Book

COEXISTENCE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION
THE PERSPECTIVE OF SYSTEM PHILOSOPHY

LUKE GEORGE

CONTENTS

Let us start with the question: why is the relation between Science and Religion often in conflict, rather than mutually supporting? This problem arises because these are two types of knowledge obtained through different methods of experiencing the phenomenal world. In science, we observe the world objectively using our sense organs and apply logical thinking to make inferences about cause-effect relations. But religion, as a body of knowledge, is based on our mystical, imaginative and emotional experiences of worshiping deities or eternal processes, which are supposed to exist. The belief that such metaphysical beings or processes are transcendent to the phenomenal world and at the same time immanent in worldly things is central to the nature of religious knowledge, in contrast to science.
Hence, when we consider science and religion as two fields of knowledge there is a distinction that science treats this world as physical while religion holds it as spiritual in the sense of including supernatural beings or processes in the affairs of world. For clarification, the term ‘physical’ is defined here as the set of variables like mass, energy, size, length, weight, colour, sound and smell, which can be measured quantitatively. Accordingly science deals with only physical variables for determining the cause-effect relations of world, with the total denial of any interference of metaphysical forces. When science treats this world as physical it means that every phenomena can be explained by physical laws inferred through the methodology of experimentation and logical analysis. The elimination of supernatural or metaphysical concepts from the purview of science helps it to employ critical methods for understanding phenomena and also for predicting future course of natural events.
Restricting to the empirical view, science pragmatically answers the question of ‘how things exist’ by investigating ‘how things work’. Obviously it does not seek to address the philosophical issue of ultimate explanation, that is the question of ‘why things exist’. This distinction between ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions is profoundly important for a critique of science in later chapters.
On the other hand, religion is a different domain altogether. It is expedient here to define ‘religion’ as a social system of worshiping supernatural beings or eternal processes with the objective of deriving mystical experience about their influence on human life and other aspects of phenomenal world. Here the term ‘mystical’ includes the symbolic, imaginative, emotional and subjective aspects of religious worship. In contrast to the theist religions like Christianity, Hinduism and Islam, the so called atheist religions such as Buddhism and Taoism, treat the whole universe as an eternal process without the baggage of supernatural beings. However, various forms of symbolic worship is pursued in such religions also. Taking in to account the wide differences in the beliefs and practices of various religions, philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein used the phrase ‘family resemblance’ to refer to their common nature. The general characteristics of religion as a social system are the following.
a) Religion includes various forms of worship of supernatural beings- with monotheist concept of God or polytheist notions of a pantheon of gods - as a commitment and way of life. The eternal processes pertaining to the so called atheist religions are alternative interpretations of objects of worship.
b) Religion interprets worldly phenomena, including human life, spiritually as involving the influence of supernatural beings or processes.
c) Religious beliefs are historically evolved as a social process supported by myths, legends, stories, customs and mystical visions (more often referred to as revelations) of religions leaders.
d) Religion can be conceived as a pattern of social relations between religious leaders and devotees with the aid of a multitude of intermediaries like holy books, activities of worship and administrative arrangements.
e) Religion aims to imbibe certain values about life centered on the notions like salvation, liberation, sin and immortality of soul. Accordingly religion provides us with a vision and meaning for our existence far beyond the scientific interpretation of physical body.
The foregoing contrast between science and religion helps us to understand the notion of ‘conflict’ with regard to the aims, methods and propositions of these two human enterprises. It is generally perceived that there is a conflict between the propositions of science and religion as under
 Science tries to explain the phenomenal world using physical cause-effect relations without recourse to the nonphysical concepts such as values, creativity, consciousness and goals, which can be attributed to the existence of mind. Scientific laws are falsifiable statements about observable facts.
 Religious beliefs give unscientific interpretations of worldly phenomena, in accordance with the characteristics of religion as a social system. A religious statement is not about facts of direct observation because our sense organs and logical thinking cannot directly know supernatural beings. Again, beliefs pertaining to religion are not falsifiable statements but are metaphoric and symbolic assertions without literal meaning.
A few examples can be cited about the apparent conflict between science and religion. As per the latest theories of science, our universe originated at a finite past about 1400 crores years ago, by a physical event called Big Bang explosion. But religious belief asserts that the universe is God’s creation. According to science, miracles cannot happen because observable cause-effect relations govern the nature. In contrast, religions promote the belief that miracles are caused totally and directly by God. Thirdly, there are scientific theories about the emergence of life and mind through a process of material evolution, which obviously contradict the religious belief that soul exists in the physical bodies of living organisms.
A systematic treatment of science - religion conflict, with the aim of reconciling the debate, can be taken up only through philosophy, which is the ultimate arbitrator of knowledge issues. We need certain higher principles which serve as the source of the diverse streams of statements under science and religion. Such a unification is the aim of philosophy.
It is appropriate to define here the philosophical concepts called phenomenon, worldview and reality. A phenomenon is defined as a finite object that exists with the dimensions of space and time. A phenomenon, which can be perceived using quantifiable variables, is called a physical phenomenon. The other kind of phenomena, such as our ideas and feelings, cannot be expressed in physical variables; they are treated as mental phenomena. The implication here is that the distinction between physical and mental pertains to our knowledge only, not about the actual existence of those phenomena; this point will be made clear in due course. Worldview means a set of hypotheses about the existence of phenomenal universe as a whole. There are three competing worldviews—organic worldview, mechanistic worldview and process worldview-- in the hitherto history of philosophy, as will be explained later.
We intuitively know that every phenomenon in the universe has a cause. Nothing can exist finitely without a cause. The notion of cause-effect relation between phenomena is linked to the temporal connection as ‘before-after’ using the concept of time. Then reality is defined as the first cause or ultimate cause of all finite phenomena in the universe. Reality must be eternal and it is treated as the source of space and time, which we use to understand phenomena. This definition implies that reality is the cause of phenomenal universe as a whole. Hence reality is the substratum--the underlying substance--of all phenomena in the universe. The diverse types of our knowledge (propositions), such as science, economics, ethics, art and religious faith, are based on certain concepts or assumptions about the nature of human mind as well as worldview and reality. Then it is the task of philosophy to examine such concepts critically so as to arrive at the proper criterion of truth. Accordingly, we can formally define philosophy as the logical and reflective inquiry that tries to integrate reality, worldview, human mind and knowledge. Through this inquiry, philosopher seeks to build a superstructure of contemplation by thinking in abstract manner.
As mentioned earlier, a worldview is a composite idea about the existence of phenomenal universe as a whole. We study the sensible properties of natural phenomena through the specialized subjects like physics, biology and geology. Similarly the social systems are dealt with in the subjects such as economics and polities. But the primary aim of philosophy is to get a coherent answer to the question: how are the various phenomena related and arranged so that this world becomes a unified whole, or universe, or cosmos rather than a chaos. Since we are inside the universe, living in a small planet called earth, we cannot perceive the universe as an object. Hence, it is beyond the scope of science to describe and study the universe as a whole. So we resort to philosophical deliberation and forms a worldview in order to relate and integrate the various subjects of knowledge and deduce the meaning and purpose of the cosmos.
Now it can be noted that a worldview is central to the philosophical conception of reality as well as to the understanding of our own self and the truth of our various types of knowledge. The conception of reality- the ultimate cause of phenomenal universe - is an intuitive and deductive knowledge based on the worldview adopted. On the other side, worldview is instrumental to formulate a philosophy of mind, taking into account the various characteristics of mental phenomena. Such a view about mind is the prerequisite for analyzing the structure of knowledge and getting a theory of truth. The abstract concepts or axioms applied in different subjects of study are derived from the worldview asserted.
It may be clarified that the term ‘worldview’ is used here in a narrow sense by distinguishing it from the concepts of reality and other areas of philosophy. Some authors have treated worldview as synonymous with philosophy in general. By limiting the meaning of worldview, as per the definition given earlier, we get better focus so as to recognise that worldview is the pivotal topic in the enterprise of philosophy. As we will see soon, there are three competing worldviews – Organic Worldview, Mechanistic Worldview, and Process Worldview - in the history of philosophical thought depending on the questions asked about phenomenal world.
With this introduction, the aim of present book is to deliberate on the following pertinent questions within the framework of philosophy:
a) How can we study the apparent conflict between science and religion on the basis of the three competing worldviews?
b) Can we unify the three Worldviews through an innovative and comprehensive philosophy named here as System Philosophy?
c) How far the proposed System Philosophy is competent to reconcile the apparent conflict between science and religion?
Accordingly the proceeding sections are arranged to discuss the salient features of worldviews under diverse currents of philosophical history, as well as the specific problems of science and religion conflict. A clear exposition of the drawbacks of these received worldviews will lead us to a unifying theory of reality under System Philosophy, for solving the issues of science and religion.

Here the focus is on the age-old philosophical problem: Is there purpose or design in the universe? Accordingly, organic worldview is the postulate that our universe is like an organism which tries to realise higher good goals. It asserts the existence of mind as a metaphysical being with different levels as souls and God. So mind is the source of good values or goals. The metaphysical mind, or rather the supreme mind called God, is treated as a reality. This theory of reality is called Idealism. God and souls are objects of worship in religious organizations. Regarding the existence of primordial matter (physical substratum), there are various hues of thought. God used matter to create this world as an organism, just like a potter making vessels out of clay. The act of creation is purposive, for realising higher values. Hence organism has teleology as given by the free will of God. When a seed grows to become a tree, it displays the teleology. Other important concepts about organism are the following
1) The different parts or organs perform specific functions in accordance with the teleology of organism. Organs undergo adaptation in response to external situation so that the goals given by God are achieved.
2) Organism has a physical structure made of matter. Additionally it perform mental activities like thinking, instincts, desires and willing.
3) The parts of an organism are arranged as a hierarchy in terms of increasing order of complexity.
4) The cause-effect relation between parts are metaphysical forces meant for achieving the goals of organism. Hence organism is not a machine, by definition. Where as machine works according to predetermined laws, the organism has life and mental faculties, which display creativity and self-organisation.
Treating the world as similar to an organism, we mean that the world exists for realising good values. This is not a statement of fact because it fails to reognize the existence of good and bad values in an organism. Occasionally some parts of organism do not function properly, causing pain or disease. Growth of cancerous cells is against the goal of life. Earthquake means the bad purpose of destruction, as opposite to the good goals of nature. But good purpose or teleology is axiomatically adopted as rationality, which is the essential attribute of God. Now it is clear that the organic worldview fails to explain the problem of evil. The basic frame work of organic worldview or Idealism under western philosophy appears in the books of Plato (427-347 B.C). Subsequently Aristotle (384 – 322 B.C) made it a systematic doctrine that dominated western thought upto the dawn of modern era in 17th century. Dominant schools of Indian Philosophy, such as Sankhya and Vedanta, also subscribe to organic worldview. Advaita Vedanta of Sree Sankaracharya is the culmination of the tradition of Idealism in eastern thought.
The scientific laws and religious beliefs were in harmony in pre-modern era as per the following reasons.

» Science, based on Aristotle’s philosophy, was mostly speculative supported by logical reasoning, without the application of empirical methods. There was active role for God (including soul and other metaphysical beings) in the world of ancient science, as the creator of world and the force of life, mind and evolution. Organic worldview (Idealism) rejected materialism. The cause-effect relations between physical bodies were conceived in metaphysical terms, as the behaviour of divine forces.
» Organic worldview was a philosophy of the knowledge of values through the faculty of reason which represents intuition and logical thinking. As such, it did not deal with the facts acquired by sense organs--science did not exist as in the modern sense. Obviously the possibility of conflict of science and religious was ruled out.
The perceived harmony between science and religion was not a state of bliss, as science had not grown to its maturity. During middle ages, Christian religious beliefs dominated philosophy and science with the notions of transcendent God and exnihilo creation. Human intellect became subservient to the dogmas and rituals of the Roman Catholic Church, in the western society.

