Contingency in Complex Sy

DIALOGO
2.1: 284 - 294 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.1.31
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween Sci en c e a n d Th eol ogy
Contingency in complex systems and eastern

trinitarian divine action in creation
Arvin M. Gouw, PhD.
Science, Religion & Culture Program

Harvard University School of Divinity
Cambridge, USA
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: topdown and bottom-up contingency models (section
1). I then proceeded to make the connection
between 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 flow. The first 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 find
Losskys Essence-Energies Trinitarian formulation
of divine action in creation is compatible with the
14. General Topic
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 scientific
problems better than Western Trinitarian models. In
conclusion, I argue that the relational contingency
model overcomes problems of the previous models,
provides novel implications that fits 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. Preface
This paper seeks to address several questions
pertaining to contingency: Wherein does
contingency lie? Is it fundamentally located in
the quantum world of probabilities? If so, what
implications does this have on theology proper?
Many have wrestled with the aforementioned
fundamental questions in the field of theology
and science, and I will begin by discussing
some prominent concepts in the field. I will first
discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the
various models of contingency that have been
- 284 -
eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928

printISSN: 2457-9297
ISBN: 978-80-554-1131-6
DIALOGO 2.1 (2015)
November, 5 - 11 www.dialogo-conf.com
The 2ndVirtualInternational Conference on

a l ogue
b et ween Sci en c e a n d Th eol ogy
the Di alog u e betweenSci en c et haen Di
d Th
eol ogy
proposed thus far. Then, I will propose a systembased approach to locate contingency with
the hypothesis that the nature of the system
will determine the nature of the contingency
of that system and that different systems will
reveal different contingencies. Finally in the
second half of the paper, I will discuss how a
systems approach to contingency will fit better
with Eastern Orthodox doctrine of Essence
and Energies, especially that of Vladimir Lossky
when compared to Western Trinitarian models,
especially that of Karl Barth.
II. Introduction to Contingency
Christian theologians would mostly agree
that God creates the universe, and sustains
it, such that the universe is contingent upon
God. The question is then how the universe
is contingent upon God. There are two major
models: contingency on natural laws that I call
the top-down model, and contingency on
randomness as openness to God that I call the
bottom-up model.
The top-down contingency model claims that
the universe is governed by natural laws, which
are put in place by God. Therefore, the universe
is contingent upon God via these natural laws
[1]. Scientists and theologians have embraced
this concept, especially during the reign of
mechanistic classical physics up to the first half
of the twentieth century. However this model
of contingency is not without its critics from the
fields of both science and theology.
Theologically, deism arises from this model,
because it seems that God sets some natural
laws to govern the universe then lets it run by
itself. If one would like to avoid Deus ex machina
and maintain Gods activity within this lawgoverned universe, one has two options. The first
option would be to consider divine intervention
as merely a human subjective experience of
seemingly natural laws. Schleiermacher is one of
the major proponents of this subjective notion
of miracles and divine intervention [2]. The
second option is to maintain the objectivity of
divine intervention, where one has to concede
that God sometimes breaks natural laws in His
act of intervention.
top-down contingency model, scientifically,

natural laws begin to be questioned with the
rise of quantum mechanics in the second half
of the twentieth century. The predictability and
deterministic nature of classical physics falls
apart in the microscopic world. Quantum physics
gives the fundamental constituents of matter
a highly probabilistic and statistical nature. In
other words, classical natural laws are nothing
but the statistical average of the much more
dynamic, probabilistic nature of the microscopic
world.
The rise of quantum physics gives room for
a novel bottom-up model of contingency,
where the randomness of the quantum world
is the very ground for Gods creatio continua in
the universe. In other words, there is no reason
for any particular event to take place, but
certain things always happen in a certain way,
thus God has faithfully guided randomness to
produce consistent outcomes, ergo laws. From
the viewpoint of scientists, there is nothing that
underlies such randomness, simply because
science is unable to address the question of
why things are the way they are. On the other
hand, theologians are allowed to posit agency,
the why, behind natural laws despite their
underlying randomness.
However, just like any model, this bottomup contingency model has some disadvantages.
First, Gods role in sustaining this bottom-up
contingency has been considered as another
example of God of the gaps. As Russell
correctly clarifies, this could be an epistemic
gap that God is filling in, or an ontological one
[1, 3]. He argues that this bottom-up contingency
is a problem only if it posits God to fill in the
ontological gap. Other than the theological
problem, there is a second scientific problem
with this bottom-up contingency model. Placing
contingency at the quantum mechanical level is
very limiting, because quantum physics applies
only at the subatomic and atomic levels, as
opposed to classical physics, which is applicable
to the macro world. Extrapolating contingency
bottom-up from the quantum world to the
macro world is not trivial.
In addition to theological challenges to this
http://dialogo-conf.com
- 285 -
14. General Topic
DIALOGO 2.1 (2015)

