Interview with Conor Cunningham: Contemporary Thinkers You Should Read

Dr. Conor Cunningham has written an important, recently-published book titled Darwin's Pious Idea: Why the Ultra-Darwinists and Creationists Both Get It Wrong.  It has recieved much attention recently, and I have had the pleasure of reading the book and interviewing Cunningham himself for this blog's series "Contemporary Thinkers You Should Read".  Conor is a lecturer in theology and religious studies at the University of Nottingham and is the assistant director of the Centre of Theology and Philosophy based out of the School of Theology and Religious Studies at Nottingham. He studied with both John Milbank and Graham Ward while completing his Ph.D. from Cambridge.  Dr. Cunningham has a background in law, and is very adept in his understanding of theology and philosophy.  Having met him, I can tell you that Conor is often the "life of party;" he is a jovial Irishman who is passionate about his faith and scholarship. "The Art Of the Good Life" is blessed to have the opportunity to interview Conor on his work on Darwinism.  I hope you enjoy this little encounter and are inspired to read his work...it is certainly worth the effort!  Please note, this interview was done in a certain, limiting fashion.  I sent the questions, and Conor sent the answers back, so if you see a lack of interaction, that is why....such is the way things are when you coordinate busy schedules and cross oceans for information!  (all bold type represents the blog, the regular type is Conor).

1.)    Dr. Cunningham, you’ve put forth great effort concerning the question of Christianity and Darwinism (an essay, a documentary, and a book)…what motivated you to take up this pursuit? 
Believe it or not, I became interested in evolution whilst having far too much Guinness on a Stag-Do (Bachelor Party) in Dublin. At the time I was completing my Ph. D. at Cambridge, and was for the most part oblivious of the controversies that had arisen from an apparent conflict between religion and Darwin’s work. In Dublin I met up with a very old friend of mine, from Northern Ireland. He was raised a good Christian lad, but when we got talking, you know- ‘what you are you doing these days?’ ‘Oh, I work for an investment bank. What are you doing?’ ‘I’m doing a doctorate in theology and philosophy.’ ‘Really, but I thought Darwin had got rid of theology.’ And that was that, because I was rather incensed, to say the least. So when I finished my studies, I began to read everything I could get my hands on that was about evolution, hence I ended up writing a book on it, and writing and presenting a BBC documentary on the topic. That’s what too much Guinness can do to you!

2.)    Being a theologian, it makes sense that you’d write on this subject, but what motivated the documentary with the BBC? (see it here.)

The BBC were running a series of programs on Darwin to celebrate the double anniversary, and they wanted to make one on the controversies surrounding religion and evolution, and they approached me, and the rest, as they say, is history.  (Dear readers, Conor also communicated to me that he was not interested in doing the documentary, at first.  But after seeing a Dawkins documentary on the BBC where Dawkins "interviewed" Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Conor felt moved to act.  In the Dawkins interview, he continually spoke over Rowan Williams and he gave him little respect...simply put, Rowan Williams has a far subtler and brilliant mind than Dawkins does...)

3.)     How was the documentary received in the U.K.?
The viewing figures were excellent for that type of documentary, and it won two broadcasting awards, it was then syndicated across the world.

4.)    You are a Christian and you also believe in evolution.  To you, why are the two not mutually exclusive?
It’s not that they are not mutually exclusive; rather, Christianity makes evolution, as a theory, more possible, metaphysically speaking. In other words, it is far easier to believe in evolution if one is a Christian, or indeed religious, in the Abrahamic sense, because left to itself, evolutionary theory threatens to lapse into nihilism, and that being the case there is quite simply nothing to evolve. Put differently, transcendence enables immanence, and that includes a natural world that evolves – otherwise there would only be a pure flux of materiality without real shape or form. That being the case, all objects or entities would only exist nominally. (TAOFTGL: this means, "in name only")

