Summarizing and Understanding John Polkinghorne: A Teaching Tool

Chapter 1

Polkinghorne and His Quest for Truth

As an introduction to the complex thoughts of Polkinghorne, both scientist and Episcopal priest, this chapter begins with four fundamental building blocks from his vast array of 38 written works.  First, Polkinghorne is briefly considered as a ‘critical realist.” This is the term he uses to describe himself, stressing this viewpoint in various works and asking the reader to encounter its validity.  Secondly, Polkinghorne’s greatest love is considered—that of science. Here it is presented as an initial view of why the scientific method is a fundamental part of his work.  Third, expanding on his scientific viewpoint, this paper considers Polkinghorne’s view of the nature of the physical world.  Lastly, fourth is a brief summary of Polk’s self-described “bottom-up thinking” and its expansion to top-down understanding.  To conclude, the nexus of Polkinghorne’s theological analysis is described as an integrated view of truth that includes both science and religion.

1.1 Polkinghorne as a “critical realist.”

Polkinghorne defines himself as a “critical realist.”1  He uses the word “critical” to mean his method of inquiry in both areas of science and religion.  Within “critical,” he includes the subtle meaning of judgment, or a course of subtle interpretation that intertwines with “experience and interpretation.”2 “Realist” means the method of inquiry has the “character of a process of discovery, rather than human construction.”3

Through science he seeks to describe our world and moves from scientific truth to his belief in God through a process of logic, natural theology, and symbol.  To Polkinghorne, “any metaphysical world view that did not seek to take reality on reality’s terms …[is] unacceptable.”4  He writes that the word “critical” is meant to denote a form of delicate, meaningful, experience and interpretation while “realism” is meant to denote “a process of discovery, rather than something of human construction.”5  Again, Polkinghorne echoes these thoughts:  “Those who commit themselves to this trust in a rational cosmos are asserting intelligibility to be the key to reality.”6

Ian Markham, PhD and theologian, defines and defends “critical realism” as affirming the existence of objects, and takes it a further step to include three related criteria: (1) World perspectives are attempts to make sense of reality as experienced; (2) Reality is the ultimate control concerning the legitimacy of truth claims; and, (3) Certain world perspectives are better than the alternatives.7 Polkinghorne meets all three of these criteria:  (1) He writes for the “variety of the world and our experience of it;”8  (2) He looks to science as the prime evidence for the repeated convergence of physical theory upon agreed solution; and, (3) He finds there are few reasons to suppose reality offers alternative interpretations of schemes.9 

Polkinghorne concludes,

Provided our concept of the rational is wide enough to comprehend the actual discourse of human reason, it is possible to adopt a position intermediate between the propositional cognitive and cultural-linguist views of theology.  One might call it the critically realist view.10

1.2 Polkinghorne as scientist.

Polkinghorne is a noted mathematician and scientist in the study of quantum physics.11  He writes that the scientific method observes data and then synthesizes data into physical laws and theories.  Once an event or thing is understood, then ethicists can assert their insight in discerning moral tenants.   Even Aquinas acknowledged this in his peripatetic axiom, “Nihil est in intellectu quod non fuerit prius in sensu.”  (Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses.)  Like Aquinas, Polkinghorne first starts with understanding what the senses teach.  This partially changes the concept of Natural Law as recognized in theology.  Natural Law would continue to represent the Universe as God created it.  The scientific method reveals the universe as it is, not as we would have it.  It supports the efforts of humans to develop a conscience of good and evil based on reality as we know it now and will know it through our developing knowledge.12

1 John C. Polkinghorne, One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology (West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press, 1986), ix.

2 Polkinghorne, One World, x.

3 Polkinghorne, One World, x.

4 John C. Polkinghorne, Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science and Religion (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2005), 6.

5 Polkinghorne, One World, x.

6 John C. Polkinghorne, Reason and Reality: The Relationship Between Science and 6 Theology (London, England: SPCK/Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1991), 11.