t h e D i al o gue be t we e nSc i enc e andTheology

III. Causation as part of the definition and
criteria for contingency upon God
Having discussed the two major models by
which theologians find contingency in nature, I
would like to first reflect on their approach and
clarify certain concepts. In both models, it is
safe to say that the task in finding contingency
involves finding the cause behind the behavior
of a certain system, and ultimately behind
the whole universe. I find the discussion of
contingency within the context of causation to
be more helpful, because it better clarifies what
contingency relates to. Moreover, discussing
contingency with the language of causation
allows us to use the abundant philosophical
resources that have been well established in
the discourse of causation. Specifically, I will
use the probabilistic theory of causation as a
means to discuss the top-down and bottom-up
contingency models.
The probabilistic theory of causation states
that if it is more likely for B to happen in the
presence of A instead of in the absence of A,
then A is most likely the cause of B. When applied
to our particular case of contingency on God, we
can say that an event is contingent on God only if
given the existence of multiple possibilities and
randomness, it is more likely for the event to
happen if it was contingent on God than if it was
not. In other words,
1.
x (possibilities A,B,C,)
2.
P(A) > P(~A)
3.
P(A |God) > P(A | ~God)
4. Therefore God => A and A is contingent

on God
This probabilistic theory of causation is
commonly accepted and consistent with the
Copenhagen school interpretation of quantum
physics. Thus for the purposes of this paper,
though I acknowledge that there other causation
theories that could be used, I choose to use the
probabilistic theory of causation.
3.
Possible Approaches
Having delineated the working definition

and criteria for assessing contingency using
the probabilistic theory of causation, I will first
discuss two approaches to this contingency
14. General Topic
problem. Upon analyzing the top-down model

of contingency where the universe is contingent
on God-given natural laws, I argue that the logic
of the reasoning starts from the cause to the
effect. Their reasoning goes as follows: (a) God is
omniscient and omnipotent, (b) God is provident
and orderly, (c) God sets natural laws to govern
creation, (d) thus creation is contingent on Gods
natural laws. Though this deductive top-down
approach has proved to be very powerful, it is
difficult to deny that a priori reasoning on Gods
nature could be quite arbitrary.
The second, bottom-up contingency model
begins with the effect, or natural phenomena,
then proceeds to assess the cause. The logic of
reasoning goes as follows: (a) In nature we see
statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics
governing the microscopic world, (b) There is
no explanation why one outcome happens as
opposed to the other possibilities, (c) thus there
must be a God who modulates the quantum
probabilities to generate the directed outcomes.
This inductive approach is less subjective and
circular than the previous top-down approach.
However, as previously discussed, statistical
mechanics and quantum mechanics may not
always play an important role in the system
that is being analyzed due to the microscopic
scope of quantum mechanics. This approach
may result in overimposing quantum physics on
everything (biology, psychology, etc).
Thus it seems that the top-down approach
begins with the cause and explains best
macroscopic systems within the realm of
classical physics. On the other hand, the bottomup approach begins with the effects and explains
best microscopic systems within the realm of
quantum physics. Neither approach begins with
the system itself. Due to the importance of the
nature of the system that is being considered in
deriving contingency and causation, I propose
a third approach to contingency that will start
with the system itself.
In both top-down and bottom-up
approaches, the starting point of the approach
is crucial in determining the contingency of
the system. Since my systems approach begins
with the system, I hypothesize that the nature
of the system will determine the nature of the
contingency of that system and that different
systems will reveal different contingencies.
- 286 -
DIALOGO
2.1: 284 - 294 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.1.31

