the components. Barbour writes,
Interpenetrating fields and integrated totalities replace self-contained, externally related particles as fundamental images of nature. The being of any entity is constituted by its relationships and its participation in more inclusive patterns (1990: 105) Emphasis the researcher's.
John Polkinghorne also addresses the issue of indeterminacy in nature (1995: 147-155). He makes use of "chaos theory" to explain the dynamic nature of systems that do not have
thermodynamic equilibrium. This theory states that even minute and undetectable changes in a system's initial conditions can result in an unpredictable future. For example future conditions of the universe cannot be easily predicted by merely understanding its present state. The most important insight that Polkinghorne is offering here is that openness or "intrinsic
indefiniteness" occurs not only at the quantum level, but also at the macrophysical level (: 155).
One of the values of relativity theory is that it synthesises energy, matter, space and time and thus further strengthens the case for a dynamic universe (Barbour 1990: 124). Space and time are connected into what is known as a "spacetime continuum"; in addition to this mass is a form of energy, while it is difficult to distinguish between acceleration and gravity (: 109,
111). Matter and space interact with each other, while there is a dialectical relationship between processes of time and the geometry of space. Matter distorts and changes spacetime.
This presents a picture of the universe where events interact with each other. It must be noted, however, the connections between events take time. There are thus moments of isolation.
In a dynamic universe there needs to be some manner of limitation. If not, systems would be completely chaotic. Barbour insists that even within physics there is the notion of evolutionary thought (: 113). He draws on insights from Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine's work on thermodynamics. Inanimate beings are believed to be able to self-organise where random behaviour at one level leads to order at another. This results in an increase in complexity with new rules controlling the new state. What Prigogine appears to be implying here is that the more complex something is, the higher its capacity for self-organisation. This could be the limitation principle required for an orderly system. This type of thinking can be applied to
"living systems" (: 113).
When considering complexity in living systems, the concern is with evolutionary theory. This approach signifies not only the mutability of creation, but also its unity and diversity. These two concepts should be kept in balance. The former tends towards a reductionistic and monistic13 view of life. This contributes to essentialist constructions of reality. If the latter is
13 Monism is the view that everything may be traced back to one substance or reality. Its opposite is dualism (Klein 1999:
636).
emphasised then the connectedness of life is lost. The idea of hierarchies of complexity appears to provide a solution. Arthur Peacocke uses the theory of "emergentist monism" to account for hierarchies that include a gradation of complexity or degree of self-organisation (2001: 50). Entities in the world, both animate and inanimate, are composed of "fundamental physical entities" (: 49). Complexity does not occur due to the insertion of additional entities at higher levels. It is derived from below.
However this bottom-up causation principle is balanced by a form of top-down causation14
referred to by Peacocke as "whole-part influence" and he defines it as,
the net effect of all those ways in which a system-as-a-whole, operating from its higher level, is a causal factor in what happens to its constituent parts, the lower level (: 52).
Peacocke goes on to describe how there is information flow from higher level entities to lower ones (: 53). A higher level in this regard changes events that take place among its lower level constituents. Information in this regard is distinct from energy and matter, but when
information is transferred a degree of energy or matter is exchanged. Peacocke uses the mind- brain-body interaction to support his claims and also illustrates that this idea of information transference concurs with evolutionary thinking. For example information flow from the environment over a long period of time may influence an organism's DNA and this DNA will then influence the organism's functioning in such a manner that it will produce adequate progeny. For Peacocke the world is comprised of a diverse set of systems that interact with each other (: 55). Events in one system affect events in other systems. There is thus
information flow between systems. For example, on earth systems of life forms are influenced by the atmosphere and geological systems. Peacocke writes,
the world-as-a-whole suggests that it is metaphysically plausible to perceive it as an interconnected and interdependent System-of-systems, the 'systems' being now of different types (: 55) Emphasis Peacocke's.
The researcher believes that a cosmology that includes both bottom-up and top-down causation does possibly provide room for divine agency, otherwise God may merely become the output of an evolutionary process and thus reducible to cosmic reality. Such a monistic or pantheistic
This is a term used by Ellis and Murphy (1996:16).
approach is at odds with the Christian tradition that affirms the distinction between God and creation. It is therefore necessary to oppose a naturalistic or pantheistic approach to
cosmology.
The views presented by the scientists above are indicative of a holistic cosmology that concurs with ecological insights. The universe is viewed as dynamic, unified, diverse and relational.
The dynamic nature of the universe means it is characterised by emergence and evolution.
Creation in this sense becomes historical. It is both open and closed. Entities are interconnected, interdependent and interrelated. Reality is composed not of separate substances, but of relationships and events. This is a holistic view of the world where mutuality and reciprocity are of primary concern. Such a view of the world emphasises the notion of community.
H. Rolston denotes such a community a "biotic community" (1994: 78). In this thought, reality is viewed as a dynamic, living interaction between parts. The various members of such a community are integrated and able to flourish. Moreover, there is both a degree of stability and development within this community. Boff maintains that humanity is part of a "cosmic
community" which has a common origin and destiny (1997: 45)
Moreover, Barbour views entities in the universe as being part of a community and writes,
Cosmology joins evolutionary biology, molecular biology, and ecology in showing the interdependence of all things. We are part of an ongoing community of being; we are kin to all creatures, past and present. (1997: 215) Emphasis the researcher's.
Another way to describe such a worldview is the universe as an organism (Barbour 1990: 168, 222). Such a view is social by nature. In such a society the members have a marked sense of individuality and yet there is unity and contact. With such a view there is no dichotomy between the living and the non-living. However, the diversity of entities is still emphasised.
Living and non-living beings are part of an organism that is held in a dynamic balance. The earth has been viewed as a super-organism known as Gaia (Lovelock 1979, 1988). This metaphor therefore has scientific support. In addition to this, it is an applicable form of religious language, as it is a model and thus takes unity (similarity) and diversity (dissimilarity) into account.