From the maturation of western society through the thousand years of medieval era, there emerged three complexly intermingled social epochs known as the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Scientific Revolution. The Renaissance marked the amazing development of artistic creativity, pioneered by Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. Along with this cultural revolution, four important technical inventions -- magnetic compass, gun powder, mechanical clock and printing press—contributed to the rise of independent but internally cohesive nation states during 14th & 15th centuries. Concurrent with these advances was a psychological transformation to individualism, a proclamation of the value of human mind in a secular way. Human life seemed to hold a worth much above the traditional authority of Monarch and Church. This secular or humanist outlook paved the way during 16th century for the Reformation, which was a religious conflict against the traditional authority of Catholic Church. The reformers, led by Martin Luther King, upheld the absolute sovereignty of God as revealed by The Bible and at the same time opposed the institutional doctrines of Church. It was an assertion of the individualism in religious field against the established framework of rituals and dogmas.
The Third phase in the transformation to modern culture was the Scientific Revolution heralded by the discovery of Copernicus (1473-1543), that the earth and other planets revolve around the sun, as against Ptolemy’s geocentric theory. The Copernican thesis about heliocentric system, prepared in 1514, contradicted several passages of the Holy Bible and also posed a fundamental threat to the entire Christian cosmology and theology based, as it was, on Aristotelian metaphysics. But subsequent discovery of mathematical laws by Kepler (1571-1630) confirmed the validity of the planetary model of solar system. At the same time Galileo (1564-1641) invented the telescope that helped to study the astronomical bodies empirically as physical objects. However there were many theoretical issues to be solved and it was the turn of Newton (1642-1727) to propose a comprehensive mechanical model for the entire visible cosmos. The three laws of motion and the theory of universal gravitation, formulated by Newton, was the culminating achievement of the Scientific Revolution.
The rapid developments of science in 17th century, supported by critical movements of the Renaissance and the Reformation had the profoundest impact on the manner in which western society perceived the world as a whole. This resulted in the transition from organic worldview to mechanistic worldview. The key figure in this change of worldview is Galileo who initiated empirical method using his invention, the telescope. According to Galileo, the earth and the multitude of stars and planets were physical bodies with mechanical motion appropriate for empirical investigation. This was a radical departure from Aristotelian Cosmology in which the astronomical objects moved in accordance with the metaphysical notion of form originating from God. It became clear that celestial phenomena could be studied using precisely measurable ‘objective’ qualities like size, shape, number, and motion.
Galileo proceeded to test the mathematical laws of Kepler, on the basis of experimental observation and thus introduced a new method for science. He developed the crucial idea of inertia for explaining the motion of heavenly bodies. Further he resorted to the philosophy of atomism, originally proposed by Greek materialists, in order to understand inertia. Different combinations of atoms create all apparent qualitative changes and chemical reactions, open to quantitative analysis. In this stage, Descartes (1596-1650) discovered more rigorous principles about the collision and inertia of particles. Finally, Newton completed the Copernican revolution by quantitatively formulating the laws of motion and gravity, which apply uniformly to all things on earth and the astronomical bodies. The basic characteristics of the ensuing mechanistic worldview are summarized as below.
a) Phenomena of nature can be explained using physical laws in terms of quantifiable variables like weight, shape, force and motion. Metaphysical or supernatural concepts such as God, form, teleology and miracles are not required in science.
b) This world exists as a giant machine following physical laws, alternatively called as natural laws, which are facts to be revealed by empirical observation. Cause-effect relations in the world are mechanical relations between various material things.
c) The approach of science to study physical phenomena can be called reductionism because it consists of reducing a phenomenon into component parts and observing the physical cause-effect relations between the parts.
d) Mechanistic science is a combination of deductive and inductive aspects. The use of mathematics and logic contribute to deductive propositions in science, while the analysis of experimental data produces inductive inferences.
The above articulation reflected the new identity and structure emerging in the field of philosophy in that epochal period. The philosophical mind changed its focus from metaphysical (ontological) topics to the nature of scientific knowledge about finite phenomena. This was a shift from value to fact, as the area of concern. Since the existence of world as a physical machine with natural laws is an accepted fact, philosophers started to ask: what is the reality of mechanical universe and what is the criterion truth in science?
Among these questions, the latter was more important and engaging in the prevailing scientific climate. On account of the twin aspects of scientific facts - deduction and induction - there emerged two disputing theories of knowledge, known as rationalism and empiricism. The corresponding theories of reality, called Deism and Naturalism respectively, were also in conflict as they originate from the opposite traditions of idealism and materialism.

3.1 Rationalism and Deism
Descartes, popularly considered as the founder of modern philosophy, formulated the basic postulates of rationalism. Searching for a rigorous foundation for philosophy, he adopted a method of systematic doubt and reasoning; thus Descartes concluded that the fact of his own doubting cannot be doubted. He is absolutely certain that he is doubting. This became his first axiom: cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). It means that ‘I’ who is conscious of doubting, the thinking subject, exists. The thinking subject (self or soul) exists as a mental substance with the power of logical thinking. From this axiom, Descartes deduced the criterion of truth of rationalism that only self-evident ideas or rational principles are true knowledge. He dismissed inductive inference, being based on empirical data, as uncertain and relative.
On the basis of the axiom of self and the certainty of abstract ideas, Descartes deduced the necessary existence of a perfect infinite being, God, It can be commended here that, the rational proof about the existence of transcendent God is the legacy of Idealist tradition, which Descartes followed. Further, he introduced the Mind-Body Dualism, which says that human mind is a nonphysical substance with the power of thinking while body is made of matter having the property of physical extension. By extending the arguments, Descartes included animals, plants and other living beings as well as inanimate things in the category of body. With this Cartesian dualism, human beings possessing rational soul are separated from the rest of the world, which is assumed to the be entirely made of matter. This can be called metaphysical dualism, because it divides the whole world into two parts – human mind with the power of rational thinking and the physical body of all things in total with the property of extension. The rational method of doubt employed by Descartes did not consider any empirical evidence about phenomena.
In retrospect, Galileo had divided the physical properties of things into two classes, primary and secondary. Primary properties are the measurable aspects of material body such as length, volume, mass, force, speed etc. Those qualities, which are merely apparent to sense perception, like smell, colour, sound and taste, are treated as secondary properties. Following this lead, Descartes argued that primary properties are clear and distinct ideas known to human reason. Thus, through deductive methods, mathematical science can be developed to postulate the natural laws. In this manner, rationalism appears as the theory of knowledge for mechanistic worldview based on abstract and logical principles. Later Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804), drawing energy from the success of Newtonian physics, became the foremost philosopher of rationalism with his critical analysis of the elements of deductive propositions.
The appropriate theory of reality in this intellectual milieu is called Deism, which is the modern factual version of Idealism. It is a new Christian doctrine based on the argument from design, the rational proof that God exists as the only possible source of the harmonious arrangement (the physical laws) of all parts of the mechanical universe. Deism demanded that the concept of God, as a transcendent and perfect being, must be made consistent with reason and science. Accordingly, Deism asserts that God created this universe with matter and natural laws, but no longer interferes in the physical order. Though the phrase ‘deism’ is attributed to Voltaire (1694 - 1778). it rightly represents the religions beliefs of all rationalist philosophers as well as Galileo and Newton.
Of course, with the belief in exnihilo creation, Deism was still a form of supernaturalism. Though natural laws appear to be universal and mechanical, there was scope for supernatural interventions as in the origin of life and mind as well as in occasional miracles. But, the notion of perfect and omnipotent God was challenged by the problem of evil. The Christian beliefs in revelation, prophecies, Christ’s physical resurrection after death, miracles as well as all the other supernatural phenomena recounted in the Bible were questioned when scientific and secular outlook gained dominance in Europe. These issues, exposed vehemently by the rival camp of empiricist philosophers, had serious implications for the relation between science and religion under deism and section 6.2 will deal with this problem.

3.2 Empiricism and Naturalism
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) sowed the seeds of empirical theory of knowledge in the early stage of mechanistic worldview. But the philosophies of John Locke (1632-1704), George Berkeley (1685-1753) and David Hume (1711-1776) served for the systematic development of empiricism. Bacon had insisted that progress in science required a radical reformation of its foundations by overthrowing Aristotelian metaphysics. And, the scientific method should be empirical, solidly based on direct experimental observations and inductive reasoning. The abstract definitions and deductions will not provide true knowledge about particular objects. The later development of empiricism assumed the following basic premises.

It means that we can perceive only physical things that could excite our sense organs. Ideas about things occur on the basis of sense experience only. All types of knowledge are empirical, that is based on sense data. There are no innate or a priori ideas, contrary to rationalism. The so-called abstract ideas are also empirical because complex brain processes produce them. Here empiricists deny the creativity of mind in producing abstract ideas of logic, art, religion and other fields.

2. Reductionism.
The method of empiricism is to decompose every complex phenomenon into component parts and find the cause-effect relations. It is partial analysis.

3. Epiphenomenalism as the Philosophy of Mind.
Human mind is treated as an epiphenomenon of matter, with the view that mental states (ideas, emotions, desires, etc) are produced by the physical processes in brain and nervous system. Mind at birth is a tabula rasa (clean slate) meaning that it has only physical structure initially. So the existence of metaphysical soul is totally impossible.

4. Denial of nonphysical events in the world.
Since mind (as epiphenomenon of matter) can perceive only physical phenomena, the existence of nonphysical aspects is ruled out. So there is no place for religious notions like God, soul, miracles and other supernatural phenomena. As a corollary. science cannot consider the other nonphysical concepts like purpose, value, creativity and freedom. All cause-effect relations are physical relations between material bodies without any inherent necessity or purpose. Even though the existence of material body is an observable fact, the actual existence of matter cannot be known empirically.
As a theory of knowledge, empiricism seeks to get a criterion of truth for experimental science in the form of inductive inferences. Truth of inductive inference is contingent on the data used, in the sense it depends on the suitability of hypothesis, the power of logical reasoning and the reliability of method of collection and testing of data. Hence the justified scientific laws are to be produced by four stages of Hypothesis, Deduction, Testing with data and Induction (we can call it HDTI method). It implies that the scientific laws are falsifiable (revisable) on the basis of future hypothesis and observation. In this manner, there is no fixed or absolute truth in science. The various issues pertaining to the scientific method form the subject called Philosophy of Science. In this situation, can science establish the real existence of matter as the substratum of physical phenomena? Philosophical thinking about empirical method, as Hume wrote, shows that the sense impressions are about the various qualities of external things like length, colour, shape, smell, etc. The material substratum, if it exists at all, cannot generate any sense experience as it lacks any sensible quality by definition. This drives empiricism to skepticism about the actual existence of matter and to the conclusion that empirical knowledge is limited to physical qualities only. Since material substratum cannot be perceived though sensory knowledge, it is metaphysical, lying outside the scope of science. The basic assumption of science that matter is physical contradicts with the above skepticism about the existence of matter as substratum.
Here a hot controversy exists between the two schools called scientific realism and instrumentalism. According to scientific realism, all objects including non-observable objects like electrons can be taken as really existing, if scientific laws are discovered about them. Scientific realism is only a naive assumption, without any philosophical support, about the existence of material objects.
On the other hand, instrumentalism holds that scientific laws are mere models with practical utility and hence they do not imply the real existence of the concerned objects. Under instrumentalism, the term ‘physical’ refers to quantifiable variables observed through experimental methods. Similarly matter means a set of physical properties only.
The theory of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882) in his book The Origin of Species published in 1859 contributed remarkably to the atheist character of empiricism. Darwinism including the later developments in biological sciences holds that all biological phenomena such as functions of organs of living beings and long term effects like evolution can be studied on the basis of physical sciences. This approach of reduction to physical processes can be extended to mental phenomena as well, psychology being the typical example. That is, physical and chemical laws are sufficient to account for all forms of life and mind; they can all be described in terms of matter and motion. In the last analysis all phenomena are caused by the physical behaviour of particles. The nonphysical notions like God, purpose, creativity and values can be totally excluded from the biological sciences.
The classical Newtonian physics had assumed the existence of atoms as tiny particles of matter with various forces, a legacy of the original Greek materialism. But modern physics of 20th century established that atom consists of subatomic particles like proton, neutron and electron which can be discomposed into still more elementary particles. The puzzling aspect of the sub atomic particles is that they do not obey Newtonian physics, by virtue of probabilistic behaviour called as wave property. Hence, subatomic particles have dual properties of particle and wave. That is, the ultimate stuff of physical thing cannot be conceived as absolute particles. Then how do we understood subatomic particles like proton or their component particles which have dual properties of particle and wave? What is the appropriate definition of matter? Modern physics is not able to solve these issues, as will be explained in the next chapter.
In view of the foregoing issues of science, what is the underlying theory of reality assumed in empiricism? We can call it naturalism, which can be treated as a modified version of materialism. It may be recalled that materialism, in final analysis, is not a valid theory of reality due to two inherent contradictions. First, empirical method cannot show the existence of matter as reality. Only phenomena can be known by empirical method. Intuition and abstract ideas are ruled out in empiricism. If matter is reality, then it cannot be known by science. Second, physical matter is assumed to have the power of motion and evolution which are essentially nonphysical properties. In this situation, materialism is at best a methodological assumption which does not stand philosophical scrutiny. However, it is modified to naturalism in tune with the outlook of modern science. The basic features of naturalism as a semblance of a theory of reality are the following :

a) Mechanism – The universe is like a giant machine with interconnected physical parts. All inanimate things (stones, metals, planets, stars, etc.) and living organisms are made of the same material elements called atoms. All phenomena can be studied using physical variables based on the notions of space and time. This universe is basically physical, in the sense of properties of material particles as studied in classical physics. All biological organisms and social systems must be reduced to elementary physical parts for partial analysis.
b) Levels – There are higher levels of complexities of physical bodies formed through evolution of physical matter. Life and mind emerges as epiphenomena of matter.
c) Natural Laws - All phenomena of universe are governed by natural laws which exist as given physical relations between material bodies. These natural laws are known by empirical methods of science.
d) Determinism – The existence of natural laws, as physical cause-effect relations, means that this universe is deterministic. The notion of freedom, representing creativity and self-awareness, is not applied for explaining biological and mental phenomena, nor especially in the case of human consciousness.
e) Atheism – Any attempt to explain natural laws in terms of religious notions like God and soul is prohibited, as it is against the method of empiricism.
f) Scientism (Positivism) – It is the belief that the scientific method, as per the above features, is the only way to discover truth. Auguste Comte (1798-1857), who insisted that human mind must confine itself with actual facts collected by empirical methods, coined the term positivism. Accordingly, the human sensibilities in the nonscientific fields such as art and religion are relegated to the realm of imagination and illusion.
From a philosophical critique of the above points, it can be indicated that naturalism is mostly a pragmatic hypothesis about reality, rather than an ontological theory. It does not seek to enquire into the ultimate causes of natural phenomena, but tries to legitimize the empirical theory of truth pertaining to science. As a consequence, the course of philosophy in 20th century moved away from ontology and traversed such esoteric fields like logical positivism, linguistic philosophy, existentialism and phenomenology.
So far we covered the two branches of Mechanistic worldview, under deism and naturalism respectively. Both assume that the universe is a machine made of material particles. But they differ radically with respect to epistemology, having opposite doctrines called rationalism and empiricism. We expect that since rational method and empirical method occur in our mind as two approaches to get scientific knowledge--deductive propositions and inductive inferences – there must be unification under theory of knowledge and philosophy of mind. Similarly we require an integration of deism and naturalism into a higher mode of perceiving the universe as a whole. These developments will contribute significantly to the harmony between science and religion. So, the thesis being developed in this article is that if deism and naturalism are synthesized to form a hybrid ontology, then science will be compatible with religion. Hence the task here is truly ambitious, as it aims to propose a new ontology, which can accommodate the diverse types of knowledge under experimental science and theist religion. Towards this end, we have to consider the third type of vision about world as a whole, the process worldview, also.