7 Ian Markham, Truth and the Reality of God: An Essay in Natural Theology (Edinburgh, Scotland: T & T Clark, 1998), 49.

8 Polkinghorne, One World, 8.

9 Polkinghorne, Reason and Reality, 8.

10  Polkinghorne, Reason and Reality, 11, 14.

11 John C. Polkinghorne, From Physicist to Priest, An Autobiography (London, England: SPCK, 2007), 70.

12 Polkinghorne, One World, xv.

Polkinghorne accepts the scientific leap of faith that the universe works by consistent physical laws.  While many of these laws are still a mystery, all are discoverable and understandable.  Within this construct he finds one true God, the creator of all reality, whose truth offers a unity of knowledge to the world.13  For Polkinghorne, both science and religion explore aspects of reality and provide a mutually beneficial interaction.14  Polkinghorne argues that his truth embraces the concept of God.

1.3 Polkinghorne’s understanding of the nature of the physical world.

Polkinghorne asserts it is faulty to assume that anything not strictly scientific, wholly objective, and measurable is merely someone’s opinion.15 He traces this presumption from the French Enlightenment and its narrow, dogmatic belief that science and objectivity was the bastion of truth.  However, for Polkinghorne there exists a relationship between science and religion, interwoven in subtle ways.16 Unlike the implied arrogance of Stephen Hawking in seeking a theory of everything, Polkinghorne does not reach for all answers, but with measured discipline seeks to increase his knowledge and understanding of the Universe.  Polkinghorne describes it as “a tightening grasp of a never completely comprehended reality.”17 Using his sophisticated mathematical knowledge, Polkinghorne points to those areas of science that are unprovable and cites propositions that can be stated, but neither proved nor disproved.  As he succinctly puts it, “Truth transcends theorem-hood.”18

13 Polkinghorne, One World, xvii.

14 Polkinghorne, One World, xv.

15 Polkinghorne, One World, 8.

16 Polkinghorne, One World, 8, 9, 14.

17 Polkinghorne, One World, 11, 30.

18 Polkinghorne, One World, 31.

Polkinghorne describes the physical world and the science that delves into understanding it as having ten general characteristics, considered separately below.

1.  Elusive:   Within the quantum world where Polkinghorne worked and explored as a scientist, the question remains, “What reality is to be assigned to such a quantum world?”19 Polkinghorne assumes that most people will have difficulty understanding the quantum world, and thus he explains that this world does not give us things that we can hold, but instead only abstract descriptions from which other things are built.  It is a world of possibilities.20  To Polkinghorne, the quantum world is elusive, subtle, and different from our understanding of the world that we can see and hold.21

2. Intelligible:   Polkinghorne asserts that science depends on being intelligible. For him mathematics is the key to discovery of the physical universe22 and the language of the cosmos.23  Note, however, that intelligibility, while required by science, is an act of faith itself.  Like religion, science assumes order in the cosmos.  Polk states, “…science assumes the world’s intelligibility as part of its initial act of faith.”24

This leads directly to a fundamental truth in Polkinghorne’s view of the world.  He quotes Eric Mascall to make his point that the world’s “objectivity is not manifested by observers having the same sensory experience of it, but by their being able, through their diverse sensory experiences, to acquire a common understanding (sic) of it.”25

This constitutes the fundamental building block of Polkinghorne’s view of knowledge:  a common understanding of the Universe builds a common unity of knowledge.  Observers—here meaning people from many cultures with their many viewpoints—may experience the world through their senses differently, but objectively the world works through a common understanding of how events occur. This is Polkinghorne’s fundamental truth of the unity of knowledge.25

3. Problematic: Polkinghorne points out that conflicting views and differing interpretations of understanding the world are particularly strenuous in the quantum world where we cannot see, touch, or have direct knowledge of the quantum world.  The same could be said for the astronomical world of the cosmos.  Learning about our world is a process, and science participates in that process over time.26

19 Polkinghorne, One World, 53.

20 Polkinghorne, One World, 53-4.

21 Polkinghorne, One World, 54.

22 Polkinghorne, One World, 55.

23 Polkinghorne, One World, 56.

24 Polkinghorne, One World, 56.

25 Polkinghorne, One World, 56, quoting E. L. Mascall, Christian Theology and Natural Science (New York: Longman, 1956), 175