The systems approach that I am going to use
in 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 differences between
simple and complex systems (section 5).
c. Locate the contingency of both systems
(section 6).
d. Determine the nature of the God based
on this contingency (section 7).
IV. Consideration of systems
Fundamentally there is a continuum of
complexity of systems from simple to complex.
For example, a simple system could be a ball
rolling down a hill, and a complex system would
be a dividing cell.
Let us first consider a simple system of a ball
rolling down the hill. There are certain conditions
and boundaries for this system: the initial push,
mass of the ball, surface of the hill, and degree of
decline. In this particular example, both the topdown and bottom-up models of contingency are
applicable.
Let us now consider a complex system of a
dividing cell. There are various conditions for
this system: DNA content, nutrient availability,
biomass availability, membrane availability, and
the correct cellular program to execute the cell
division. First a cell must receive a proliferating
signal either internally or externally, then it needs
to increase its biomass prior to doubling, which
is possible only if there are enough nutrient
resources to do so. Last but not least, the whole
process needs to be orchestrated in an orderly
manner. Upon looking at this particular system,
some have argued that the major and primary
cause of this system is the DNA. Thus the
contingency lies with the DNA make-up of the
cell which is quite specific given the enormous
possibilities of various DNA sequences within the
sequence space (Bernd-Olaf Kuppers in [3]). I
argue that in the particular example of a dividing
cell above, the DNA is not the primary cause. In
fact, it is difficult to pinpoint any one cause as the
primary cause, because the system processes are
very complex. Neither the top-down nor bottomup contingency model fit because neither could
find the cause behind this complex system.
V. Delineating factors contributing to the
complexity of a system
This then prompts me to carefully consider
the factors that make the second example, a
complex system, while the former, a simple
system. I propose the following four factors:
I. Number of initial conditions or factors
and causes
II. Distance between cause and effect
within the system
III. Interactions between various conditions
possibility of network or feedback loops
IV. Closed, or openly interacting system
Let us now consider these four factors within
the two previous examples. (I) The number of
initial conditions of the rolling ball are few: the
initial push, mass of the ball, surface of hill, and
degree of decline. However, the conditions
of the dividing cell are many: DNA content
(46 chromosomes must be in good shape
with no damage), nutrient availability (the
increased uptake of nutrients may involve the
orchestration of multiple metabolic pathways),
biomass availability (every organelle in the cell
has to be doubled), membrane availability (the
phospholipid membrane along with the various
channels and transporters need to be doubled),
and cell division program (involves a timely
and ordered sequence of cellular processes).
It is obvious that the complex system has
dramatically more conditions than the simple
system. (II) The distance between cause and
effect is quite direct for a rolling ball, namely the
initial push directly causes the rolling of the ball
down the hill. On the other hand, the distance
between cause and effect is much greater in
a dividing cell because of the multiple layers
of chains of events that need to take place
in a dividing cell. (III) Interactions between
conditions in the case of a rolling ball are also
quite simple, compared to the orchestration that
is required in the case of dividing cell. Last but
not least (IV), the rolling ball can be considered
as a closed system that receives an initial push
- 287 -
14. General Topic
DIALOGO 2.1 (2015)


to roll down the hill. However, a dividing cell
cannot be considered purely as a closed system,
because the assurance that the DNA content
has no damage and nutrient availability depends
largely on microenvironmental conditions.
Thus far, I have shown that complex systems
have more initial conditions/boundaries (I), more
distance between cause and effect (II), more
interactions between the various conditions (III),
and more open interactions with factors external
to the system (IV). With these differences in the
four factors in mind, now I would like to employ
the previously described probabilistic causation
theory to both systems to test if my hypothesis
holds true that different systems will reveal
different modes of contingency.
VI. Finding the contingency within the cause
and effect of various systems
A. Causation in complex systems
To locate the primary cause in this complex
scenario, we first identify a specific state, say
D, then find its directly influencing factors,
namely A, B, C, then determine P(A), P(B), and
P(C), then assess the likelihood of D happening
in the absence of A, B, and C. However, given a
complex system, it is difficult to say whether A, B,
C are causes, because there are often feedback
loops from D backwards. Suppose there is a
feedback of (D,C) -> B, implying that D could
be both a cause and an effect simultaneously
in this dynamic system. Instead of focusing on
any particular variable, as effect to determine
the cause and the status of its contingency,
I argue that there is no cause or effect but
only relations between events and propositions.
Thus the causation takes place not within any
cause or effect but in the relations between the
propositions and events within the system.
As previously mentioned, philosophers and
theologians often place contingency on the
variability of the DNA sequence itself. It is indeed
quite common to model a complex system
by linearizing a series of simple systems, thus
expanding the distance between the cause and
the effect (Factor II). For example, subatomic
particle properties -> atomic properties ->
molecular properties -> DNA properties ->
protein level interactions -> cellular level ->
14. General Topic
organ level -> organismal behavior. From this