First we may consider briefly the revolutionary discoveries in physics occurred in the first three decades of twentieth century. Main developments, which contradicted the classical Newtonian physics and gave rise to the modern physics, are the following :

1. Physicists had in 1890s realized that the phenomena of electro magnetism and radioactivity could not be explained in terms of classical physics. Further research showed that atoms are composed of subatomic particles like proton, neutron and electron. That is, atoms are not indivisible particles of matter.

2. In 1900, Max Plank discovered that the energy radiation is not emitted continuously, but as a series of discrete energy packets called quanta. Accordingly electromagnetic radiations, which were earlier studied as waves, must be attributed particle property also as sequence of discrete quanta of energy. On the other hand, De Broglie in 1923 showed that subatomic particles have wave property also. This established the revolutionary concept of particle-wave duality of subatomic phenomenon. Every subatomic particle, for example electron, behaves as particle in certain experiments while it shows wave property in another set of experiments. Similarly a radiation is a series of particles (quanta of energy) as well as a wave in motion.

3. Einstein published in 1905 the theory of relativity, which postulates that space (the three dimensions of length, breadth and depth) and time are not independent entities. Both are intimately connected and form a four-dimensional continuum called space-time. The Newtonian concept of absolute space and absolute time must be rejected for studying all physical phenomena, especially in the case of subatomic particles which move at high velocities. As a consequence of the theory of relativity of space and time, Einstein showed the equivalence of mass and energy as per the most famous equation E = MC². It means: a particle with mass M has stored energy equal to MC², where C is the speed of light (300,000,000 meters/second). Thus Theory of relativity became the basis for the study of subatomic phenomena in terms of quanta of energy.

4. Schrodinger formulated the wave model of a subatomic particle, according to which the position of particle is known by a wave function involving probability. Alternatively, Heisenberg in 1927 postulated the Uncertainly Principle that the position and velocity of a particle cannot be determined simultaneously in a precise way. When we know the position, the velocity will be uncertain and vice versa.
The study of subatomic phenomena, with dual properties of particle and wave (or alternatively, the quanta of energy with uncertainty) is called Quantum Physics and it can be rightly hailed as the greatest achievement of 20^th century science.
The fact that the Mechanistic Worldview collapsed in the wake of Quantum Physics can be explained as following. In classical Newtonian physics, a particle is a material object, which exists at a particular point in space, and its velocity can be known precisely. That is, there is no uncertainty about the position and velocity of a material particle. But subatomic particles, as Quantum Physics revealed, cannot be treated as particles in the traditional sense because of its dual nature of particle and wave. If we view an electron as a particle, under concerned experiments, it has uncertainty about its position and velocity. On the other hand, electron shows wave property in some other experiments, by which it is an energy packet known by a probabilistic wave function. The term ‘wave’, under quantum theory, does not mean the three-dimensional visible wave like water wave or sound wave, but is a mathematical probability function which has a pictorial representation of wave. Thus particle-wave duality refers to two alternative methods of description: as a particle with uncertainty following the Heisenberg’s principle and as a probabilistic wave function formulated by Schrodinger.
The concept that light travels as series of particles called quanta is directly opposed to the classical wave theory of light. But both view have strong experimental support. According to the traditional wave theory, light waves leave a source with energy spread out continuously in space through the wave pattern. According to the quantum theory, light consists of individual photons (quanta) with probabilistic wave function. These alternative descriptions of light, as wave and particle, caused lot of confusion among great scientists.
Arthur Beiser writes: “A reader who finds it hard to understand how light can be both a wave and a stream of particle is in good company: shortly before his death, Einstein remarked that “All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘what are light quanta’”. The ‘true nature’ of light includes both wave and particle characters, even though there is nothing in every day life to help us visualize that”.
The particle-wave duality generated intense debates in the wake of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. In 1927, Niels Bohr presented the Complementarity Principle that particle property and wave property of subatomic phenomenon are not mutually exclusive; they are complementary: Both the apparently contradictory concepts are necessary to provide a complete description. Bohrs’ principle was based on the Chinese philosophy in which the polar opposites yin and yang are treated as complementary parts of a whole. What Bohr wanted to stress was that the uncertainty (wave aspect) of subatomic phenomena was not due to any disturbance in the measuring process, but, of natural world. Every phenomenon of world has the complementary properties of particle (matter) and wave (uncertainty or energy). This idea is famously known as the Copenhagen Interpretation, referring to the fact that Bohr’s Institute of Theoretical Physics was in Copenhagen, Denmark.
The complementarity principle is a radical shift from the Newtonian physics, in which particle has absolute existence and energy is a property of particle. It may be added here that the pairs particle-wave, mass-energy, physical structure-God and space-time are equivalent phases. Newton assumed that particle (physical structure) is independent of activity (energy), in accordance with the Mechanistic Worldview. Physical structure is like a machine (space) which exists independently of energy (time). The energy or time originates from the creator God, as per deism. So, the source of energy, in Newton’s Laws, is external to particle. And the factor of uncertainty is attributed either to the deficiency of measurement or to the statistical nature of events.
In contrast, the micro world of quantum physics is chaotic. Subatomic particles move randomly, collide with one another randomly. The cause-effect relation does not function in the subatomic world. Then, what is the essential nature of subatomic phenomena? The Copenhagen Interpretation assumes that the nature of physical reality is ambiguous – it is a particle or wave depending on the method of experiment. We cannot assert the absolute and objective existence of a particle, and hence classical physics is wrong here. In other words, the nature of micro phenomenon depends as the method of experiment, that is on the observer. Then Copenhagen Interpretation suggests that the physical reality is observer-created or subjective. The natural world is an interconnected process in which the human consciousness and external object are inseparable. This subjectivism of quantum theory eventually leads to a process worldview, to be described later.
But Einstein was a bitter critic of the subjective interpretation of quantum phenomena. He focused on the particle property and felt that a physical world exists independent of the observer; uncertainty (wave) was an aspect of measurement with in the space-time framework. Einstein expressed his sentiment when he said “I can’t believe that God would choose to play dice with the world”. In order to prove his point, Einstein together with Podolsky and Rosen, devised a thought experiment in 1935 known as EPR paradox. Einstein used experimental information about one particle (say, p+) to deduce the position and momentum of a second particle (p-). By this method he wanted to show that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle was violated. The result of EPR experiment suggested two alternative conclusions. First, there is causality (called local variables) between the particles and hence Uncertainty Principle is violated. Second, there is communication between the particles (called as nonlocal connection) so that action at a distance takes place, which gives an appearance of causality with out violating the principle of uncertainty. This EPR paradox was later cleared in 1964, by Bell’s theorem, which predicted nonlocal correlation between pairs of particles. The correlation between particles was fundamentally because these particles form a single integrated system; they are said to be ‘entangled’. This was experimentally confirmed in 1972. The picture of subatomic phenomena, revealed by Bell, was that of interconnected processes with mutual communication, alternatively phrased as ‘quantum consciousness’. This emphasizes the wave property.
However the tension between Einstein’s focus on particle property and Bell’s confirmation of wave property remains even today. Though particle and wave are epistemologically two complementary descriptions, the real nature (ontology) of subatomic phenomenon is a puzzle to scientists. We will see later that this problem ultimately originates from the conflict between mechanistic and process views about world.
What does the uncertainty or probability mean in this context? Subatomic particles are not independent material objects following deterministic laws of nature. These particles form an interconnected system so that behaviour of one particle is uncertain or nonlinear. In a machine, the parts are related in a linear manner and hence its behaviour can be predicted deterministically. But a family is a system in which the parts (roles of father, mother, son and daughter) have nonlinear, or uncertain, behaviour. For example, the role of father is linked to the whole, that is family, in a nonlinear way. It is a dynamic relation involving the dual aspects of individuality of father as well as the co-operation with other members. The individuality of father (particle aspect) is not predictable in a linear way; it has uncertain nature due to the influence of the goal of cooperation. When we focus on the relation of father to other members of family (wave aspect), we can use the formal language of a mathematical wave function to describe the behaviour of father. Subatomic particles are similar to the members of family. It is justified to infer that atom is an interconnected system, in which subatomic particles are related to each other. Thus the notion of particles as isolated building blocks does not apply to the constituents of atom.
As interconnected parts of a system, the subatomic particles do not have existence in the classical sense. So the corpuscular theory of matter, assumed in Newtonian mechanics, collapses under Quantum Physics. Some authors, like Fritjof Capra, have erroneously interpreted this fact by linking it to the Einstein’s equation E = MC² about the equivalence of mass and energy. They say that matter does not exist at all; matter is only a form of energy. The mistake of this view will be explain later.
The combination of atoms to form molecular and higher order substances are now explained on the basis of particle-wave duality of subatomic particles. If we focus on the particle aspect, then the planetary model of atom is adopted – electrons are like planets revolving in orbits around the nucleus consisting of proton and neutron. Four basic forces called electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and gravitational force govern the behaviour of subatomic particles. The interaction of these four forces causes all phenomena in the universe including electromagnetic radiations and the three-dimensional aspect of atoms and higher bodies. Physicists have discovered about 200 new subatomic particles, most of them being highly unstable with life span of less than a millionth of a second. Besides, each particle can be broken up into more elementary components. Particle Physics deals with the physical property of subatomic particle like mass, spin, velocity and electric charge. The particle properties of subatomic phenomena finds application in most of the modern inventions, such as electronics, nuclear power and atom bomb. Particle Physics, with the laws about subatomic particle and basic forces, now constitute the foundation for classical physics. But this area cannot stand alone due to the uncertainty in the relations between the constituents of atom. So the theoretical explanations of all physical phenomena are based on the wave property or interconnected behaviour of subatomic particles.
In the case of molecules and higher substances, the factor of uncertainty is very small because atoms are relatively stable. Hence classical physics is still applicable to all three-dimensional bodies which we observe in daily life. But, on account of the particle-wave duality of subatomic phenomena, the basic postulate of classical physics--that matter exists as indivisible, independent and absolute particles–is to be rejected. In other words, the materialist foundation of Mechanistic Worldview can no longer be treated as valid.
The tentative conclusions from the foregoing discussion of Quantum Physics are given below

1. Space and time are relative, in the sense that all events take place in the four dimensions of space-time. But in classical physics, space and time are independent. That is, mass (particle) exists in three dimensional space, while energy (activity, wave) is ultimately explained as the property of time (God or the eternal force in nature). This independence of space and time is denied in Quantum Physics.
2. Since each subatomic particle can be divided into still more elementary components, like Quarks, the question of ultimate stuff of matter cannot be answered. In other words, we cannot find any unit of matter as the ultimate reality of physical universe. But we observe different levels of particle property in subatomic world along with wave property. Here the philosophical implication is that materialism cannot be accepted as a theory of reality.
3. But the notion of physical (three dimensional) object made of matter is practically justified and theoretically proved by the laws of classical Newtonian physics. So, we can treat atom as the basic unit of matter, for scientific knowledge about visible things. However, atom is a system of interconnected parts called subatomic particles, which themselves do not obey classical physics by nature of particle-wave duality.
4. All physical things are made of atoms having as many as about 110 varieties. Hence every physical thing is an interconnected system being ultimately a net work of subatomic particles.
5. The entire cosmos, including the astronomical bodies like planets, stars and galaxies, behave as an interconnected whole, similar to the subatomic world.
6. Mechanistic Worldview, as a method of knowledge, is applicable to macro world consisting of atomic substances and astronomical bodies. But it fails in explaining subatomic phenomena or micro world. Quantum Physics demands a radical revision of worldview so as to integrate micro and macro worlds in a comprehensive manner.