26 Polkinghorne, One World, 59-60.

4. Surprising: Be prepared for possibilities, for understanding the world is full of surprises.27

5.  Chance and necessity:  Whether a result of hidden variables or chance and necessity within a complex system of evolution, “Without chance there would be no change and development; without necessity there would be no preservation and selection.  They are the yin and yang of evolution.”28

6. The Vastness of the Universe: With 21^st century astronomy, we now understand that the scale of human existence within the universe is so small that Polkinghorne asks whether there is any purpose or significance to our lives.29

7. Tightly knit: The cosmic explosion of the Big Bang gifted to the cosmos systems as complex and as interesting as humans themselves.  This explosion was hot enough to fill the entire cosmos with sustained nuclear reaction for an estimated three minutes.30  Now called the anthropic principle, these three gifted minutes produced a tightly knit world of highly particular characteristics that allowed for the evolution of life.  Polkinghorne believes this was not a random event of three minutes, but three divine minutes constructed to form an evolving cosmos that in turn provided for the evolution of life and ultimately the evolution of humans.31

8. Futility (or our collective fate): Ultimately, the earth and cosmos will become uninhabitable, and all will return to its original, singular point of explosion.32  Polkinghorne grapples with this notion with a morose sense of fatalism and quotes theologian John Macquarie, who morns that such an all-enveloping death would abolish Christian hope.  Even Polkinghorne wonders if this is the demise of God.

Apparently not wanting to reach beyond science into revelation of a cosmic end, Polkinghorne does not write of this predicted demise as the coming of Salvation or of God.  Polkinghorne avoids asking if science has now discovered the true Revelation and the ultimate coming of God.  He does not consider in his written works whether with the death of the cosmos eternal life is established.  This Christian vision is omitted, no doubt in part because it is a question not susceptible to scientific analysis.

27 Polkinghorne, One World, 60.

28 Polkinghorne, One World, 61.

29 Polkinghorne, One World, 66.

30 Polkinghorne, One World, 67.

31 Polkinghorne, One World, 70.

32 Polkinghorne, One World, 70.

33 Polkinghorne, One World, 71, citing J. Macquarie, Principles of Christian Theology, 2^nd ed. (London: SCM, 1977), 256.

9.  Complete… and

10. Incomplete: Both sections are interpreted together.  Science has begun to unravel the working of the physical world, and what Polkinghorne terms “the great cultural achievement of our century.”34  He stands in awe of all that knowledge brings: “One of the fundamental experiences of the scientific life is that of wonder at the beautiful structure of the world.”35 Yet this story is also incomplete, and like all in our universe, it is a process subject to change and continued discovery.  Polkinghorne concludes his thoughts with the caution, that “Scientism is the mistaken attempt to exalt science into a complete philosophy.  It will not work… .”36

For Polkinghorne science is not ever in a state of stasis.  It is always in a process of changing, learning and expanding knowledge.  It is a subtle and complex process of seeking answers to the mysteries of the Universe while asking the significant and difficult questions of human existence.  Science is a search for understanding that uses experiments and data to accurately predict outcomes.  While our knowledge and understanding of the world can become increasingly accurate, it is a process like a tightening grasp of a reality so complex and large that it cannot be totally comprehended.37

Bottom up and top down thinking.

Polkinghorne repeatedly describes himself as a bottom-up thinker, first seeking to approach issues from his experience—starting with the least complex-- and then expanding his thinking to understanding larger, more complex principles.  This is fundamental to his scientific training.38 However, as a critical realist, he also seeks to make a scientific case that understanding can also come from top-down thinking, meaning here beginning with the more complex and descending downward to the simpler, synthesized, fundamental core.  Thus, Polkinghorne poses that thought and ideas emerge from both bottom-up and top-down thinking.

Polkinghorne suggests that this complex flow of learning and understanding is analogous to an understanding of how both humans and God may act in the world.39  He states, “I maintain that this picture of information-flow is a plausible way of making sense of otherwise unsubstantiated claims of a downward-acting causation, either human or divine.”40 Thus, Polkinghorne seeks to extend scientific analysis of bottom-up thinking to include top-down thinking.  If humans can understand this complex interaction of thought, it can be analogized to how God interacts with humans from both the bottom-up (as God listening to individuals) and top-down (as God’s divine intervention).

