The following is a list of research questions, which is intended to be a non-exhaustive sample of questions to stimulate ideas for applications for project grants, scholarships, fellowships, papers for workshops, and other activities:

  • The Origin and Concept of Life
    • What is natural, human, and divine life, how do we recognise life, and what do we know or could we know of the origins of life?
    • What are the merits and demerits of the most influential paradigms (e.g. thermodynamics) for answering Schrödinger’s question, “What is life?”
    • Might mathematical ‘life’ be possible, implemented on some suitable hardware, or interchangeable between different hardware platforms?
    • The nature of ‘natures’: is the Aristotelian notion of a ‘nature’ (phusis) redundant in modern science or are there now new possibilities for the notion of natures?
    • Can a ‘nature’ be distinguished adequately from a ‘machine’? Is some form of teleology required to distinguish a nature adequately from a machine?
    • Is it possible to have some of the traditional attributes of rational living beings, such as intellect and will, in the absence of a body even in principle?
    • Is life inherently differentiated and complex and, if so, is there any sense in the traditional theological claim that the living God is also ‘simple’?
    • Does matter have a propensity for life? Is matter necessary for any being that could be described as alive, in the broadest sense of the term?
    • “The mystery of life’s origin is the most consequential facing science” (cf. Harold 2001, The Way of the Cell, 235): is this claim still true today?
    • What are the theological ramifications of adopting a divine non-interventionist model vis-à-vis those of adopting an interventionist model for the origin of life?
    • Besides the intervention model, what other models of special divine action (SDA) might be viable for divine action beyond deism regarding the origin of life?
    • Is there more than one ‘tree of life’ on earth and how might we test this? Are there philosophical and theological implications for more than one tree of life?
    • Is the ‘tree of life’ better thought of as a ‘bush of life’ (cf. S. Gould), in which there is no genuine ‘progress’ or ‘direction’ in any way, for whatever cause?
    • On evolution, is the ‘theistic’ qualifier of ‘theistic evolution’ epiphenomenal? Is ‘theistic evolution’ oxymoronic? Does a theistic perspective ‘add value’ in some way?
    • Is the process and means by which hominization occurs still a key problem in evolutionary thought generally and for theistic evolution in particular?
    • Are there ultimate physical boundary conditions beyond which any kind of life that involves embodied existence would be impossible?
    • What might be the scientific and philosophical criteria of success for assessing the discovery of extra-terrestrial life?
    • What are the theological implications, if any, for the discovery of extra-terrestrial life?
  • The Brain, the Mind, and the Human Person
    • Are persons their brains and, if not, how can contemporary science, philosophy and theology promote a more adequate understanding?
    • What am ‘I’? Am I to be identified with part of my physical being and, if so, which part? What are my boundaries, for example, can artefacts become extensions of ‘me’ in some limited sense?
    • Am ‘I’ only meaningful in relation to some ‘you’ or ‘it’? How should I think of ‘me’ if I am not to be identified with my body or some part of it?
    • Is what is denoted by the phrase ‘rational animal’ and word ‘person’ essentially the same, or does the notion of a ‘person’ add something new and important to human beings? Are there circumstances in which ‘rational animal’ and ‘person’ might not coincide?
    • Are advances in neuroscience helping to clarify the relation between the brain and the mind, and are there also growing sources of confusion regarding this relation?
    • Are there implications for spontaneity and free will arising from various interpretations of the concept and proper scope of laws of nature?
    • Is the concept of free will redundant in the light of Libet-like experiments and other contemporary work in neuroscience?
    • Is neuroscience shedding new light on distinct modes of human cognition or willing and how do these modes relate to traditional categories in philosophy and theology?
    • Within a theistic perspective, how are divine and human modes of cognition and willing different? Which human modes of cognition and willing are most divine?
    • Is the relation of human and divine willing a ‘zero-sum game’ in which one’s own freedom to will reduces the scope of the other’s freedom to will?
    • Is there or might there be a ‘theology’ as well as a ‘philosophy’ of the brain?
    • How does the traditional notion of divine providence relate to human free will, and what are the most helpful metaphors for understanding this relation?
    • How are ‘providence’ and ‘predestination’ related and distinguished in theology, and do advances in science offer new metaphors to understand either notion?
    • Does the cognitive science of religion have implications for the rationality of theism, atheism, or more specific religious commitments?
  • The Place of the Person in the Cosmos
    • Are persons irreducible in the cosmos, and are persons irreducibly important?
    • Among the possible meanings of the term ‘creation’ by a personal God, which, if any, are most appropriate for understanding the origin of the cosmos today?
    • Do ‘many worlds’ or other interpretations of quantum mechanics offer the prospect of a satisfactory, consistent and impersonal account of quantum phenomena?
    • Does the philosophy of the person, especially in relational or second-personal terms, have relevance to understanding physical theories, e.g. quantum mechanics?
    • Is it possible, in principle, to conceive of personal existence and identity without space /time or in a different mode of space/time than this life?
    • “You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You’re the same decaying organic matter as everything else” (cf. film Fight Cub: 1999). Can this claim be validated or invalidated, and, if so, how in the light of what is known today?
    • How might the investigation of the cosmos promote personal happiness, considering such fulfilment from a theological, materialistic or other perspective?
    • Can a personal theistic perspective be detrimental or beneficial for the study and motivation to study the cosmos, and ultimate questions regarding the cosmos?