The path breaking discoveries of Quantum Physics may be juxtaposed against the contemporary developments in philosophy.
In the last decades of nineteenth century, the theory of organic evolution (Darwinism) together with the development of psychology gave impetus for the inward examination of the unconscious structures with in human mind. This reinforced the movement of Romanticism, which perceived the world as a living organism rather than a machine. As against the mechanistic science that focused on the objective, quantitative and logical study of phenomena, the Romantic thinkers extolled the diverse subjective experiences involving imagination, emotion, creative will and spirituality. Reality was conceived as a unifying order immanent in the multiplicity of phenomena known through scientific, artistic and religious methods. Rational intellect alone cannot achieve objective truth; in fact all perspectives are useful as the different modes of interpretation of reality. This philosophical perspective got fermentation through the writings of Hegel (1770-1831), Marx (1818-1883), Kierkegaard (1813-1855) and Nietzche (1844 -1900). In fact these radical philosophers were reviving the long tradition of dialectic visions of Heraclitus, the Sophists, Plotinus and Leibinz. Consequently, there appeared two new branches of philosophy called phenomenology and existentialism, which focused on subjective interpretations of reality and human life. Human mind is not objective fundamentally. Rather the basic nature of mind is subjective awareness in first-person perspective, which is greatly influenced by the factors of physical body and external circumstances. Human rationality must be redefined in terms of the subjective knowledge through diverse streams of experiences.
The above factors resulted in an intellectual situation, known as postmodernism, which holds that human knowledge is the product of various social factors. Even science is shaped by ideologies and external pressures. The essential postulates of postmodernism are :
a) Reality is a constantly changing process, a history unfolding. It is not an objective external being, but is an immanent process continuously affected by the subjective actions and beliefs of a person.
b) Human knowledge is a subjective process, and hence it is determined by context or external factors. Truth can be viewed as a continuous process involving hypothesis, collection of data, testing and interpretation. This empirical view and interpretative approach promotes pluralism and relativism about the nature of phenomenon. The unifying principle of universe cannot be defined. Values and matter are not objective essences, but are subjective interpretations of changing processes.
c) The Cartesian notion of body-mind dualism is ruled out. Mind is not a passive mirror of an external world and its intrinsic order. Knowledge is not objective. As such, the subject-object distinction does not arise in the knowing process. Accordingly, reality is the subjective creation of observer.
The focus of postmodernism is on the epistemological analysis regarding interpretation of multitude of human experiences with reference to the contexts and social factors. In literature and art as well as in the study of language and meaning, the postmodern approach became highly popular and influential throughout the second half of twentieth century.
The philosophy of science also has undergone a revolutionary change notably through the doctrines of paradigms introduced by Thomas Kuhn. In the history of science, according to Kuhn, there is no linear rational progress towards more accurate, complete and objective truth. Rather, science advances by shifts of paradigms. Here the term ‘paradigm’ means the set of basic hypotheses or axioms produced by the current state of the collective psyche of intellectual society. The economic, political, cultural and other social forces of current society give rise to a paradigm. The pursuit of knowledge always takes place with in a given paradigm, that is with in a conceptual structure of axioms. The empirical analysis and theorizing are meant for validating the prevailing paradigm. But when conflicting data are accumulated and if the social factors are powerful, there occurs a shift of paradigm, by which a new one replaces the old.
Each paradigm is a stage in the historical process of evolution of human knowledge. It is treated as better than the old ones only on the basis of social criteria. There is no absolute criterion of determining the truth of a paradigm because it consists of the set of axioms upon which the propositions of knowledge are framed. In fact, the rival paradigms are never genuinely comparable. They are based on different sets of data and modes of interpretation. The notion of history of paradigms is in accordance with the tenets of postmodernism, which underscored the relativity of human knowledge. It became a fertile ground for pluralistic approaches to knowledge and truth, such as anthropological, sociological, historical, Marxian, feminist, linguistic and ethnic.
The prevailing epistemological perspectives of postmodernism influenced the master minds of Quantum Physics, causing a paradigm shift. The emergent vision can be called Process Worldview. Essentially, Process Worldview postulates that the phenomenal universe as a whole is a process of continuous change involving history. This approach to the conception of universe is on the basis of the question: Why do phenomena undergo change? Philosophically speaking, the change of phenomena happens due to internal contradictions as well as by the influence of external parameters. Hence the study of change focuses on the circumstances causing change, both internal and external. Here circumstances become the objects of our attention. When a phenomenon is treated as a whole formed by the circumstances, it is a pattern of relations, which undergo change constantly. This whole is a process with history, that is, with three states of past, present and future.
Accordingly, under Process Worldview, the propositions about a phenomenon are descriptions of the internal and external circumstances affecting the phenomenon. It is a dynamic or historical description of process. The definition of phenomenon and its parts will not be possible under process view. Another feature of Process Worldview is its holistic approach. A phenomenon as a whole is the object of study without considering its component parts.
Consider the example of cinema. We can observe that the form of cinema undergoes change with the passage of time, in accordance with the social situations and values of a society. Similarly different types of cinema exist in various societies or countries depending on the particular cultural traditions. Such changes in cinema, between societies at a particular period of time or with in a society over the passage of time, can be viewed as history. Note that here history means change of circumstances with time dimension.
In the process view about cinema, we focus on the changes in internal structure as well as in the external parameters. We try to find out patterns or processes of change. Then cinema is a whole created by internal and external circumstances. This view can be contrasted with the mechanistic or scientific view mentioned in earlier section, which asks the question: What is cinema? The mechanistic view gives the definition of cinema by showing the relations between the general features or components in a static framework. Thus mechanistic view essentially involves reduction of a phenomenon to its component parts.
Our knowledge about the historical change of a phenomenon consists of infinite number of states belonging to past, present and future. In fact we observe the change through an infinitely long series of momentary experiences. Each experience is a snap shot of the conditions that influence the concerned phenomenon. But we experience only the circumstances (or history, or context) and not the phenomenon as such. We observe the changing circumstances as fact, so it constitutes a type of empirical knowledge. The philosophers, who dealt with this kind of historical knowledge, identified the circumstances with the phenomenon. They went to the extent of arguing that phenomenon does not exist and that only circumstances have existence. Phenomenon is merely interconnectedness or whole of circumstances. What exists is a fleet of momentary experiences pertaining to history. This amounts to a basic assumption about the phenomenal universe as a whole.
The epistemological distinction between process view and mechanistic view may be explained further. The most important feature of process view is that it describes the factors (contexts) responsible for the change (evolution) of a phenomenon. But it does not examine the nature of phenomenon as such by way of definition and reduction to parts and their cause-effect relation. The knowledge under process view is not about the existence of phenomenon. To know how a phenomenon occurs or exists, we must use mechanistic view.
For example, process view describes evolution, saying that evolution occurs in such and such manner or circumstances. But it does not answer the question: what is evolution? Only mechanistic view can define evolution in a static sense.
There is a general misconception that quantum physics is developed through process view. On the contrary, it may be noted that the quantum physics defines particle properties and wave properties of subatomic phenomena under Mechanistic Worldview. In the case of a subatomic particle, say electron, the wave function is a model under mechanistic view, as it shows cause-effect relations in a static sense.
But if we adopt process view, then the wave function is a momentary experience about interconnectedness. This process view proceeds to describe the movement of wave function over time and narrates the formation of higher-level complexities and emergence of new properties--that is, evolution of electron over time. The entire phenomena are interconnected in a web of cause-effect relations perceived with the dimension of time. We can note that the world process is a continuous and historical conflict between material and mental components. This distinction between material process and mental process corresponds to the material and mental substances conceived in materialism and idealism respectively. Material process is manifested in the physical changes such as chemical reaction and motion of bodies. On the other hand, mental process consists of such phenomena as thinking, desires, will, creativity and freedom.
Similar to the conflicting fields of deism and naturalism under Mechanistic Worldview described in last chapter, there are two separate branches for Process Worldview also. I prefer to call them as Idealist Process Worldview (IPWV) and Materialist Process Worldview (MPWV) respectively. Only a brief outline of these branches of process thought are attempted below, since their implications for science-religion conflict is the focus of this article. For that purpose, the process theology of Whitehead (1861-1947) is considered as the best representative of the idealist view, while the ‘systems view’ of Fritjof Capra is the most popular narration under materialist approach.

4.3 Process Theology of Whitehead

Whitehead, in his most famous book Process and Reality develops a metaphysical theory about the historical process of phenomenon. He calls his process thought as a ‘philosophy of organism’ because it treats diverse things as wholes, which grow, mature and perish over the passage of time. Rejecting idealism and materialism as one sided abstractions in static sense, Whitehead attributes a dialectical character to the world. Everything that exists is a combination of polar opposites called mental pole and physical pole. But Whitehead rejects the dualism popularized by Plato and Descartes whereby the polar opposites are independent metaphysical entities.
Based on quantum theory, in which every quantum state is a momentary event in space-time, Whitehead holds that the basic units of world are actual entities (or actual occasions) which come into being and perish with in a fraction of a second. Each actual entity is a combination of mental pole and physical pole. It is changeless as long as it lasts, and change occurs in the transition from one entity to another in tune with the method of process view. Actual entity is similar to the metaphysical notion of substance appearing in Aristotle’s philosophy. The relation between successive actual entities is called ‘prehension’ which is characterized as a feeling or experience. An actual entity exists for present moment by virtue of its prehension to other actual entities of immediate past and future. Thus the notion of ‘prehension’ is absolutely foundational to Whitehead’s philosophy, and it reflects the idea of ‘quantum consciousness’.
Whitehead introduces the term ‘concrescence’ to refer to the process by which an actual entity becomes the whole of momentary prehensions. Thus actual entities of different things acquire concreteness as the wholes of particular types of prehensions. For example, a mango is a concrescence or whole of momentary prehensions of a particular time. Thus mango is a whole of feelings, which is a class different from that of another object, say rice. The things that we encounter in daily life are made up of many actual entities distributed through time and space. Such a thing is called a ‘society’ of actual entities. Since the process of concrescence of actual entities and the subsequent formation of things involves the union of subjective pretensions (feelings), it is an immanent process. That is, the force of unifying the multitude of actual entities into a concrete thing comes from within --physical variables cannot represent this process as it involves subjective feelings.
The sequence of actual entities occur linearly in history of time as concrete wholes of prehensions. By perceiving the history of prehensions, we get the notion of cause-effect relations.
A contrast between quantum physics and Whitehead’s metaphysics may be mentioned here as a clarification. In quantum physics a thing, in static sense, is a combination of atoms, where each atom is an interconnected system of quanta (packets of energy) with uncertainty. This is a reductionist and physical theory as uncertainty is measured by physical variables. Though quanta exist in four-dimensional space-time, quantum physics is a mechanistic view, which does not account for the historical change in time. On the other hand, Whitehead’s process view deals with the temporal history of things as a society of momentary actual entities, that are themselves combinations of physical and nonphysical aspects. Things as well as elementary actual entities are wholes in their own right. Since the concepts and methods of mechanistic view and process view constitute different paradigms of knowledge, proper comparison is not possible between them.
Whitehead presents a doctrine of Immanent God for ultimately explaining the historical process of actual entities and composite things. The failure of Newtonian classical physics and the emergence of quantum theory about subatomic phenomena inspired Whitehead to reject the notion of Transcendent God and exnihilo creation, in the sense of creation out of nothing. He notes the fact that natural laws exist as fixed principles and even God cannot violate these laws—divine interruptions on the causal principles of world is impossible. By rejecting the supernaturalism implied in deism, Whitehead wants to develop a naturalist theism, which is supposed to integrate the divine action with the physical laws belonging to science. Accordingly the main postulates of Whitehead’s doctrine of God are the following.
1. God is like an architect, who gave order to the chaos that was the world in the beginning. Whitehead writes: “In God’s nature, permanence is primordial and flux is derivative from the world. In the world’s nature, flux is primordial and permanence is derived from God” (PR:528-529) This God is rather like the Demiurge is Plato’s Timaeus. The notion of creation exnihilo is not admitted here. Primordial matter also existed in the beginning along with the architect God.
2. It may be recalled that Plato’s Demiurge, possessing with the eternal ideas, was modified and personalised as Transcendent God in the philosophy of Aristotle and later by Christian thinkers. This resulted in the virtual dualism between creator God and transient mechanical world--the dualism between reality and appearance, which is the central problem in theist philosophy. On the other hand, Whitehead conceived God as an immanent process, which gives goals and ideals to evolving world. God works with in the world to produce creativity and novelty in the process of evolution.
3. God, being an immanent process with history, has two types of nature - the primordial nature and the consequent nature. These are the two opposite poles of the dipolar nature of God. As the first pole, God is the ultimate ground of order and novelty in the world, the source of all values. By virtue of the second pole, that is the consequent nature, God is involved in the world and its history. We can observe divine action, as per the consequent nature, in the complexity of natural laws, and in the beauty and teleology of nature. Whitehead’s notion of dipolar God expresses his idealist project of converting Platonic philosophy into process view.
4. God and material world are in constant interaction. Hence the power of God is limited as he has to struggle and suffer against the counter- acting power of world. God’s action in the world is always persuasive, never coercive. By virtue of natural laws, the world has certain inherent power of self-determination. This is Whitehead’s interpretation of the problem of evil. Such a God is lacking the Omnipotence and wisdom attributed in Biblical God. Nor the struggling God is worthy of worship, in the theist point of view.
According to the foregoing theory of God, Whitehead holds that God and world are opposite entities, which interact to achieve a unity and satisfaction. There are many ambiguous points in Whitehead’s doctrine of God. As example, see the list of antitheses, a few of which are the following.
“It is as true to say that world is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the world. It is as true to say that God transcends the world, as that the world transcends it. It is as true to say that God creates the world, as that the world creates God”.
It can be noted that Whitehead advocates a symmetrical correlation between God and world, and this causes lot of confusion among his readers. So the later process thinkers, in particular Charles Hartshorne and David Griffin, modified Whitehead’s theory of God to assert that all things exist ultimately ‘in God’. Hartshorne says: “God includes the world but is more than the world”. This view is called Panentheism, meaning that everything is in God. The relation between God and world is analogous to mind-body relation, where mind is conceived as the immanent cause of all bodily movements. It contrasts with Pantheism (everything is God), famously attributed to Spinoza (1632-1677) and some mystic poets, which treats that world and God are identical substantially. Though panentheism, with roots in Whitehead’s thought, takes modern physics closer to theology, there are several pertinent issues to be discussed in chapter 6.
Further, many incongruities occur when we try to link Whitehead’s notions of Creativity, God (with primordial nature and consequent nature) and World. He defines creativity as the ultimate metaphysical principle required for understanding the process of generation of actual entities. This creativity is embodied in all actual entities including God and finite phenomena. It means that creative power is inherent in the world as well as in God. The phenomenal world has some power of self-determination, on account of the natural laws which cannot be violated even by God. In this scheme of thought, the most obscure part is the concept of world as primordial flux. At the phenomenal level, world means the process of actual entities linked through the history of prehensions. But in the level of reality, world is primordial flux. God and the world stand to each other in the opposed requirement of achieving unity. Here Whitehead implies that the primordial flux also has inherent creativity, but has not elaborated this aspect due to his idealist tendencies. From these points we can conclude that Whitehead fails to suggest a proper theory of reality due to the following reasons.
a) The focus of process philosophy is the historical flow of entities as momentary experiences. Then reality is also conceived as an ongoing process. Hence the existence of reality as a permanent being, in static sense, is beyond the scope of process view.
b) Whitehead’s aim is to present an idealist metaphysics for explaining phenomenal world as a process of achieving higher values. In this situation, God is the reality as the source of values, while primordial flux is relegated as unreal. It maybe noted, this is the method of describing values without considering the facts about existence.
c) The notion of God with limited, persuasive power does not serve the purpose of explaining the problem of evil, nor agrees with the theist aspect of religious worship.
It may be added here that Whitehead’s process theology is a sequel to the philosophy of Leibniz (1646-1716) who considered monads, combination of matter and mind, as the primary units of this world. Philosophers like Plotinus (AD 204-270), Eriugena (810-877), Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) and Hegel (1770-1831) also have influenced Whitehead in developing an idealist view of worldly process.
Further it is appropriate here to mention about Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), who wrote during 1920s and 1930s and presented a mystical vision regarding the process of biological evolution. According to Teilhard, spirit or consciousness exists in matter phenomenally. Evolution is the process of level formation, which is a teleological advancement directed by the spirit working on body. But Teilhard’s approach is rather religious and it is prior to the insights of Whitehead with respect to quantum theory. We will discuss in later chapter the relevance of process thought in the context of science-religion conflict.