5.)    You say that the current debate (religion v. evolution) is defined by the creationists and ultra-Darwinists; can you describe what these two names mean?  Why are these two perspectives extreme?  What’s wrong with them?
Ultra-Darwinists endeavor to elevate a subset of scientific knowledge, indeed a subset of biological knowledge, one that is hemmed in by history, or the past, and beholden to an unknown future, and they elevate this forever provisional and partial theory to the status of a universal theory that is not only ubiquitous but all-powerful, in terms of its explanatory reach. In short, evolution is turned into metaphysics. This is a species of scientism – the belief that science is the only begetter of truth. Creationists share this view, hence their attempt to turn the book of Genesis into a proto-scientific textbook.  Moreover, the creationist understanding of theology is completely at odds with the Christian tradition, as of course is the ultra-Darwinist’s understanding of what the word God means, likewise Creation – for both, God seems to be nothing but a bigger version of us, whilst creation is some sort of physical event rather than a metaphysical one – the latter takes into account the radicalness of the refrain ‘In the beginning,' something which St. Augustine was profoundly able to do, hence his view of time in The Confessions – time is a creature of creation (thus there is no ‘before’ to Creation). Indeed, if the God of Creationists were proven to exist it would be the greatest argument for atheism ever, because any such God could not illicit worship in any true sense – this also stands for the God of ID. Another point of contact between both camps is a hate of matter, that is to say, both camps think the spiritual and the material are inimical (see below).

6.)    Could studying evolution help Christians understand their faith (theology) better? 
Well, insofar as it reveals our fears:  fear, fear of evolution, fear of being related to animals, to nature, or more generally, our fear of science, thus evolution offers to help free us from our pious, solipsistic ghettoes, as we stand self-satisfied preaching to the choir and probably telling silly jokes about Darwin and apes  to the congregation. Likewise, it can help to reveal our less than orthodox understanding of Christianity.

7.)    Can studying Christianity give insights into evolution?   
Let me put it this way, sometimes Christians find the idea of sharing a common ancestor with the Great apes to be an ontological slight, that is, an insult to the specialness of the human. Now, at first blush one can understand this, even though it is completely wrong, but then when you think about it there is a great deal of vanity and indeed hypocrisy at work. For example, we are quite happy to accept that a first century Palestinian Jew was God incarnate, and that the Logos became flesh. And had before doing so passed through the vagina of a woman to be born among the muck and mess of mammalian birth, and that he later walked among his contemporaries eating, sweating and defecating just like the rest of the animal world.

Moreover, we took this Jew and nailed him to a cross outside the city walls amongst the refuse. Surely, in light of the above, common ancestry seems a walk in the park.

Importantly, if we are as Christians to imitate Christ, which we must, it is crucial to recall that famous passage from the letter to the Philippians, that Christ took the form of servant, that is, God emptied himself, what is called kenosis. The point being that some translations of this passage have ‘Though he was in the form of God, he did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at; rather, he emptied himself and took the form of a slave, being born in the likeness in of man.’ This translation is correct, except for the word ‘Though’ which should read ‘Because’. Therefore, if we are to follow Christ we could put it this way: ‘Because man was made in the image of God, he did not deem his uniqueness something to be grasped; rather, humans emptied themselves and took the form of an animal, being born in the likeness of an ape.’

To repeat, how is it that the Incarnation is no big deal, it being devoid of shock, yet evolution remains shocking?

Not as such, but as said, it makes it easier to believe because it gifts us a reality that can actually evolve. Thinking about it, man, who is indeed made in the image of God and to His likeness, and yet is also a natural being, is analogous to Christ’s two natures that are to be found in one person.  Maybe embracing this truth, embracing our animality, doing so without fear, and indeed with thanks, we can in doing so evolve and develop more into a likeness of God.  After all, the Fathers thought that likeness was something to be achieved (apart from Gregory of  Nyssa, if I recall correctly).

8.)    If St. Augustine were alive today, what do you think he’d make of Darwinian Evolution?  What would he say about the current status of the debate: creation vs. evolution? 
He would be horrified at the conflict between science and religion, concluding, possibly, that most Christians are guilty of what I have called elsewhere ‘anonymous atheism’ (they as Christians believe in such a way that their belief amounts to nothing more than atheism – at least the demons trembled), and at the same time he would think the new atheists really need to either be quiet on theological matters or enroll in a theology department. Why would Augustine care about evolution, after all, we got on very well, thank you very much, for millennia without any proof that the world had a beginning – not that, as Aquinas pointed out, we needed one – unfortunately, Stephen Hawking has failed to grasp this point, doing so in a most accomplished fashion.

9.)    Dr. Cunningham, you have written a fantastic essay on nature-grace dualism.  In it, you show how that the proper Christian view of the world does not distinguish between the physical and the supernatural; that there is no such thing as “pure-nature.”  Rather, you show that all nature is proposed by grace, nothing exists of and by itself; nothing that is can escape the grace of being.  This false dualism makes it possible to conceive of a space in the world that is purely “natural” and therefore separate from God.  Is the evolution/creation argument really a complex, scientific expression of this “heterodoxical” dualism? 