On the other hand, Polkinghorne criticizes the dogmatic view that something we do not understand is “God given” or of divine intervention.  This position cuts off further analysis or investigation.  As a scientist, to investigate and learn that which we do not understand is Polkinghorne’s life’s work: “Rational inquiry is not characterized by an unwillingness to take intellectual risks…but bold enough to venture on the construction of a metaphysical scheme….”41

1.4 Polkinghorne’s truth within the integration of science and religion.

Polkinghorne organizes and justifies his world of scientific thought to account for the mysteries of the religious world, as seen in the next chapter.  Like science, theology is a process, and like science, in theology “nothing is immutable.”42  Here, Polkinghorne here casts doubt upon tradition and states, “…every image of God is an idol which eventually has to be broken in the search for Reality.”43  Polkinghorne consciously accepts the fundamental assumption that all scientists make.  It is their unspoken act of faith that the world is comprehensible, intelligible, and tightly formed.  Thus, for Polkinghorne his quest for truth is a fully integrated search using scientific thought to seek reality based on the assumption that the divine gently holds the mystery of creation.

34 Polkinghorne, One World, 72.

35 Polkinghorne, One World, 72

36 Polkinghorne, One World, 73.

37 Polkinghorne, One World, 21-22

38 Polkinghorne, One World, x.  Polkinghorne, Reason and Reality, 39.

39 Polkinghorne, Reason and Reality, 2.

40 Polkinghorne, Reason and Reality, 2.

41 Polkinghorne, Reason and Reality, 11.

42 Polkinghorne, One World, 34.

43 Polkinghorne, One World, 34.

Chapter 2

Polkinghorne and God

Introduction

This chapter considers Polkinghorne’s approach to religion, beginning with his distinct view of natural theology.  As a scientist he uses his knowledge of the physical world as insights into God’s creation and thus into God.  God’s will for creation is shown in the patterns of the universe, both the vast cosmos and the tiniest quarks and gluons of the quark world.  The Anthropic Principle demonstrates the astounding complexity necessary for the universe to come into being and to evolve and sustain life.  The process of kenosis allows humans the freedom of choice within their own experience.  Lastly, this chapter considers Polkinghorne’s view of the transcendent and miracles, and the existence of evil.

Polkinghorne rejects philosophical grandeur and poetic symbolism in his construct of natural theology.  He humbly sets forth an integrated unity of knowledge in which both mind and matter, both science and religion, complement each other.  He perceives the physical world as part of a wider universe held by the creative will of God.  As Polkinghorne put it, “But then, I have always preferred a hut on the ground to a castle in the sky.”44

Polkinghorne’s Natural Theology and His View of God

Polkinghorne seeks the rational inquiry of religion that is bold enough to construct a metaphysical scheme.45  He adopts the structure of the physical world to understand God.  As the world is God’s creation, it is also a means for God to disclose Himself.  By definition, as discussed above, science reveals limited insight.  It is impersonal and inherently without ethics.  Science allows for the understanding of God’s work, but theology gives to our understanding of compassion and purpose.48

This concept of natural theology is more restrained and attuned to scientific thought and discovery.  Polkinghorne does not try to prove God’s existence, but rather seeks signs of divine creation by understanding our world and the cosmos.49  Polkinghorne rests his Christian doctrine within the construct of natural theology.  He poses that theologians might look to the success of science and embrace the tight, intellectual rational for the universe with an openness toward understanding it.50  Since the universe is God’s creation, God can be found there and better understood through its study.  To Polkinghorne, science is a path to God as a way to seek knowledge of Him through His creation.