linearization modeling approach, though new
properties emerge at different levels, the
indeterminacies at each level ultimately arise
from the indeterminacies at the quantum level. I
consider this a common problem in the bottomup model of contingency from randomness,
namely, the fact that in complex systems QM
oftentimes do not play a major role.
To overcome this problem, I argue that there
are additional ways of modeling and analyzing a
complex system (by looking at factors I, III, & IV).
One can do more than simply lining up a series of
simple systems into complex systems, but one
can create relations between simple systems in
a network. This would be better because first, it
is impossible to find the primary cause within
a complex system because there are multiple
causes (factor I). Second, it is impossible to
locate the cause within a complex system
because of the fact that complex systems often
involve feedback loops (factor III) which then
blur the distinction of cause and effect. Third,
in a complex system we also have interactions
across layers in the emergence pyramid scheme
(factors III & IV) which means one cannot simply
say that ontologically quantum indeterminacies
of the molecules of the DNA are prior to
everything else (as proposed by Kuppers and
Russell).
B. Example against the Serial Linearization
modeling of complex systems
Since serial linearization modeling of complex
systems is becoming quite a common practice,
especially in interpreting biological phenomena,
I will provide an example to demonstrate the
problem in biological systems.
DNA seems to be the primary cause behind
other cellular programs, which are dictated by
the specific DNA sequence. Contingency then is
located in the sequence space [3] of the various
possibilities of DNA sequences that could be
manifested in a cell. This is valid only because
one assumes that this complex system of a cell
is a linear series of simple systems that begins
from the DNA to RNA to proteins to organelle
to cell.
However, let us consider a particular
DNA sequence in a human cell, which would
- 288 -
DIALOGO
2.1: 284 - 294 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.1.31

constitute about 20,000 to 30,000 genes. Let us
consider that gene X, an oncogene that causes
cancer, is present in this DNA. Gene X is not
necessarily transcribed into messenger RNA
(mRNA) despite its presence. The expression of
gene X depends on several factors and several
layers of regulation. First, DNA is not stretched
out open for transcription all the time, in fact
DNA strands are wound around histones,
causing certain regions of the DNA to be in
open or closed conformation [4-6]. If gene X
happens to be in a closed conformation due to
the histone-DNA architecture on gene X, then
that gene X will never be expressed and will not
cause cancer. Second, the histone changes of
opening and closing the gene X locus could be
effected by various factors such as metabolite
availability and histone modifiers [7, 8]. Third,
even when gene X is in open conformation,
upon transcription, the mRNA of gene X may
be degraded by mircoRNAs, preventing it from
becoming an oncoprotein that causes cancer
or vice versa [9-12]. These are just three simple
ways by which the presence of gene X in the DNA
of that particular cell does not dictate that cells
fate to become cancer. Epigenetics, metabolism,
and posttranscriptional modifications, among
many others, contribute to the possibility of
gene X in causing cancer [13, 14]. The complexity
grows exponentially as we consider the fact
that the histone modifications both affect and
are affected by microRNAs and metabolism of
the cell [7, 15]. This fine balance of networks
make it impossible to say that the contingency
and primary cause of a certain event lies in the
DNA sequence alone. This is not to deny the
quantum phenomena behind a specific DNA
sequence, but the system is dramatically more
complex than that. It is precisely the interactions
between these various factors (metabolism,
epigenetics, post-transcriptional modifications)
that create infinite possibilities for the fate of the
cell. Though each of the aforementioned factors
(metabolism, epigenetics, posttranscriptional
modification) will have their own quantum
contingency by themselves, their relationship
amongst each other adds multiple layers of
contingencies that are not quantum mechanical
in nature.
In conclusion, instead of the top-bottom
and the bottom-up models of contingency that
depend on finding the cause within the system,
I propose a systemic contingency model where