4.4 Materialist Systems view of Fritjof Capra

In the foregoing paragraphs, we considered the idealist approaches to Process Worldview, mainly that of Whitehead. In such philosophies, it is assumed that God or divine agency directs the process of evolution and level formation in order to realize higher good goals. This cosmic vision is purely metaphysical as the concepts like prehensions, feelings, actual entity and teleology cannot be observed empirically. It has no practical use for explaining the laws of science and the events of our daily life, and additionally idealist metaphysics fails against the challenging problem of evil. In this situation, our scientific mind looks for alternative views of world process, which can satisfy the empirical and pragmatic requirements. Frotjof Capra, physicist and popular writer, in his books The Tao of Physics, The Turning Point and The Web of Life presents an holistic conception of world through materialist point of view. The characterization of Capra’s process worldview as materialist will be explained in due course.
At the outset, a contrast with naturalism may be given. In naturalism a phenomenon is statically studied by the method of reduction into component parts and cause-effect relations adopting mechanistic worldview. For example, neo-Darwinism is a reductionist theory about the linear cause-effect relations between independent genes for explaining mutation, heredity and natural selection. And, also the later doctrines like molecular biology and genetics are basically reductionist. These theories under naturalism are unable to explain the origin of life and the historical evolution in inanimate and living world manifested as the formation of higher-level phenomena with emergent properties. Hence, as a wave of opposition, a school of biologists in the early decades of 20th century focused on the integrative functions of genes and other subunits of cell. They initially explored the concept of organization, which means a pattern of ordered relationships, to study the emergence of more complex biological structures through evolution.
Quantum physics, revealing the interconnectedness of subatomic phenomena, served as the intellectual source for this new approach. Later, by 1950s, the term ‘system’ was widely recognized as better to denote the organization of hierarchical structures in the biological world. Tracing the historical development of this alternative against naturalism, Capra writes: “From that time on, a system has come to mean an integrated whole whose essential properties arise from the relationships between its parts, and ‘systems thinking’ the understanding of a phenomenon with in the context of a larger whole…. To understand things systemically literally means to put them into a context, to establish the nature of their relationship”.
The bechaviour of a living organism as an integrated whole cannot be understood by the reductionist study. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. The properties of whole, the organism, arise from the interactions and relationships between the parts. In other words, the nature of the whole is a sort of creativity or novelty that cannot be explained as the mere sum of the behaviour of component units. We can observe this creativity only in a process view, that accounts for the historical development of systems. The concept of systems is applicable to the levels of inanimate things also. Every level of compound is a whole, as it exhibits properties that do not exist at the lower level of parts. For example, water (H2O) can be treated as a system, whose properties are entirely different from those of constituents, hydrogen and oxygen.
Here two fundamental questions arise for philosophical reflection as under:
 Why do systems exist with emergent new properties? Alternatively why do new properties emerge when parts are organized into a whole? This question is ontological and hence cannot be considered under process view.
 How can we study systems as processes with historical nature? This is an epistemological enquiry about the hierarchy of systems and hence it belongs to the realm of process worldview. It may be noted here that Capra adopts an empirical approach to this issue.
Capra’s sources for developing a ‘systems view’ about biological organisms are mainly the following
1. The theories about particle-wave duality under quantum physics, especially the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Bohr’s Complementarity Principle.
2. The bootstrap approach proposed by Geoffrey Chew for interpreting the S-matrix theory of quantum physics.
3. The studies in ‘deep ecology’ dealing with the environmental factors and interdependence of ecological systems.
4. Cybernetics as a physical theory about the processes of mind, and the subsequent theories of cognitive science.
5. Bertalanffy’s notion of ‘open systems’ with the capacity of self-organisation.
6. The Theory of ‘dissipative structures’ proposed by Ilya Prigogine, as a systematic study of self-organising systems.
7. The Gia hythosis which is the idea that the planet Earth as a whole is a living, self-organising system.
8. The mathematical models of nonlinear relations, such as chaos theory, the ‘butterfly effect’ and fractal geometry.
9. The concept of autopoiesis (which means self-making) appearing in the works of Maturana and Varela.
10. The process theories of mind suggested by Bateson, Maturana and Varela.
The details of the above theories are well documented in the popular books of Capra, and hence only the essence is stated here. Accordingly, a system is a pattern of organization involving two component processes--the process of material structure and the process of self-organisation. The physical universe, especially our planet Earth, is a self-organising system basically made of the inanimate things like atoms, rocks and metals. When earth evolved historically, certain nonliving dissipative structures occurred and subsequently cell was formed as the basic structure with autopoiesis. Life is the emergent property of self-organisation of cell. Then evolution of higher forms of life followed, together with the emergence of a hierarchy of minds. From this description, it is clear that in Capra’s systems view, life and mind are epiphenomena because material processes are treated as more basic. Capra does not admit any nonphysical aspect in the world since he writes “There is no evidence of any plan, goal or purpose in the global evolutionary process, and thus no evidence for progress; and yet, there are recognizable patterns of development”.
Under systems view, there are two prominent theories about mind--both are based on the computer model of information processing. The first belongs to Gregory Bateson, who treats life and mind as two levels of the process of self-organisation occurring in living organism. The material processes of brain and nervous system inevitably produces the mental processes. Conversely, mental process is an epiphenomenon of material process. Underdeveloped processes of mind occur in animals and lower living organisms also. The second process view of mind is called Santiago theory, developed by Maturana and Varela, which links mind and brain in accordance with the neuroscience. This is an Identity Theory under process view. Capra says: “The interactions of a living system with its environment are cognitive interactions, and the process of living itself is a process of cognition. In the words of Maturana and Varela, ‘to live is to know’”. For a systematic treatment of process view of organism, we must go deep into the philosophy of mind, which is postponed to a later chapter in this book.
The interconnectedness between the material process and the mental process in phenomenal world is scientifically represented by the concept of ‘field’ in quantum physics. This process worldview, which explains the formation of systems with self-organisation, suggests that the underlying reality is a creative process. Capra explains at length in The Tao of Physics the analogy between the process view of modern science and the eastern mystical philosophies of Buddhism and Taoism. Accordingly the ultimate reality is nothingness (void, Sunyata or Tao) which is an infinitely creative process. This ceaseless activity is manifested as the finite process of world, that we observe empirically.