Traditionally, natural theology asserts the existence of God based on observation of nature and humans. Somewhat changed within this century’s context of scientific discoveries, natural theology relies on the assumption that the world was created and now sustained by a bounteous and generous God.51  It incorporates both science and parts of the scientific method and theology, forming an integrated view of our universe.  Polkinghorne’s distinct view of natural theology is less focused on proving the existence of God, and more focused on seeing God’s hand in creation though science.52  Specifically, he closely considers the very small quantum world and the contrasting vast cosmos of the galaxies.53

44 John C. Polkinghorne, Science and Creation: The Search for Understanding (London, UK: SPCK, 1988), 100.

45 Polkinghorne, Reason and Reality, 11.

46 Polkinghorne, Science and Creation, 2.

47 Polkinghorne, Science and Creation, 103-105.

48 Hans Schwartz, “Karl Heim and John Polkinghorne: Theology and Natural Sciences in Dialogue,”  Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Vol. 9, Iss. 1/2 (1997): 105-119.  ProQuest 214949117_1.pdf  32/62

  and 36/62.  (accessed July 3, 2018).

49 Schwartz, “Heim and Polkinghorne in Dialogue,” 29/62.

50 Schwartz, “Heim and Polkinghorne in Dialogue,” 29/62.

51 Peter Barrett, “John Polkinghorne’s Contribution to a New-Style Arts—Including Natural Theology,”

   Religion and Theology, 17 (2010), 426.

52 Polkinghorne builds on a trajectory of Anglican-American theologians and philosophers.  For example,

   note Basil Mitchell and Arthur Peacocke, biologist.

53 Schwarz, “Heim and Polkinghorne in Dialogue,” 20/62.

The conclusion of Polkinghorne’s integration of science and religion within Christian tradition is an all-encompassing narrative of the cosmos.  Beginning with Polkinghorne’s view of God, he seeks the existence of God within the design and appearance of the physical world rather than from revelation.  In this view the world is God’s creation and thus a means for God to disclose himself to humans.55

Polkinghorne’s vision adds another level of comprehension to this concept.  Integrated with science, its goal is to “produce an overarching, widely inclusive, theistic account of our multileveled evolutionary world—a theological ‘theory of everything’ – on the assumption that the world is the creation of a beneficent Creator.”56  Polkinghorne does not seek to prove the existence of God, but rather to construct a context in which our religious beliefs as Christians accommodate our current understanding of the cosmos.57 Within this construct is the idea of using universal truths as supported by science, reason, and ethics to inquire into the philosophical and theological structure of our world.

The next section herein develops Polkinghorne’s integration and synthesis of thought within the Christian concepts of belief, scripture, and the Trinity.  At the center of this theology is the heart of a man who believes in the doctrine of Christ as the son of God, crucified and resurrected,58 and who seeks Christ through the path of science.  The Anthropic Principle brings the tightly knit complexity of the universe as the sign of “a world shot through with signs of mind, and, maybe, it’s a capital M Mind of God we are seeing.”59

54 Barrett, “Polkinghorne’s Contribution,” 425.

55 Polkinghorne, Science and Creation, 2.

56 Barrett, “Polkinghorne’s Contribution,” 426.

57 John C. Polkinghorne, Science and the Trinity: The Christian Encounter with Reality (New Haven, CN:   Yale University Press, 2004), 62.

58 Barrett, “Polkinghorne’s Contribution,” 434.

59 Dean Nelson and Karl Giberson, Quantum Leap: How John Polkinghorne Found God in Science and Religion (Oxford, England: Monarch Books, 2011), 113.

Polkinghorne’s Natural Theology and the Anthropic Principle

The anthropic principle considers scientific analysis of the unique and delicate physical balance of the universe sustaining a process of “evolving systems… [including] complexity sufficient to sustain conscious life.”60  To create our universe, the Big Bang would have to “correspond to [an] incredible degree of accuracy… .”61 The Big Bang and its resulting universe was only possible if it conformed to basic laws of physics with a nearly incredible degree of accuracy. The concept of the anthropic principle forms natural theology’s basic premise of the intelligible, tightly knit structure of the universe.62  Polkinghorne forthrightly considers whether this view will survive the advance of knowledge.  Beyond this, he considers whether our knowledge will meet the limits of human capacity for rational comprehension of it.64

It is his faith in knowledge that inspires Polkinghorne to pursue a “unity of knowledge.”65  From his usual solid, down-to-earth position, Polkinghorne modestly implies, yet does not confront, whether this quest leads one closer to God.  He cites Jesuit Bernard Lonergan for whom the quest for knowledge is the quest for God—"the unrestricted act of understanding.”66  The anthropic universe is God’s gift of freedom to humans that allows for each to experience life.67  Next considered is kenosis which poses that this gift of freedom is made as a self-limiting, vulnerable act of God to allow humans the freedom of choice within their own experience.