contingency 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 find the
primary cause, and leads to an understanding
that the complex system is interconnected and
allowing contingency to be found throughout
the whole system.
VII. Theological models of God that will
interact with various contingency models
Provided the proposed novel systemic
relational contingency model, I now turn to
theology to seek for the best possible divine
action model for this systemic contingency
model. Various contingency models will definitely
influence our thinking on how God interacts
with creation. In turn, His mode of interaction
with the world will tell us something about His
nature. Having demonstrated the novelty of
the systems-approach to finding a relational
and systemic contingency model in complex
systems, I would like to proceed to consider
what theological models of God would fit with
the relational systemic contingency model that
I proposed.
Though ones concept of contingency need
not influence ones theology proper, we can
see that top-down and bottom-up contingency
models naturally fit with certain theological
models of God and divine actioin. The top-down
natural law contingency model fit better with an
omnipotent, omniscient God who is the Designer
or the Watchmaker. Such a God interacts with
the universe through natural physical laws. On
the other hand, an evolving God of process
theologians would work well with the bottomup randomness contingency model where the
universe and God are in a creative dialectic
with creation between chaos and order. This
then begs the question: which theological
model of God and divine action would be most
compatible with the systemic relational model
of contingency? Moreover, since the systemic
model of contingency does not negate, but
simply adds to the quantum contingency model,
then ideally the theological model of God should
be compatible with bottom-up contingency
model as well. Here I would briefly compare and
- 289 -
14. General Topic
DIALOGO 2.1 (2015)


contrast western and eastern Trinitarian model
of interacting with the world. I will further
argue that the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of
Essence and Energies fit 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 on
one of the best proponent of the doctrine of
Essence and, Vladimir Lossky, a great Orthodox
theologian. I will briefly compare his theology
with Karl Barths as an example of a western
theological model. Lossky has always sought to
interpret the interaction of the universe with its
creator in a less dialectic and opposing manner
than western theologians, i.e. Barth. Loskys
Essence and Energies distinction is a reaction
against the overemphasis on cataphatic ways on
the one end and apophatic ways on the other.
Losskys doctrine of divine action in creation is
intricately bound to the classic eastern doctrine
of Essence and Energies. Lossky argues that God
is unknowable in His Essence, but the triune God
has decided to be present in His Energies, which
are knowable to us [16]. God is present with
creation in His Energies. Through His presence in
Energies, we may know God as Love, Wisdom,
etc [16]. Thus the Energies are the attributes of
God. However, Lossky maintains that there is no
distinction in quality between the attributes of
God as Energies and the Essence of God. God is
not part in Essence and part in Energies. God is
whole in Essence and whole in Energies. It is just
that the Essence is the mode of existence of God
where He is unknowable[16]. The Energies make
God knowable.
Thus he proposes that Energies penetrate
the whole creation in that it gives the whole
creation rationality- making it possible for
us as Gods highest creation to make sense
of creation at every level from subatomic to
macrolevel [16]. To overcome cataphatic and
apophatic ways in theology, Lossky proposes
that there is something spiritual in every material
phenomenon, since Gods Energies penetrates
every level of creation and sustains them.
Interestingly enough, Lossky avoids the tendency
of western theologians to overemphasize the
Holy Spirit in interacting with the world. Instead,
Lossky uses the Trinitarian doctrine and Energy
14. General Topic
and Essence doctrine to preserve the Trinitarian

transcendence, order where the Father is arche,
while allowing the Triune God to be immanent in
the universe [16].
B. Eastern Trinitarian model of interacting with

the universe
Now, having discussed generally the
concepts of Essence and Energies, I will present
Vladimir Losskys Trinitarian view. Lossky begins
by arguing that God is unknowable [16]. Lossky
argues that the cataphatic approaches to
God are false, because we are projecting our
imperfect nature to God [16]. Following Gregory
Palamas, Lossky believes that in order to look
into the mystery of God, we need the apophatic
approach, however he will transcend this as
well in mystical union [16]. Lossky points out
that the apophatic approach is not simply the
negation of the cataphatic approach. Negation
of a sentence has the same level of knowledge
as the negated sentence. To say that God is not
evil would be meaningless if we do not know
how good is opposed to evil. Thus inherent to
every negation is a positive knowledge such that
all true theology is fundamentally apophatic
[16]. This theological epistemology then leaves
us only to Gods descent (katabasis) as our only
means to know God (anabasis) [17].
God has made Himself knowable in His
Energies through His redemptive act. Thus, like
Barth, Lossky seeks to explain the triune God
in light of atonement which involves renewal
of all creation. Lossky sees there are two
fundamental acts: redemption and deification
[17]. Redemption, related to katabasis, can be
attributed to Christ while deification, related
to anabasis, can be attributed to the Spirit [17].
The two acts are different, but they are not
unrelated. The underlying doctrine that Lossky
uses to explain redemption and deification is
kenosis. The act of emptying is done by the
Son to perform redemption. The Son leaves His
divine nature to take human nature and created
nature so that we can be redeemed. But in
deification, there is also the kenosis of the Spirit,
because the Spirit hides Himself behind the
created universe to bring creation to harmony
with the divine nature through the Energies [17].
- 290 -
DIALOGO
2.1: 284 - 294 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.1.31