Criticism of Capra’s systems view

The central theme advocated in the books of Fritjof Capra is that the various phenomena of universe are interconnected processes. The subatomic world exists as a network of relations; it is not composed of material particles or fundamental building blocks. Due to the equivalence of mass and energy, subatomic particles do not consist of any material stuff, but are processes or bundles of energy. Matter does not exist in the traditional sense. Subatomic phenomena cannot be understood by reductionist methods of science, but only as integral parts of a unified whole. Thus mechanistic worldview must be rejected as wrong interpretation of reality. The new vision about universe emerging from Quantum physics is very similar to the Eastern mysticism, mainly Buddhism and Taoism. Capra writes: “I have come to believe that the recognition of the similarities between modern physics and Eastern mysticism is part of a much larger movement, of a fundamental change of worldviews, or paradigms, in science and society, which is now happening throughout Europe and North America and which amounts to a profound cultural transformation.”
Capra presents his systems view as a new paradigm of thought which can direct future research in various fields incorporating a holististic or ecological perspective. According to him, it is a new vision of spirituality, capable of alleviating the evils of current society. The emergence of systems view in second half of twentieth century is projected as an advancement of philosophical thought, much superior than the earlier methods of organic worldview and mechanistic worldview. Inspite of the tall claims made by Capra, certain serious criticisms can be pointed out against his thesis. Due to constraints of space, a few of his key propositions are singled out in italics, and the critical points are given below.
1. “The notion that all opposites are polar--that light and dark, winning and losing, good and evil are merely different aspects of the same phenomenon--is one of the basic principles of the Eastern way of life”.
In the present sentence, Capra explains the Chinese philosophy of Taoism, in which the universe is a cyclical motion involving the dynamic unity of the polar opposites called yin and yang. But it may be pointed out here that Taoism is a process view about change and hence it does not deal with the ontological issue about the existence of polar opposites. The question why opposites exist is not considered under process view. This criticism applies well to the description of subatomic phenomena under Quantum physics also.
2. “For better understanding of this relation between pairs of classical concepts, Niels Bohr has introduced the notion of complementarity. He considered the particle picture and the wave picture as two complementary descriptions of the same reality…. Niels Bohr was well aware of the parallel between his concept of complementarity and Chinese thought”
Bohr’s complementarity principle was introduced in 1927 as part of the Copenhagen interpretation of subatomic phenomena taking into account the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. It considered the particle model and wave model as two complementary interpretations or methods of knowledge depending on the nature of experiment. This view suggested the interconnectedness between subject and object in the process of knowing, in tune with the postmodern epistemology. But in the formalism of Quantum physics, there is no enquiry about the real existence of complementary aspects of reality. It may be mentioned in passing that the question of existence can be addressed only through subject-object distinction as adopted in the mechanistic worldview. An innovative method of explaining the particle-wave duality will be introduced in the next chapter. Capra is merely expressing his process view when he writes that a subatomic particle, say electron, undergoes continual transformation from particle to wave and from wave to particle.
3. “Now, relativity theory tells us that mass is nothing but a form of energy….. Atoms consist of particles and these particles are not made of any material stuff….Quantum theory has shown that particles are not isolated grains of matter but are probability patterns, interconnections in an inseparable cosmic web”.
Capra interprets Einstein’s equation E = MC² to say that matter does not exist and matter is a form of energy. These statements of fact follow the writings of earlier scientists like Heisenberg and Schrodinger who suggested the ‘unreal’ nature of matter. Such hypotheses are, it may be pointed out here, reflections based on the notion of instrumentalism, regarding the knowledge about quantum phenomena.
As a result, the interconnectedness was spiritually conceived as consciousness prevailing in the universe. Interestingly, some religious leaders of Hinduism linked Quantum physics to the Advaita doctrine that only Consciousness (Brahman) is real and Matter (Maya) is unreal. It is ridiculous because Advaita Vedanta is a form of idealism dealing with values only. In the context of explaining the role of observer in interpreting quantum phenomena, John Polkinghorne writes: “In connection with this issue, one must also question the assertion, often made in association with claimed parallels to the concept of maya in eastern thought, that quantum world is a ‘dissolving world’ of insubstantiality. This is a kind of half-truth…. Physical quantities such as energy and momentum are conserved in quantum theory, much as they are in classical physics. Recall also that one of the initial triumphs of quantum mechanics was to explain the stability of atoms. The quantum exclusion principle undergirds the fixed structure of the periodic table. By no means all the quantum world dissolves into elusiveness”.
It is interesting to note here that Einstein himself could not agree with the interpretation of particle-wave duality through process view. Einstein formulated his theory of relativity, and the equivalence of mass and energy, standing on the foundation of mechanistic worldview. He felt that the motions like energy, spin and relative notion make sense only if the material aspect of subatomic phenomena is recognized. During the historic debate with Bohr in 1927, Einstein reacted with the famous metaphor “God does not play dice”.
The fallacy of Capra’s views can be understood if we examine the complementarity principle about the particle-wave duality in the following manner. The particle aspect of a subatomic particle (say electron) can be treated as matter, which is quantitatively termed as mass. The wave aspect represents the relations or activity, and it is measured by energy. Energy is not an entity since it is the measure of ability to do work. And, work is the manifestation of wave aspect involving relations. Thus the particle-wave duality of subatomic particle is quantitatively reduced to mass-energy duality. An absolutely and independently existing entity cannot do any work. So the dual concepts of mass and energy are the fundamental properties of a subatomic particle. Now we can say that a particle exists with mass M and energy E, which are related by Einstein’s equation.
The three stable subatomic particles--proton, neutron and electron – are arranged in the model of solar system for giving a three-dimensional structure of atom. Hence, atom is treated as the basic unit of matter in the physical universe. However, atom is a dynamic system on account of the uncertain interaction of four basic forces. The production and destruction of unstable particles and the emissions of radiation are due to the transformation of particles according to Einstein’s equation E = MC². When the energy of a particle changes in the space-time manifold, it gets converted into another particles, which is euphemistically described as the creation of a new particle. The formation of different particles can be shown by the following scheme:
Change in (Mass 1, Energy 1) of particle 1----
(Mass 2, Energy 2) of particle 2 + absorption or emission of energy as per Einstein’s equation.
Here particle 1 is destroyed and particle 2 is produced.
This transformation is expressed in the language of physics as “matter is convertible to energy”. It can be explained by the example of the period of 24 hours divided into day and night. The duration of both day and night changes according to season. When season changes from winter to summer, day increases and night decreases. But the total period is the same 24 hours. The change in the durations of day and night may be metaphorically stated as “a part of night is converted into day”. Night’s loss is day’s gain. Similarly in quantum theory, the change of particle from one form to another involves simultaneous change in mass and energy. We can conclude that in a closed system, the sum of mass and energy is conserved.
Every subatomic particle is a bundle of quanta of energy. Here the meaning is that each quantum has particle-wave (mass-energy) duality in the four dimensional framework of space and time. Mass and energy are not independent because of space-time relativity. Thus the polar opposites of mass and energy are the fundamental aspects of our universe. Its philosophical implication is that the universe is not ultimately derived from a monistic reality called energy, or wave, or consciousness. The particle-wave duality is a phenomenon studied by Quantum physics. It is the task of philosophy to postulate the nature of Reality which produces the quantum phenomenon with the dual aspects of particle and wave. This issue will be addressed in the next chapter.
It may be added that Capra discusses space-time relativity only at the epistemological level, as the modern method of knowing phenomena. He writes: “since space and time are now reduced to the subjective role of the elements of the language a particular observer uses for his or her description of natural phenomena, each observer will describe the phenomena is a different way”. If we see that space is equivalent to particle (mass) and time is equivalent to wave (energy), the implications for a new vision of ontology will become clear.
4. “Throughout history, it has been recognized that the human mind is capable of two kinds of knowledge, or two modes of consciousness, which have often been termed the rational and the intuitive, and have traditionally been associated with science and religion, respectively. In the West, the intuitive, religious type of knowledge is often devalued in favor of rational, scientific knowledge, where as the traditional Eastern attitude is in general just the opposite… The rational part of research would, in fact be useless if it were not complemented by the intuition that gives scientists new insights and makes them creative…. It there is an intuitive element in science, there is also a rational element in Eastern Mysticism”.
Here Capra seeks to show the epistemological foundation for his process view by dividing the spectrum of knowledge into two classes, the rational and the intuitive. But, unfortunately, his classification is rather vague and simplistic. It does not reflect a proper understanding of Theory of Knowledge and Philosophy of Mind. It is not proper to assign rationality to science and intuition to religion in a compartmentalized manner. Under the category of rational science (that is, logical reasoning), there is a further division into deduction and induction, which traditionally correspond to mathematical science and empirical science respectively. It is better to change the phrases and say that deduction is synonymous with intuition while induction refers to rationality. Thus science involves both intuition and rationality. Similarly both rational method and intuition are widely used in theist religions, such as Christianity and Islam, especially in the theology. Further, Capra focuses only on the comparison between western science and Eastern mysticism in a crude manner, which leaves out the various other types of knowledge of West and East. We will take-up this problem later for a through treatment.
5. “The firm basis of knowledge on experience in Eastern mysticism suggests a parallel to the firm basis of scientific knowledge on experiment…. This parallel is further enforced by the nature of the mystical experience. It is described in the Eastern traditions as a direct insight which lies out side the realm of the intellect and is obtained by watching rather than thinking; by looking inside oneself; by observation.”
There are many points of confusion when Capra compares science with mysticism. Actually science involves ‘knowing’ by direct observation and logical thinking. On the other hand, mysticism emphasizes on ‘seeing’ in a metaphorical sense, which means nonsensory experience. But they are similar in one respect --both give more importance to empirical perception, rather than the abstract deductive reasoning. However, as explained in earlier sections, science and mysticism belong to different worldviews--mechanistic and process respectively. Capra assumes that, due to failure of classical science in explaining subatomic phenomena, Quantum physics must be recast in Process Worldview allied to Eastern mysticism. This is a category mistake. Though mechanistic worldview is wrong, Quantum physics as well as classical physics belong to mechanistic epistemology consisting of subject-object distinction, cause-effect relations and theoretical models. Quantum physics deal with subatomic particles (quanta of energy), wave functions (uncertainty) and basic forces in space-time framework, where as classical physics studies particles (bodies) and basic forces deterministically.
But Process Worldview pertains to a different kind of knowledge, which is contextual and historical. Reductive science cannot belong to the frame-work of process worldview. The failure to recognize this fact is evident in the following words of Capra:
“So again and again, throughout the history of science, there has been a feeling that the foundations of knowledge were shifting, or even crumbling. The current paradigm shift in science again evokes such a feeling but this time it may be the last time; not because there won’t be any more progress or any more changes, but because there won’t be any foundations in future…. The new metaphor of knowledge as a network with no firm foundations is extremely uncomfortable for scientists”.

Conclusion

It must be noted that, both classical and modern science may undergo change due to its dependence on fresh evidences. But the scientific method epistemologically remains the same as mechanistic. Since classical mechanistic worldview has been rejected, we are in need of a suitable alternative worldview that can embrace the classical and modern branches of science in an integrative manner. Further this new unified mechanistic worldview must agree with the diverse types of knowledge traditionally included under Organic Worldview and Process Worldview also.
Eastern mysticism, being empirical, denies the theist concept of God and other absolute principles of idealism and hence it is very close to materialism. Mystical knowledge can be characterized as a first-person perspective of the empirical experience transcending the sense organs. The distinction between material processes and mental processes is not possible under mysticism, because it lacks the subject-object framework of knowledge. Definition or causal law is possible only by the self-awareness of self (subject) under third-person perspective of objects. The topics of biological evolution and emergence of mind under the materialist systems view of Capra are developed under third-person perspective of empirical facts. So there is a contradiction in shifting to the mystical view (first-person perspective) for explaining the reality of empirical phenomena known in third-person perspective.
Further the theory of Capra fails to account for the purpose (value) in the universe, which is a rational and objective knowledge accessible only through the idealist point of view. So, Capra’s approach conflicts with the Process theology of Whitehead, that follows idealist thought. Whitehead asserts the existence of immanent God as a process which directs the material process for realizing higher goals of evolution. In contrast, Capra adopts a materialist view about the history of actual entities. Then actual entities are momentary transformations between matter (particle) and energy (wave). Accordingly the ‘nonphysical pole’ of Whitehead is reduced to wave or energy.
However we can remember the principle that every process is a dynamic unity of polar opposites. Accordingly, it is reasonable to anticipate the unification of the opposite views of Capra and Whitehead for a truer understanding of the world process.

We have discussed, in chapters 2, 3 and 4, the salient features of the three worldviews--organic, mechanistic and process--which divide the philosophical field. It is a popular conception that these worldviews are successive stages of development in a historical order along with the growth of science. And, as some writers including Capra like to put it, that this is an evidence of the progress of philosophy towards higher truth. But this chapter aims to dispel the tendency of equating historical order with advancement of truth. A more impassionate view of the history of philosophy will reveal that all these three worldviews are contemporaries throughout, but one among them gained prominence at a particular period due to socio-cultural reasons.
However, taking into account the critical points given in earlier chapters, we seek to develop a comprehensive worldview, which can reconcile the conflicts and divisive arguments. Since the philosophical basis of a worldview is the notion of reality, the attempt of unification must simultaneously focus on the divergent theories of reality, associated with the competing worldviews. Allied with them are the epistemological theories, since worldview and reality form the basis for the truth of our subjects of knowledge. So we need an interrelated plan of thought in this context, keeping in view the objectives of philosophical enterprise.
The edifice of philosophy stands on three pillars represented by the questions of Existence, Evolution and Purpose. So we can classify the diverse theories of ontology and epistemology belonging to Organic Worldview (OWV), Mechanistic Worldview (MWV) and Process Worldview (PWV) under the heads of these fundamental questions.

1. Existence (Problem of Mind and Body)

The ontological side of this problem deals with the questions of existence of reality and phenomenal things as facts. Both MWV and PWV identify the two components in worldly phenomena, namely the mental part and the physical part. In MWV, the conflicting theories of reality are called Deism and Naturalism, described earlier. Here the basic issue is the existence of mental substance (mind) and physical substance (body) as introduced by Descartes in his famous mind-body problem. The meanings of mind and body will be explained later. PWV treats all phenomena, as processes and its main opposite theories are the process theology of Whitehead and systems view of Capra.
In the epistemological side, the question is: What is the existence of human mind that produces the diverse types of knowledge? Or what is the source of knowledge? Or, what is the structure of human mind? Under MWV, the conflict here is between rationalism and empiricism. Similar issue exists in the PWV also.

2. Evolution (Problem of Permanence and change)

The ontological side of the problem deals with the factual question how the phenomenal things undergo change or evolution? It may be noted that change cannot be conceived without its opposite, permanence. Alternatively, the present issue is called the problem of one and many. MWV gives emphasis on the aspect of permanence, leading to two conflicting views under deism and naturalism. According to deism, permanence is attributed to the existence of Transcendent God who created the mechanistic world and fixed laws. So phenomena undergo change in accordance with the mechanical laws. Naturalism adopts the opposite view that material particles exist permanently, with inherent power for evolution as per mechanical laws. On the other hand, PWV holds that immanent principles direct the evolution of phenomena. Here the division is typically between Whitehead and Capra, as explained in last chapter
In the epistemological side, the questions are related to the methods of formulating the true propositions of knowledge under diverse areas of study. Under MWV, rationalism emphasizes the supremacy of abstract reasoning through mathematics and logic, but its relevance to sciences and social sciences is a matter of controversy. Empiricism deals with the rules of empirical approach in science, though it fails to apply this method to normative subjects of religion, arts and ethics. PWV deals with the description of change in phenomena, caused by contextual or historical factors. As such, the definitions and cause-effect relations pertaining to parts of phenomena are not considered. The teleological view of Whitehead and systems view of Capra adopt opposite position in the process view of knowledge.