Polkinghorne’s Natural Theology and Kenotic Divine Action

In his act of creation, Polkinghorne conceives of God as having made room for those other than Himself.  Within the notion of kenosis, God humbly emptied Himself to create our universe, offering His own self-limitation in the giving of creative love.  By analogy, Polkinghorne compares this to the act of Christ giving his life upon the cross.  It is a vulnerable act, freely given.68  As part of this act, God allows humans and all He created to be themselves and to evolve an autonomous reality.  Polkinghorne cites the example of baptismal vows, noting that they are a conscious choice made by a person to change.  Here, baptismal vows are an example of God allowing conscious choice for a person to change, and this process exemplifies religious theology conforming to the scientific basis that allows for change.  God thus self-limits his divine control as an act of love rather than seeking to exercise a divine tyranny.69  God is here seen as humble in that he allows his creatures the experience of their own sacred consciousness.70

Polkinghorne brings us within the quantum world of physics to demonstrate how science learns of this cosmic sense of change – even novelty-- within the Universe.  He suggests that God must act within the existing laws of the universe, thus explaining the natural causality of earth-born suffering such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods.  It also allows for research and development of a scientific theory of evolution to hold a theologically consistent understanding with the concept of a loving god who allows for autonomous development.  The point of connection between natural causes and theological thought remains unresolved in Polkinghorne’s works likely until further scientific investigation provides more knowledge.71 As Polkinghorne stated, “The cloudiness of unpredictability veils us from being able to make such decomposition.”72  With an understanding of what he does not know, Polkinghorne then turns to issues of transcendent reality, miracles and prayer.

60 Polkinghorne, Science and Creation, 31.

61 Polkinghorne, Science and Creation, 32.

63 Polkinghorne, Science and Creation, 40.

64 Polkinghorne, Science and Creation, 42.

65 Polkinghorne, Science and Creation, 43.

66 Polkinghorne, Science and Creation, 43.

67 Polkinghorne, Science and Creation, 80.

68 Polkinghorne, Science and Creation, 75-76

69 Ignacio Silva, “John Polkinghorne on Divine Action:  A Coherent Theological Evolution.” Science & Christian Belief 24, No. 1 (2012): 22.  Citing John Polkinghorne, Faith, Science and   Understanding (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2000) 111.

70 John C. Polkinghorne, Science and Providence: God’s Interaction with the World (West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press, 1989), 4.

71 Silva, “Polkinghorne on Divine Action,” 29-30.

72 John Polkinghorne, ed., The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis (London, England: SPCK/Eerdmans, 2001) 100-101.

Transcendent Reality and Miracles and Prayer

It is science that takes humans on their journey to knowledge.  Science cannot bring one to an encounter with God, it cannot demonstrate the divine.73 Yet even here, Polkinghorne finds the “rudiments of a mystical methodology”74 that relate to scientific method.  Polkinghorne quotes Bernard Lonergan, “If the real is completely intelligible, then God exists.”75

Polkinghorne acknowledges there are widespread claims within religious thought concerning encounters with transcendent reality.76  In his own words, “Of course, one must also recognize great variations in the manner in which this experience is apprehended and expressed.”77  Polkinghorne writes that the mystical experience should be understood as experiencing “the unity with the ground of all being.”78  He submits to the process of seeking faith through understanding (Fides quaerens intellectum).  He conceives this process as a reflection upon all forms of religious experience and dimensions.  Polkinghorne specifically writes of our human encounter “with the numinous presence of an Other; the recognition of unity with a reality transcending oneself, and the perception of a purpose at work in the world.”79

73 Schwarz, “Heim and Polkinghorne in Dialogue,” 30 and 31/62.

74 Polkinghorne, One World, 36.

75 Polkinghorne, Reason and Reality, 11, quoting Bernard Lonergan, Insight, 1958, 672.

76 Polkinghorne, One World, 35.

77 Polkinghorne, One World, 35.

78 Polkinghorne, One World, 36.

79 Polkinghorne, One World, 35.

Polkinghorne considers forthrightly that miracles present theological as well as scientific issues.  How do events that defy scientific explanation occur if the physical laws of the universe remain constant?  If God created the cosmos in a manner we can learn to understand, then God is envisioned as consistent and reliable. 