But it is true to say that Augustine would be horrified at scientism, and how easy it is, these days, for science to fall into scientism, indeed that at times, culturally speaking, it almost seems to be its default position, an incoherent one, of course.

Yes, it is, completely. Christians have thought of God in Heaven, and we on Earth, etc., and in so doing have handed over the Earth to the ‘Devil,' read reductionism. Really, in truth it is the other way around: God is the only natural entity, because God is not created, God is ipsum esse (TAOFTGL: Existence Itself), actus purus (TAOFTGL: Pure Actuality), etc., and we have only a supernatural, borrowed existence (we call this participation – methexis) though one that is replete with real, particular, ontologically robust characteristics – after all God became human, so there must be a humanity, in a philosophical real sense, that is, not just some nominal tag - ‘humanity’ - but at the same time, and here’s the rub, he revealed humanity in its fullness. Actually, to be fair, we need to take that a step further, because without Christ there is no human—and if you don’t believe me, witness philosophy, science, etc. get rid of man, reducing humans to merely material, chemical conjurations or collections (though not only do I doubt the coherence of any such reduction, I also doubt the coherence of how the word ‘merely’ is operating here).

Mere matter is, it seems to me, a nonsense – one could even wonder if everything is merely material, is that statement, or that thought, also merely material, and here we head off in to the hellish nightmare that is called infinite regress – a merely material one, of course!

Put another way, if there is such a thing as mere matter, which there is not, and that we are reducible to this fiction called matter, if that is true, how in the name of all things pink could we ever discover that? After all, who is the ‘we’ in the last sentence, if matter is all there is?

10.) Is there a difference between subject and object, mind and thing in the world?  What does a Darwinian account of the world mean for “mind”?  Is there any common ground between Darwinian interpretation and a Christian one when it comes to mind?

No, when Darwinism is left to itself, there is no mind, only a mechanism that fulfills certain functions, and that being the case it is easily replaceable with anything which fulfills the same functions:  a computer, corkscrew, pencil, piece of shit. But this also includes the mind of Charles Darwin, which begs the question, to say the very least. 

11.)  I was thrilled with the humor and witty turns of phrase all throughout “Darwin’s Pious Idea,” one sentiment that I enjoy the most is: ‘matter is never mere,’ or ‘why should matter be mere?,’ can you tell us more about this from a theological and evolutionary perspective?
Well, we have, to paraphrase Edmund Husserl, a natural attitude towards matter – that is, we think we know what it means; that being the case ideologies colonize that familiarity and lo and behold nihilism is upon us. But in truth, we have no idea what matter is. And secondly, why should matter be bad (see above), indeed how would that be falsifiable? In other words, for matter to be bad then a sort of Gnostic spiritualism would have to prevail – and there’s not much of an Incarnation in that, not to mention Creation.

12.)  Why do some Christians read Genesis 1 and 2 literally?  Is there another way to read these texts without rejecting their actual claims?
These texts are profound metaphysical revelations of both God, and our relation to God. Indeed, the gospel of John is basically a commentary on Genesis, and in so being, the revelation of what it is about (which in the end is Christ, as the Fathers argued was indeed the case).

13.) Does allegorical reading of scripture preclude Historical-grammatical criticism of scripture?
This is the wrong question: without a proper metaphysics, as Maurice Blondel taught us, not to mention Origen, there is no such thing as the allegorical – it’s all nonsense. The literal is not what we think; rather, it is a massively expensive ontology, which, I believe, and I think demonstrably, that unless there is a personal God who is infinite and eternal love itself there is no such thing as the literal, never mind the bourgeoisie masturbation of the allegorical – once again the ultras and the creationists are blowing the hot wind of ignorance up their own……..well, I’ll leave it to your imagination….

14.) Where did theology go wrong?  When did it begin reflecting on Genesis as a literal telling of and dating of the world? 
I don’t think theology ever went wrong, as it were, theology has always been correct and wrong. Of course, it is true that certain periods of time can represent in a more intense way the perpetration of a particular shortcoming. With regard to a literal reading of Genesis, the Reformation certainly began to encourage that, as a skinny notion of Christianity, and therefore truth, etc., flourished, we see that in the general abandonment of a metaphysical view of the universe, with it great complexity and wonder, for a dry, one dimensional literalism, one arguably stemming from an imitation of science – the Bible became the Christian’s Principia – Newton, not the Fathers or Doctors of the Church became our model – now we no longer had a sophisticated hermeneutic, we had no need of tradition, mediation, and so on, no the Bible was there and all we had to do was open it  and read it on our own, and lo and behold, revelation was immediate and clear.  But the Twentieth century really topped the whole error off, doing so in spades. In fact, the crude reductionism evident in such modernist literalism is mirrored in the materialist reductionism evident in scientism, wherein we are but DNA, atoms, or what have you…..