Lossky uses the dichotomy of hypostasis and
physis to explain the relationship between the
Son and the Spirit. Moreover, the kenosis of the
Son and the Spirit are interrelated to the kenosis
of the Father where the Father has hidden His
Essence in His Energies. Thus Lossky follows
Iraeneus in that the Son and the Spirit are the
two hands of the Father in the act of salvation
[16]. This monarchy of the Father should not
be understood as subordination, because this
monarchy only points out to the mon-arche, one
source, of personhood. The monarchy of the
Father brings unity to the Godhead[16, 18].
In summary, Lossky begins with a denial of
cataphatic theology. But he explains clearly that
negative theology is not apophatic theology.
Apophatic theology transcends affirmation and
negation. Thus there is no way to know God other
than through His descent. Since God is Love, He
has decided to present Himself in His energies.
Though we will not be able to know God fully
in His Essence, we can have his full presence in
His energies[16]. The doctrine of the Trinity that
comes out of this is that the energies cannot be
attributed to any single Person. The Energies and
attributes of God must be appropriated to the
being of God as a whole, all three Persons. The
distinction of the Persons comes when we see
Gods act of atonement. Gods atonement is in
two parts: redemption and deification. The Son
redeems humanity by assuming human nature
and hiding His divine nature. The Spirit deifies
human nature by assuming the human person
and hiding His divine person. But, these two
interdependent processes of kenosis are both
dependent upon the Fathers kenosis where
in revelation He has decided to be present in
His Energies and hide His Essence. Thus, the
distinction of the Persons is known to us from
the 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 the
Spirit as the medium by which the physical realm
of the universe is affected by God is imbalanced,
which we can find in the pneumatologies of
Barth and also Moltmann, Pannenberg, and
Congar. The reason that is imbalanced is that
throughout the Scripture, we see various
Persons of the Trinity interacting with the

universe. In the Old Testament, we see God the
Father interacting with Israel. In the gospels we
see the second person of the trinity interacting
with this world [16]. In fact, the Holy Spirit does
not play major role in interacting with the people
until the church age. Such an interaction of the
three persons with the universe also predisposes
western theologians to an overly speculative
cataphatic theologies as can be seen in medieval
theology.
There are several strengths of arguing that
the universe is contingent on Energies. First,
it works with the field ontology of modern
physics, where most philosophers of physics
would agree that the most fundamental fabric
of the universe is field-based and energy-based.
Though quantum physics could work with
particle ontology, field ontology is superior to
particle ontology because field ontology can
explain particle ontology but not vice versa [19,
20]. In other words, physicists could explain
particles as quantization or corpuscles of fields
[21]. This would make the notion of energies and
fields more compatible with the aforementioned
quantum model of contingency.
Second, the notion of Energies gives
plausibility and room for interactions between
the Energies and networks of relations within
complex systems. It is more plausible to think of
interacting Energies as opposed to interaction
between a network and a spatiotemporally
embodied entity [22]. In addition to supporting
the quantum contingency model, this would
support the relational model of contingency as
well.
Last but not least, the concept of Energies can
illustrate Gods creatio continua in the world in
preserving grace, sovereignty, and ecclesiastical
life. It works with classical Biblical notions of
Gods immanence that is better balanced as
previously discussed.
Third, theologically, western theologians,
especially Protestant theologians like Barth
argues that we cannot know God primarily
because of human depravity. Lossky argues
that we cannot know God primarily because
God is ineffable[23]. For Barth, the depravity
in knowledge is overcome when Christ is
revealed. For Lossky, the ineffability of God is
- 291 -
14. General Topic
DIALOGO 2.1 (2015)