3. Purpose (Problem of Good and Evil)

This issue pertains to the question: Is their purpose or value in this universe? In the ontological side, philosophy attempts to speculate about the ultimate source of good and bad events occurring in the world. OWV proposes the theory of reality called Idealism, which holds that a Transcendent God (metaphysical reality) exists as the source of good values in phenomenal word. Consequently, it fails to explain the occurrence of evil, and this issue is traditionally phrased as the problem of evil. The rival theory of reality is termed as materialism, asserting the existence of matter as our eternal substance. Materialism advocates the relativity of values, depending on empirical experiences of pleasure and happiness. In PWV, the underlying reality of changing phenomena is an eternal, creative process. Whitehead writes about an Immanent God, while, on the contrary, Capra shows allegiance to the Eastern mysticism. Value is relative under PWV, because value depends on the perspective or context of experiencing the interconnected processes of world.
The epistemological side of purpose deals with the ultimate basis of truth in knowledge. According to OWV, truth lies in the harmonious order of nature or the attributes of God. This is followed by the rationalism of MWV, which attributes truth to the deductive propositions of fact. Materialism and empiricism define truth in terms of sense experiences and coherence of observed data. PWV promotes pluralistic approach to knowledge and truth, currently described as postmodernism. But the question whether there is a metaphysical element of teleology in the process of knowledge is addressed by Whitehead through his doctrine of panexperientialism. In contrast, Capra postulates a materialist view of mysticism.
Referring to the entire collection of philosophies of last three millennia, we can note that the basic issues--Existence, Evolution and purpose--are addressed from two opposite positions about theory of reality. In one camp, the mental aspects of universe represented by the generic term ‘mind’, is treated as reality. The opposite camp holds that the material aspects, which are referred here by the word ‘body’, constitute the reality. Since the hitherto existing philosophies belong to one of the rival camps, treating either mind or body as reality, we can adopt the term Monistic Philosophy to refer to them together. This phrase will facilitate in developing a new philosophy, named here as System Philosophy, in the following paragraphs.
How can we approach the problem of reality in a factual manner? The definition of phenomenon and reality, as given in first chapter, may be recalled here. Every human being is a phenomenon which exists with two parts, physical part and mental part. The physical part is alternatively called physical body, and has assumed to be made of matter in the form of atoms or subatomic particles. Mental part consists of the non-physical activities of life and mental states such as ideas, desires and willing. So mental part includes the property of consciousness or self-awareness or freedom. Now consider the nonhuman living livings such as animals and plants, and inanimate things like stones. All of them have physical bodies made of atoms.
Though we admit that the physical body is composed of matter (atoms or subatomic particles), the ultimate stuff of matter is ambiguous on account of the particle-wave duality. But as part of the criticism on Capra’s ideas in the last chapter, it has been categorically stated that the dual aspects of mass (particle) and energy (wave) are the fundamental properties of a subatomic particle. Hence we must revise the meaning of matter (material stuff) to refer exclusively to the particle property of a subatomic particle or atom. In the case of phenomenal things, we may use the phrase ‘phenomenal body’ to refer to the material stuff having the property of extension. The phenomenal body becomes physical body when the material stuff is described by physical variables like mass, weight and volume. The smallest phenomenal body is the particle property of a quantum, which is described in scientific literature as ‘quantisation of energy’. When the phenomenal bodies of proton, neutron and electron are organized to form an atom its phenomenal body becomes the basic structure with the property of extension or volume in the three-dimensional space. What is implied here is that subatomic particles do not have three-dimensional structure, because of the inherent uncertainty in this movement, which is outside the scope of classical physics. Hence for the practical purpose of studying substances, we regard atoms as the basic unit of matter. There are about 110 types of atoms, distinguishable physical structures, which are called elements constituting the substances of natural world. The difference in the phenomenal bodies of sub atomic particles need not be considered in the study of substances.
Adopting a philosophical view about the facts of evolution and natural laws in the world, resulting in the hierarchy of inanimate things, non-human living beings and human beings, we will deliberate on the mental aspect in general. There is evidently certain purpose, goal or intentionality in the historical progress of evolution as a process of developing higher order complexities. When quanta are combined at the micro level to form subatomic particles, which in their turn organize to constitute atoms and higher bodies, it is a manifestation of purpose. The concept of purpose implies freedom or uncertainty or creativity, as well as it has the opposite direction of good and bad. When I say that I have the purpose of writing a book it implies that I have the freedom to choose, to write or not to write. And, my purpose of writing may be good or bad, from ethical point of view. When we apply these principles to subatomic and higher natural phenomena, we realize that the universe is not teleological; it is a progress in opposite directions of good and bad. A set of atoms constitute a poison while another set makes a food item. Certain natural processes cause earthquakes and destruction.
The four characteristics of purpose-- freedom, uncertainty, creativity and good/bad -- indicate that it is nonphysical. We adopt the term ‘mental’ as synonymous with ‘nonphysical’. On the contrary, ‘physical’ is defined as the property of cause-effect relations expressed in quantifiable variables like mass, weight, length and force. So we have a key observation that all phenomena of natural world exhibit nonphysical purpose. But, surely nonphysical activity cannot be observed empirically. We have to observe the movement or change of physical aspects of phenomena to realize the nonphysical aspect. In other words, nonphysical aspect of phenomenon is observed by reduction to physical movements. Thus we get the philosophical explanation of the wave property observed in subatomic phenomenon. The wave aspect represents relations or activity, and it is measured by energy. Since energy is the measure of the ability to do work, it is not an entity. Now, we can clarify that wave property is the reduction of nonphysical aspect of subatomic phenomenon into physical aspect.
The phrase ‘phenomenal mind’ is introduced here to refer to the nonphysical aspect belonging to a finite phenomenon. There is a hierarchy of phenomenal minds in the natural world starting from the micro level of quanta and subatomic particle. The phenomenal mind, being nonphysical, is reduced in science to physical variables representing chemical reactions, forces or motion. So physical cause-effect relations are scientific concepts about phenomenal mind. The chemical properties of substances are physical reduction of phenomenal mind. In the case of nonhuman living beings, phenomenal mind consists of the emergent properties of life and low-level mental faculty. Here the phenomenal mind has two levels; the first is the life consisting of activities like metabolism and reproduction and the second is the undeveloped mental faculty including instincts, desires, sensation, etc. Human beings have a fully developed mental faculty with the essential property of consciousness (self awareness). All these aspects of phenomenal mind are perceivable only through the movements of parts of phenomenal body. So we observe combination of phenomenal body and phenomenal mind in all levels of natural world.
Our immediate problem is to explain the formation of a hierarchy of phenomena with higher complexities of phenomenal body and phenomenal mind. For that purpose I am depending on Bohr’s Complementarity Principle mentioned in last chapter. Bohr has showed that particle property and wave property of a subtonic phenomenon are complementary methods of knowledge. But, writing in the formalized language of Quantum Physics, Bohr was not concerned with the real existence of a subatomic particle. He used the notion of complementarity in accordance with the process view, similar to the Chinese notions of Yin and Yang. Here, I feel that complementarity can be adopted in the static sense also as the fundamental principle of existence of two polar opposites. Phenomenal body and phenomenal mind are definitely polar opposites because the former is physical and the latter is nonphysical. They are mutually exclusive, but appear as dual parts of a whole, in all levels of phenomena. I am inclined to adopt the term ‘system’ to mean the complementary relation between phenomenal body and phenomenal mind. This innovation, hereby acknowledged as an adaptation of Capra’s process view of system, serves the basic requirement of a Unified Mechanistic Worldview (UMWV), that is capable of unifying the classical physics and Quantum physics.
Hence every quantum is a system of phenomenal body and phenomenal mind. The higher order systems (subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, substances, plants, animals and human beings) are formed through successive combinations of elementary systems. The stratified, or multileveled systems can be represented by the picture of a Pyramid. Atom as a system has a unique position in this hierarchy because it has the smallest physical structure in three-dimensional world. Next milestone is the level of organic cell, where the phenomenal mind has the emergent properties of life and the lowest form of mental faculty. Next epoch comes at the level of human being with consciousness. Theories of evolution (astronomical and organic) are concerned with the historical emergence of higher order systems in our universe. But the present discussion about the stratified order of systems pertains to the static existence of systems at a particular point of time.
The basic classification of systems is into three categories with higher levels of phenomenal body and phenomenal mind -- inanimate things, nonhuman living beings, and human beings. Hence a living cell is higher than the sun or galaxy. A brief list is given below for clarification.