If Christians theologically subscribe to miracles, Polkinghorne suggests that Christians then find God more of a selective interventionist more common in pagan traditions.80  As a scientist Polkinghorne finds faith that the universe acts in accordance with consistent laws of physics and assumes that humans can discern this knowledge.  However, he concedes that miracles “must be perceptions of a deeper rationality than that which we encounter in the everyday occasions which make visible a more profound level of divine activity.”81 Polkinghorne specifically cites his belief in the miracle of Christ’s resurrection consistent with Christian theology as God’s action within the body of Christ.82

The issue becomes not one of miracles—whether to believe them or not – but one of transcendence.  Polkinghorne accepts the miracle of Christ’s transcendence as he believes that the boundaries of science do change and are not set so tightly that our understanding can or will allow for the personal God of love to intervene in the action of the universe.  While God’s action is consistent, it may also be surprising and unexpected.83

Through prayer we can seek God’s intervention, yet to Polkinghorne prayer is the “aligning of our wills with God’s” and the resolve to obey in the accomplishment of His will.84   After writing more than 38 books on theology, his long obedience is astonishing.  Actions speak louder than words—or in this case both speak loudly.  The miracles of Polkinghorne’s works are born of his personal resolve to obey.  However, as in the face of miracles, not all is perfect and not all sin.

80 Polkinghorne, Science and Providence, 60.

81 Polkinghorne, Science and Providence, 60.

82 Polkinghorne, Science and Providence, 60, 63.

83 Polkinghorne, Science and Providence, 68.

84 Polkinghorne, Science and Providence, 5, 81.

Evil

As if a ratio of a theological equation, Polkinghorne states without equivocation that the more Christians emphasize the importance of love and goodness within our world, the more important the issue of evil.  His response to evil relies on both his natural theology and his faith as a scientist in the discoverable physical laws of the universe.  He believes that God allows the universe to be itself in the gift of God’s self-limitation.  It is the gift of free will and freedom to His creatures.  As an extension of the anthropic principle, the evolution of human ability to define human morality is achieved through the process of chance and necessity.85  Yet he expresses the pain of this belief in his short quotation of Dorothy Soelle, “No heaven can rectify Auschwitz.”86 Polkinghorne finds the inhumanity of humans towards each other mirrored by the suffering of Christ,87 yet he does not push beyond this point.  He does not consider the healing that science has brought.  For example, he does mention the cure for disease, the prediction of weather and the like.  Polkinghorne poses there is only one line of thought that can justify suffering: that it somehow generates a greater good within a broader context.88

Conclusion: The Unity of Knowledge

For Polkinghorne, belief sounds in nature as actually experienced and thus is experienced similarly by all people.  It is the understanding of nature that leads to a connection with a transcendent Other as the organizer and Creator of the Universe.  This presents a wide, inclusive context in which all can seek support.89 In the next chapter, Polkinghorne’s integration and relationship of science with religion are examined as the “unity of knowledge” that all people through earthly time and place experience.  He states, “I’m a very passionate believer in the unity of knowledge.  There is one world of reality – one world of our experience that we are seeking to describe.”90

85 Polkinghorne, Science and Providence, 77.

86 Polkinghorne, Science and Providence, 74.

87 Polkinghorne, Science and Providence, 79.

88 Polkinghorne, Science and Providence, 73.

89 Ian S. Markham, Understanding Christian Doctrine, 2d ed. (West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2017), 2.

90 Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne.  http://po.st/0PAh5f via @BrainyQuote (accessed June 13, 2018).