not overcome just because God is present in His
Energies. This difference in epistemology brings
us to a disagreement in revelation. For Barth,
God has revealed Himself fully in Christ, such
that the economic trinity and the immanent
trinity are identical. But inherent in Losskys
doctrines of Energies and trinity, there are three
levels in the existence of the trinity. First, the
immanent trinity exists within the Godhead in its
divine Essence, completely unknowable to us.
Second, as an outflowing of this divine Essence,
the trinity exists as three persons in the divine
Energies. Third, the economic trinity exists in
relation to creatures through the divine Energies,
knowable to us[24]. Thus, through apophatic
theology we can only leap from the economic
trinity to the level of the Energies, where we
can somewhat fathom the immanent trinity, but
not in its fullness in the divine essence. The third
and second levels of existence are congruent,
but the first level of existence is far beyond our
reach, even after deification [25].
While Barth uses the Holy Spirit as source
of revelation and divine action to overcome
human depravity, Lossky uses the concept of
Energies to allow God to do that. However,
in doing so, Barths third person of the Trinity
becomes overemphasized in the Trinitarian
order, and might jeopardize the ineffability
and transcendence of God. On the other hand,
Lossky preserves the Trinitarian order and
transcendence while allowing all three Persons
to relate immanently within creation.
Conclusions
Having discussed everything above, I would
like to conclude with some advantages of the
relational contingency model. It overcomes
the disadvantages of the previous models
because of several reasons. First, the relational
contingency model would avoid having God
intervene at the quantum mechanical level all
the time, and therefore avoid the God of the
gaps critique. Second, this model would avoid
superimposing quantum physics to complex
systems which often happens with the quantum
contingency model. Third, the relational model
would not view supernatural events as the
unnatural breaking of some physical laws or
properties of a systems constituents. Rather,
supernaturalness comes from the relation that
14. General Topic
a system has with something outside of its

natural system or network. The novel dynamic
relations that a complex system has with the
supernatural is what brings it from the natural
to the supernatural (this would be in line with
Aquinas notion of the supernatural as not being
unnatural). This is thus another supportive
proposal for Russells Non-Interventionist
Objective Divine Action (NIODA) model.
In addition to overcoming issues of the
previous two contingency models, the systemsapproach contributes several implications that
are novel and unique to this relational model.
First, though quantum mechanical properties
are the fertile grounds for contingency for both
simple and complex systems, a complex system
has contingency that can be found within its
network of interactions. Second, God does
not have to act or intervene physically via a
linear, downward causation from culture to our
thoughts, to our brain, to neurons, to our cells,
then to our genetic make-up. God can interact
with us relationally as an open system which
then changes the dynamics of the whole system.
Third, this model proposes a God who is more
relational and not spatiotemporally localized,
tampering with various causes as means to
interact with the system.
However, just like any model, there are
interesting areas for further development. First,
the system considered here is predominantly
biological, therefore we do not know how this
would change as we consider more complex
systems such those found in sociology, or
psychology. But I would speculate that the
various contingencies considered by Robert
J. Russell would work well with my proposed
relational contingency model. Second, it would
also be interesting to explore the notion
of downward causation of the emergence
paradigm with this network relational model of
contingency. Third, it would be challenging to
construct a model by which the Energies and
fields interact within various networks in the
universe, but perhaps that is beyond the realm
of science altogether.
In summary, I began by giving 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 connection between contingency
- 292 -
DIALOGO
2.1: 284 - 294 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.1.31

and causation (section 2). Under the lens of
causation, contingency can be approached
starting from either the cause or the effect.
Both approaches have severe limitations, and I
decided to approach the issue by starting from
the system (section 3). This systems approach
has the following logical flow. The first step is to
consider the system in which we seek to locate
contingency and causation (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 the four factors (section 5). Third
is to locate the contingency of both systems
(section 6). Locating causation and contingency
depends largely on how one models complex
systems: as a linear series of simple systems or
as a network of simple systems (section 6.2). By
using the cell as a complex biological system, I
demonstrated that modeling complex systems
as a network is superior to the serial linearization
method. Fourth is to determine the nature of
God based on this contingency (section 7). I then
proceed to argue that Losskys 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 have shown that Eastern Trinitarian model
in general overcomes both theological and
scientific problems better than Western
Trinitarian models. In conclusion, I argue that
the relational contingency model overcomes
problems of the previous models, provides novel
implications, and is open to future theological
and philosophical development.
Thus if we are to take contingency of complex
systems seriously and how such contingency
informs our theology of divine action in creation,
then I argue that the relational Trinitarian model
of Lossky fits very well with such complexsystems contingency. Moreover, the doctrine
of Essence and Energies preserves Gods
transcendence in His immanence. This avoids the
pantheistic, process God that is often associated
with quantum bottom-up contingency model
on one end, and this also avoids the deistic God
that is often associated with top-down lawgoverned contingency on the other extreme.
References
[1] Russell, R.J., et al., Chaos and complexity :
scientific perspectives on divine action. Series on

