Philosophy, Science and Divine Action  . Edited by F. LeRonShults, NanceyMurphy, and Robert JohnRussell . Leiden/Boston : Brill , 2009 . vi + 443 pages. $212.00 .

There is no way to do any justice in a brief book review to this remarkable volume containing ten extensive essays by outstanding scholars in the fields of mathematics, physics, astronomy, philosophy, and theology on the topic of the intelligibility of divine action in light of findings of modern sciences such as quantum physics and chaos theory. A listing of the contributors’ names has, therefore, to serve as a shorthand indication of the quality and truly amazing depth of many of the reflections published therein. I. G. Barbour, A. R. Peacocke, J. Polkinghorne, W. R. Stoeger, W. J. Wildman, P. Clayton, Th. F. Tracy, N. Murphy, G. F. R. Ellis, and R. J. Russell supplied the papers, while F. LeRon Shults prefaced the volume with a “Philosophical introduction to ‘Divine action’” (1–15).

This introduction along with the historical background information provided by R. J. Russell in the Appendix (407–26) will best get the noninitiated readers right into this demanding discourse between contemporary sciences and current reflection in Christian (philosophical) theology. Except for the introduction, all essays had served previously as critically reviewed and reworked material for discussions on divine action in a very ambitious, grand scale international dialogue stretching over a period of twenty years between scientists, philosophers, and theologians sponsored jointly by the Center for Theology and Natural Sciences, Berkeley, California, and the Vatican Observatory, Rome, Italy. The papers, thus, represent the end result of a critical process among participating peers of the said project. To honor them appropriately would require examining the individual contributions in detail that is beyond the scope here. The reviewer therefore can only point to some basic general aspects.

This book makes very stimulating reading for versatile readers who are willing to engage in arduous intellectual pursuits in philosophy, modern sciences, and theology such as quantum physics (indeterminism; field theory), complex systems (autopoiesis), chaos theory, and their bearings on the concept of divine action and intervention (resurrection, miracles) as commonly understood in Christian theology. What is missing, however, is a principal reflection on the hermeneutical issue that lies at the root of any “dialogue” across the aisle of science and theology. Robert Russell, who served on the steering committee of the project (together with Murphy and Stoeger), remarks in passing that “often the conversations got bogged down over terminology” (410). Nevertheless, it is quite a different matter to talk conceptual definitions or hermeneutics that addresses the basic differences and incompatibilities of the diverse language worlds of science and theology. There is, of course, some explanation while this issue has been left out, because the project is heavily indebted to the Roman Catholic theological tradition (see R. Russell's remarks 407–10) with its characteristic emphasis on natural law or law(s) of nature, respectively (236f, 263f, 277f, 420). This omission resulted in tainting several papers unduly apologetic, such as Wesley Wildman's on “Evaluating the theological argument for divine action” (141–89), Nancey Murphy's on “Divine action in the natural order” (263–303), and George Ellis’s on “Ordinary and extraordinary Divine action” (305–49) to name just a few. The authors’ obvious interest appears not to be genuine dialogue with science, which they claim to do, but to demonstrate the thinkableness of conventional dogmatic phrasing in light of new scientific insights instead. In trying to maintain the language of old, these papers certainly appeal to conservative Christianity but miss the chance to spell out in a new way what faith in the presence of the living God might mean against the backdrop of findings by quantum physics, systems theory, and the like. That is regrettable. Hopefully, the next series of like conferences—on (natural) theodicy and on eschatology—that are already in the making (422) will pay due attention to this lacuna.

On a last note, while the book is well prepared overall—as to be expected from anything by this publisher—there are some chapters in which a number of completely unnecessary printing errors occur (notably Chapters 7 and 8) that are disturbing and distract the attentive reader. Details matter, especially when dealing with topics that demand outmost precision not just in measurement and intellectual comprehension but also in adequate communication.