When teaching about risk and uncertainty analysis, one of the questions I often have is "How do my students' worldviews influence their conceptualization of risk?" I thought one area to search in order to answer this question is the theological literature about risk. I felt that some of these scholars might have something to say about this problem, and I'd recently come across an edited volume by Niels Henrik Gregersen titled Information and the Nature of Reality, so I figured I might be able to start with him based on what I'd seen from those discussions.
Among the first articles I read was an article by Gregersen called "Risk and Religion: Toward a Theology of Risk Taking." [Gregersen (2003), Zygon 38(2), p. 355-376] I am not quite finished with the article, but it seems the he is suggesting changing the traditional approach to risk (i.e., Risk = Probability x Consequence) to explicitly indicate that risk is difficult to calculate since it includes both our evaluation of the dangers, and the compound events composed by our responses to external events that can occur (i.e., Risk = int(Pr[outcome|our decisions, external event]Pr[external event]) x Evaluation[outcome|our decisions, external event]... or something like this). His discussion then seems to indicate that since the risks we are faced with are increasingly related to our decisions and not the consequences of natural events alone, that is, second-order versus first-order risks, in the long-run a risk-welcoming attitude may be more virtuous than a risk-averse one.
While reading, I was impressed upon by so many ideas I wanted to immediately share with close friends who are familiar with my professional interest in risk. I would read a paragraph, then imagine my friend's response to it. Read another, imagine the response. This article had so much that I could easily see coming up in discussions around the dinner table or at the coffee shop. Ultimately, I felt compelled to stop and share with you all this excerpt publicly:
Risk and fate cannot be pitted against each another, because the former always takes place within the framework of the latter. Expressed in theological terms, the world is created by a benevolent God in such a manner that it invites a risk-taking attitude and rewards it in the long term. Risk taking is a nonzero-sum game. The gifts of risk taking are overall greater than the potential damages, and by risking one’s life one does not take anything away from others; the risk taker explores new territories rather than exploiting the domains of the neighbor. (p. 368)
It is possible that you reading this now do not share my theistic worldview. Nonetheless, we must remember that risk taking is a fundamental and worthy component of our human enterprise. I spend almost all my time studying, evaluating, and developing methods to reduce or plan for risks we want to avoid. Most of the time, these risks are imposed on others by the decisions of a third party. Sometimes, these risks are framed as questions of reliability in complex systems. But for me, they are rarely framed as venture.
For me, I think the nature of the risks we often employ professional advice to explore makes us likely to forget this. Risk can, and probably should, only be considered in the context of venture-a great gain deliberately pursued in view of an examined possibility of adverse consequences. While reading this article as part of a larger interest in understanding how worldview frames and addresses risk, I can't help feeling a bit uncomfortable about this statement. I agree with it 100%. Yet I feel we don't accept its implications. I think our public interest in risks associated with complex systems makes this challenging, and I don't have any good answers.