Scientific perspectives on divine action. 2000,
Vatican City State, Berkeley, Calif. Notre Dame,
Ind.: Vatican Observatory Publications; Center for
Theology and the Natural Sciences; Distributed
(except in Italy and Vatican City State) by The
University of Notre Dame Press. 416 p.
[2] Russell, R.J., N.C. Murphy, and C.J. Isham,
Quantum cosmology and the laws of nature :
scientific perspectives on divine action. A Series
on Divine action in scientific perspective. 1993,
Vatican City State, Berkeley, Calif.: Vatican
Observatory ; Center for Theology and the Natural
Sciences. 468 p.
[3] Russell, R.J., et al., Evolutionary and molecular
biology : scientific perspectives on divine action.
Series on Scientific perspectives on divine action.
1998, Vatican City State, Berkeley, Calif.: Vatican
Observatory ; Center for Theology and the Natural
Sciences. 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. Anticancer
Res, 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 energy
metabolism reprogramming with epigenetics in
cancer. 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 a
tumor suppressor by targeting the MYB oncogene
in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia,
2014.
[10] Vire, E., et al., The breast cancer oncogene EMSY
represses transcription of antimetastatic microRNA
miR-31. Mol Cell, 2014. 53(5): p. 806-18.
[11] Tanaka, M., et al., EVI1 oncogene promotes KRAS
pathway through suppression of microRNA-96
in pancreatic carcinogenesis. Oncogene, 2014.
33(19): p. 2454-63.
[12] Li, Y., et al., MYC through miR-17-92 suppresses
- 293 -
14. General Topic
DIALOGO 2.1 (2015)


specific 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 of
cancer: the next generation. Cell, 2011. 144(5): p.
646-74.
[15] Johnson, C., et al., Epigenetics and cancer
metabolism. Cancer Lett, 2013.
[16] Lossky, V., The mystical theology of the Eastern
Church. 1976, Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimirs
Seminary 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 whats real : the conceptual
foundations of gauge theories. 2009, Oxford ; New
York: Oxford University Press. xix, 297 p.
[20] Auyang, S.Y., How is quantum field theory
possible? 1995, New York: Oxford University
Press. viii, 280 p.
[21] Kuhlmann, M., H. Lyre, and A. Wayne, Ontological
aspects of quantum field theory. 2002, River Edge,
N.J.: World Scientific. xi, 362 p.
[22] Maudlin, T., Philosophy of physics : space and
time. Princeton foundations of contemporary
philosophy. 2012, Princeton: Princeton University
Press. 183 p.
[23] Lossky, V., Orthodox theology : an introduction.
1978, Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary
Press. 137 p.
[24] Bradshaw, D., Aristotle East and West : metaphysics
and the division of Christendom. 2004, Cambridge,
UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press. xiv,
297 p.
[25] Reid, D., Energies of the spirit : trinitarian models
in Eastern Orthodox and Western theology.
American Academy of Religion academy series.
1997, Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. xiv, 149 p.
interest is in the intersection between science,

theology, and ministry. He served as associate
pastor in Harvest Fellowship of Churches during
which he did his fellowship on science and
theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. He
received his Ph.D. in pathobiology from Johns
Hopkins University School of Medicine, M.Phil
in philosophy from University of Pennsylvania,
M.A. in theology from St. Marys Seminary &
Universitys Ecumenical Institute of Theology,
B.A. & M.A. in neuroscience from UC Berkeley.
Dr. Gouw serves as the director of the
BeHEARD (Help Empower & Accelerate
Research Discoveries) division of Rare Genomics
Institute where he leads crowdfunding efforts
for rare disease personalized medicine research
predominantly for children. Dr. Gouw is also the
senior editor for biological sciences at Cancer
InCytes Magazine, a magazine that discusses the
healthcare needs of disadvantaged populations,
especially victims of human trafficking and
slavery. Dr. Gouw has been an active member
of several professional societies: American
Association for the Advancement of Science,
American Academy of Religion, Society for
Biblical Literature, and Center for Theology and
the Natural Sciences.
Biography
Arvin M. Gouw, Ph.D. is a Research Associate
at Harvard University School of Divinity, Fellow at
Stanford University, Visiting Scholar at University
of California, Berkeley, and Adjunct Faculty
at San Francisco State University. His main
14. General Topic
- 294 -

Contingency in Complex Sy

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Contingency in Complex Sy

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

DIALOGO

2.1: 284 - 294 (2015)

CONFERENCES & JOURNAL

t h e Di a l ogue b et ween Sci en c e a n d Th eol ogy