15.) How should contemporary Christians engage Darwinism?  First, could you give us insights into how academic theologians should do this, then how could you consider the local church?
Theologians need to make sure they have a firm grasp of the tradition, so that their understanding of God or creation, the development of doctrine, and so on is adequate, as that tends to remove many the problems to begin with. Christians should engage with those who use Darwinism as a tool against Christianity, because apart from that Darwinism is not really of much interest to the Christian specifically, except that we would expect theologians to be interested, to say the least in how the natural world works, as it is after God’s gift to us. Like St. Paul instructing us to become familiar with the poets and thinkers of strange lands so that we understand those people and can engage with them, we too must learn discourses that appear strange, at least at first, otherwise we are not open to our neighbors, nor are we open to that which is different – and as I said above, love must drive out fear, and some do tend to fear evolution. I think local churches should all run courses on creation, and then as part of that discuss evolution. It is crucial that we as the body of Christ actually know what we are talking about, and also that we are willing to engage, for again, we have nothing to fear.

16.) If contemporary Christian reflection needs revision, does contemporary evolutionary biology? 
Well, generally speaking, all science by definition requires revision, so yes.  More  particularly the shallow, 19^th century mindset most evident in people such as Dawkins needs to be challenged – with its old fashioned understanding of science, its ignorance of philosophy, and total ignorance  of theology, its atomistic thinking, its myopic rigid dualisms (of which religious people can also be guilty) – yes this all needs revision – Dawkins needs to go to university not only to learn theology, but leaving that out, he needs to go and learn about the philosophy of science, and then retire to a monastery and fast and remain silent for a year as penance. With regard  to evolution, there is certainly a need for an expanded evolutionary synthesis – as it’s not just about genes and natural selection, it’s about developmental biology, systems biology, emergence, convergence, constraints, the arrival of the fittest, and not just the survival of the fittest, not to mention the evolution of the fittest (for example, when an independent entity  gives up its freedom over time, becoming instead part of a larger organism – cancer, in a sense, is a reversal of this process, as cancerous cells fail to act in cooperation, just as burglary is in relation to society), etc., etc…

17.) What are some of the weaknesses in current evolutionary thought? 
I think I’ve probably answered that.

18.) Your work on Christianity and evolution has garnered much attention, and this, in my opinion, is good.  So if our readers wish to break into the conversation, where should they begin?  Is there a good “introduction” in your work, perhaps and popular level exposition of the problem?
As yet there is no short introduction, though there is talk of me doing that at some point. But the general, interested reader, though being unfamiliar, at first, with many of the terms and concepts (just as I was), should be able to pick up many useful, indeed crucial points for the edification of their faith – least that’s what my Mum said, but I guess she would…..

19.)  You have engaged biology theologically, what is next for your research?
Please don’t tell my wife, but I’m going to write a book which for its sins bears the provisional title:

Whither the Soul? The End of Death.

I will be looking at how the tradition has interpreted the soul and how that thinking should engage today’s thought, especially as so many philosophers, scientists, et al., don’t even think we have a mind, not to mention the soul. So it will be constructive insofar as it will argue for the existence of the soul and present what it takes to be the most helpful account, garnered no doubt from the Fathers and Doctors of the church, as well as contemporary philosophy, and it will be negative in that it will offer a critique to atheist materialism.

20.) What has this research meant for you personally?  Has your faith been deepened, challenged, or affirmed? 
My faith has deepened most certainly, as when I set out on this journey, well, I was as scared as the next guy, and probably more ignorant of Darwinism. But having to not only learn what were strange discourses, but also being forced to dig deep  into the faith of the church, the faith of tradition it has been amazingly edifying, and most enlightening. I can’t believe how little I knew, but of course I can’t fall into the mistake of thinking I’m not still so very ignorant, hence I’m off to read up on the soul.

Cheers.

Thanks Conor.  You have been most helpful and engaging...Thanks for your time and patience.  If you want to read Conor's recent paper (presented at the Centre of Theology and Philosophy, Krakow Conference, find it on ABC's Reiligion and Ethics here.  It is a shorter piece (shorter than his book) on the same topic.  Or if you want to read Rowan Williams' review of Conor's work, check it out here