The concepts of phenomenal body and phenomenal mind are the keys for unifying the levels of systems in this universe. We can use the method of the isoquant model of economics to represent the above hierarchy of systems. It will be explained later.
Definitely we are aware of the mutual dependence between the physical part and mental part of our existence. Our physical body affects mental activities (a wound in my hand causes pain) and, reversely, mental part causes movement of body. Hence we can reject the body-mind dualism introduced by Descartes, who treated mind as an immortal substance called soul which acts on body to produce mental states, but cannot be affected in reverse direction by body.
Every system is finite since it belongs to the phenomenal world, which is accessible to the methods of science. Though phenomenal mind (consisting of levels of life and mental faculties) is nonphysical, it is finite and hence phenomenal. We can study phenomenal mind scientifically by reduction to the phenomenal body. To illustrate this point, parts of Brain (phenomenal body) can be studied by physical sciences; the life and mental activities (phenomenal mind) are studied scientifically by reducing them to the movements of brain and others parts of physical body. Thus we distinguish between physical sciences and mental sciences.
Since a system is a combination of (physical) and phenomenal mind (nonphysical) we can experience it in diverse ways such as scientific, artistic, religious and mystic. Thus the concept of system serves as the basic premise for unifying the various types of human knowledge. The scientific study of system is just only one method of knowing it. In those ways other than science the distinction between physical and mental aspects of a system in rather blurred or absent. So we require of comprehensive classification of our different types of knowledge about finite systems and infinite entities like God and metaphysical beings.
The knowledge acquired by human being, in such varied subjects as natural sciences, economics, art and religion basically fall under two categories namely fact and value. Fact is the knowledge about the actual state of affaires of an object. On the other hand, value is the knowledge about a goal that people approve and desire. In ordinary speech we say that values are known through our intuition. Car has value, if I approve and desire a car; that is, if the possession of car is a goal of my life. However, a value is not nearly a subjective feeling or opinion, but rather it is based on the ontology of world, that is, on the inherent order or goal underlying the worldly phenomena. So the most important feature of value is that it occurs as pair of opposites, such as love and hatred, courage and fear, white and black and so on. The incidence of opposite values has the ultimate bearing on the nature of reality, as we will see later in this chapter. Both fact and value can be further divided into two classes called cognitive and noncognitive. Then we get four primary divisions of human knowledge, which are briefly explained below.
Cognitive fact: It includes all kinds of factual knowledge about finite systems obtained using our sense organs and logical thinking. Normally, a cognitive fact defines an object or expresses its properties that are known through sense experience. Mathematics, definition, direct perception, scientific laws and descriptions are the main forms of this category. It pertains to finite objects of natural world, economics, politics, family and ethics. The truth of a cognitive fact can be ascertained scientifically on the basis of external evidences and logic as dealt by Philosophy of Science. Examples: 2 + 4 = 6; Earth is round; Price depends on supply and demand.
Cognitive value: These are values of finite systems, which can be defined objectively and experienced directly using our sense organs. It may be added, only finite objects existing as cognitive facts have cognitive values. The truth of a cognitive value can be established through scientific method. Examples: this rose flower is beautiful; democracy is a good value. For ascertaining the truth of propositions about cognitive value, we can adopt scientific methods such as definitions, surveys and other statistical techniques.
Noncognitive fact: A painting becomes a work of art only when we experience it through aesthetic sense. Similarly religious experience gives us knowledge about God and soul as infinite beings. Therefore the factual propositions pertaining to art and religion involve symbolism, imagination, mysticism and faith. Such knowledge—definitions, inferences and descriptions-- is called noncognitive fact. The truth of these propositions cannot be determined scientifically. Examples: God exists as an infinite being; this church is the house of God. The belief that God exists as an infinite being is a noncognitive fact because we cannot get any objective evidence about the existence of an infinite being. The truth of a noncognitive proposition pertaining to art or religion is judged on the basis of the goal of that activity.
Noncognitive value: The values conceived in the objects of art and religion belongs to this category due to the reasons mentioned above. Examples: This painting is beautiful; God is love. What is the difference between the propositions: this rose flower is beautiful and this piece of art is beautiful? In the case of rose flower, we directly experience its beauty using our sense organs, so it is a cognitive value. But the beauty of art is symbolic and imaginative. Similar comparison is possible between “This man has love” and “God has love”. However the difference between cognitive value and noncognitive value depends on the systems (cognitive and noncognitive respectively) to which the concerned objects belong.
The foregoing discussion on the classification of human knowledge presumes a clear distinction between ontology and epistemology. It is implied also in the formal destination of philosophy as a subject that integrates reality, phenomena (systems), human mind and knowledge. Various phenomena ontologically exist as systems, which interacts with human mind to produce diverse types of knowledge. This spectrum of knowledge is classified primarily in to the four divisions listed above, based on a new philosophy about human mind to be developed in a later chapter. Then we will see that systems also can be classified into certain categories based on the faculties of human mind. Subsequently, an appropriate theory of knowledge will be formulated.
The task of present chapter is to formulate a theory of reality for explaining the formation of a hierarchy of systems. I have already defined reality as the ultimate case or substratum of all finite phenomena known to mankind. Here I ask the question whether the totality of all finite phenomena in the universe is finite or infinite. Even though the known finite phenomena aggregate to a finite sum, there is a possibility of acquiring further information in future. The total expanse of known galaxies in amazingly large, but finite, and it is likely to increase due to advancement of astronomy. The knowledge about constituents and properties of things around us, as well as the creative ideas of humans may grow with the passage of time. In view of the expanding horizon of factual knowledge I am introducing here two notions about infinity, namely relative infinity and absolute infinity.
Relative infinity means an extremely large point that lies as a limit to our actual measurement. When we go on measuring (counting) the limit point advances. That is, relative infinity is the number that lies beyond our achieved counting. The point of relative infinity is never achieved, but is advancing as we progress in counting. The mathematical concepts of plus infinity and minus infinity, representing the extreme points of a straight line, are two alternative definitions of relative infinity. Obviously, relative infinity is a cognitive fact. The whole universe, which can be known cognitively by science, is now reasonably treated as a relative infinity.
On the other hand, absolute infinity refers to the metaphysical existence of infinity as an absolute being. Here we conceive infinity as an eternally and permanently existing entity. If we refer to our universe as an absolute infinity, it means that the whole universe exists as an absolutely infinite being, alternately called as God. No cognitive evidence can be obtained about absolute infinity and hence it is a noncognitive knowledge, understood symbolically, imaginatively and mystically.
The said distinction between relative infinity and absolute infinity clears the way for a cognitive knowledge about the reality of universe. The phenomenal universe as a whole is relative infinity. Hence its reality (the substratum) also can be conceived accordingly. Now there is a catch. The phenomenal universe is amenable for direct observation in physical terms, but reality is not. Reality, being the substratum of phenomena, is beyond science. Then how can we get cognitive idea about the existence of reality?
Consider the example of market in an economy. As per economics, a cognitive subject dealing with the finite phenomena in economy, the market exists according to the model of supply and demand. The market consists of various traders, commodities, institutions and a multitude of transactions. We cannot observe market as a whole. But a supply-demand model constructed on the basis of appropriate date is sufficient to conclude that the concerned market exists as a system. This assertion is on the strength of the ontological theory about systems, given earlier, which saves us from the agnosticism and controversies of empiricist philosophers. Since market is a system of phenomenal body and phenomenal mind, it exists ontologically. The notion of market as system has two parts: first, the ontological part asserting the existence of the particular combination of phenomenal body and phenomenal mind and second, the epistemological part consisting of concepts, words and other forms of language. The former part can be called systematic realism, which has remarkable advantage over the critical realism employed in empirical philosophy.
Comparing with the supply-demand model of market, I propose to suggest a cognitive model of reality as fact. The cognitive knowledge about the existence of anything is possible only through subject-object distinction and static analysis of cause–effect relations. It is traditionally allied to the Mechanistic Worldview in which science treats this world an finite, either leaving the notion of reality to the noncognitive concept of God (deism) or pragmatically denying the metaphysics (naturalism). These rival theories fail in linking the existence of reality to the scientific aspects of phenomenal world. Noncognitive reality is incompatible with the discoveries of science; this is the crux of science-religion conflict. But in the present philosophical deliberation, this world as a whole is relative infinity in cognitive manner so that the notion of God need not be imported for the purpose of a theory of reality. Relative infinity is still infinity and hence can be cognitively applied to the concept of reality as well as to the phenomenal world as a whole.
For developing a scientific model of reality as relative infinity, we have to consider the hierarchy. of systems mentioned earlier. Quantum in the basic system and it has the dual pats called phenomenal body and phenomenal mind. These opposite properties of a quantum can be produced only by a reality, which has corresponding opposite parts. For convenience, I am using the terms ‘body’ and ‘mind’ to refer to the dual parts of reality. To clarify this point, let us note that father and mother jointly produces male and female children. Father (or mother) alone cannot produce children of two opposite properties called male and female. The general argument is that one property (say, male) cannot produce the opposite property (female). Hence we can define ‘body’ as the physical component of reality that is responsible for the physical aspect of quantum. Body exists at the reality level as the substratum of phenomenal body of quantum.
Similarly, ‘mind’ is defined as the mental component of reality that is responsible for the nonphysical activity or consciousness of quantum. Body (physical part) and mind (mental part) together produce the physical aspect and nonphysical aspect of quantum in the first stage. Then quanta are organized into subatomic particles in the second stage. The organization of subatomic particles into the basic structure called atom occurs in the third stage. The organizations of molecules and higher order things take place in subsequent stages of the production process. The physical body and mental activities of phenomenal things in the universe originate from the dual aspects of reality called body and mind. So reality is a dualist being. Quantum is the lowest limit of our physical experience. So the conceptual gulf between reality and quantum cannot be filled. Reality is always a metaphysical being, where as quantum is the first level of phenomena. In other words, science can never show how the Dualist Reality produces quanta.
Matter is the physical aspect (phenomenal body) of quantum or subatomic particle or atom. The matter exists at phenomenal level and it is produced by the dual properties (body and mind) of reality. Similarly Dualist Reality produces the phenomenal mind also. So we can say that matter and non-physical activity are two levels of a system.
The most important point to be deliberated here is whether a monistic entity can have existence. That is, can body or mind alone exist as the reality? Consider the opposites like good and bad, day and night and man and woman. In our ordinary thinking, the opposites are treated as different objects, which are independent. But it is not hard to recognize that opposites are interdependent and they are like two sides of a coin. For day to exist, night also must exist. We cannot see good things if bad things are absent. Similarly man and woman exist as the two contrasting categories of human being. Thus we realize that opposites are the dual parts of a single whole. This leads us to a Fundamental Principle of Existence: only a whole with opposite dual classes has existence. So a single property, like day or man, cannot exist alone.
We cannot define one part of Dualist Reality without considering the other, because the opposite parts together constitute a whole. So we adopt a practical definition of mind as mental energy, which has the capacity to think and organize, but does not possess the capacity to become matter. On the other hand, we define body, as the physical energy, which does not have the capacity to think, but possesses the capacity to become matter. Later we will see that mind and body are the underlying goals of cooperation and competition respectively, which can be observed in every phenomenon. Applying the above fundamental principle of existence, we can postulate that the whole comprising of the opposite dual classes, mind and body, has existence as a dualist reality. In other words, the reality of phenomenal universe is a Metaphenomenal Dualist Being.
Since mind and body are interdependent opposites, their relation is a dialectical process involving a dynamic interplay of competition and cooperation. This dialectical process is essentially a production process in which mind and body are converted into the outputs called phenomenal mind and phenomenal body. When we consider the hierarchy of systems as fact, the phenomenal body and phenomenal mind exist in levels of complexities in increasing order. This level formation is possible only by a dialectical process. Thus mind and body exist as the substrata (inputs) of phenomenal systems and are similar to the concepts of capital and labour in the model of production function under economics.
The relation between mind and body, which results in the production of systems, is called as Systemic Dualism. It signifies the fact that though there is dualism between mind and body, they work in cooperation to produce systems. This concept is radically different from the idealist (or materialist) view that mind and body (matter) are opposite and independent entities with primary-secondary relation. In idealism, mind is the sole reason for the hierarchy of objects in the direction of higher values, but this view is challenged by the scientific theory of evolution and the problem of evil. On the other hand, materialism treats mind as an epiphenomenon of matter and there by denies the existence of nonphysical purpose or value in phenomena. Further, systemic dualism is a better alternative to the conflict between the idealist process view of Whitehead and the materialist notion of self-organization adopted in the books of Fritjof Capra. Phenomenal body (physical part) and phenomenal mind (nonphysical activity) are two structures formed by the combination of body and mind in two different proportions. We adhere to realism, or rather to systemic realism, when we postulate that the systems of phenomenal universe exist really and finitely because they are combinations of phenomenal body and phenomenal mind. This view leads to the fundamental principle of system: system exists as a structure with levels and duels. That is, systems are arranged in a hierarchy formed by the systemic dualism of mind and body.
The natural world exists as a hierarchy of systems with three main levels called inanimate things, nonhuman living beings and human beings. Human being is a psychophysical organism, in which phenomenal mind and phenomenal body have structures with different levels of components. The various faculties of human mind can be treated as levels of activities of specialised physical organs like brain and nervous system. Human being exits as a system; phenomenal body and phenomenal mind do not have separate existence. This conception solves the issue of body-mind dualism introduced by Descartes. In Cartesian philosophy, body and mind are two independent parts of the phenomenal world; matter constitutes body while mind originates from God.
Next step is to explain how good and bad systems occur in this natural world. With this objective, we observe that every system exhibits the opposite behaviours of cooperation and competition. The cooperative behaviour promotes the formation of higher order systems or societies. Let us call this tendency of cooperation as society-interest. On the other hand, every system wants to maintain its identity by a set of competitive behaviours that can be collectively called self-interest. So a system exists with the dual goals of society-interest and self-interest. A quantum or atom has the inherent tendency to join with other quantum or atoms respectively in order to form higher order systems. At the same time the individuality is also maintained. In every system we can observe good and bad aspects of behaviour. The good and bad values found in a system are definitely the positive and negative sides of its dualist goals. So we must hold the view that these opposite values comes only from the dualist reality. Then we can equate mind with society-interest and body with self-interest. By applying the fundamental principle of existence, it can be postulated that both society-interest and self-interest have positive and negative parts. This leads to the concept of good and bad subsystems on the basis of the actions or behaviours of a system at a given point of time. A system has history as a sequence of subsystems, which can be either good or bad on the basis of the intentions. The following Table of Dualist Reality explains the formation of good and bad subsystems in the history of a system.

A technical model now summarizes the foregoing discussion about good and bad systems in natural universe. Mind and body are in a dialectical relation that can be represented by vertical straight line (y-axis) and horizontal straight line (x-axis) respectively as in analytical geometry. Then the production function method (indifference curves) of economics is applied here to postulate the production of good subsystems in first quadrant and bad subsystems in third quadrant. This construction is termed as the Model of Dualist Reality.
This model shows the ‘+’ structure of reality as a dualist being with the complementary goals of society-interest and self-interest. We can know the actual existence of reality contingent on the evidences from finite systems. It is similar to saying that a firm exists as per the production function model. Further the representation of good and bad systems in the Model of Dualist Reality shows that goodness and evil have fundamental existence, and they occur in a dialectical process. This point will lead us to the solution of the problem of evil. Good will be reversed by the subsequent production of evil. Conversely, the good arises from evil.
Since relative infinity, straight line and production function of economics are ideas of cognitive knowledge about finite systems, the Model of Dualist Reality also is cognitive knowledge. The term natural world is merely a concept representing the totality of all naturally occurring finite systems. To the question whether the natural world is finite or infinite, we can answer now that it is a relative infinity, as far as our scientific knowledge is concerned.
Space and time are physical concepts in science. Einstein focused on the particle property of subatomic objects and showed through his Theory of Relativity that space and time are related. Then space represents the matter (mass) and time represents the energy of particle. As explained by Bohr, space and time are complementary. In the present model of system, the complementarity of space (particle or mass) and time (wave or energy) is treated as equivalent to the relation between phenomenal body and phenomenal mind. Every system exists for a finite duration between birth and death. This means alternatively that finite permanence and change are dual properties of a system. The phenomenal existence of a system is explained cognitively using the physical concepts of space and time. It can be reasoned that space (permanence) is related to body, while time (change) is related to mind. That is, space-time is the concept employed to represent empirically the connection between body and mind at the reality level.
Modern physics suggests theories like Big Bang and Expanding Universe as empirical models based on the relation between space and time. It is interesting to note that the point 0 in our Model of Dualist Reality represents the event of Big Bang. Einstein’s famous hypothesis of space-time curvature is essentially an empirical view on the systemic dualism of body and mind. A detailed discussion of the scientific models about universe, in the context of science–religion conflict, will be presented in next chapter.
Now I shall state briefly the main conclusions of the model of dualist reality, outlined above, with the regard to the fundamental philosophical questions of Existence, Evolution and Purpose. The cross (+) structure of Dualist Reality is perfectly effective in solving the intractable problems of Monistic Philosophy

(a) Existence.

The dual aspects of every phenomenon, that is the physical part and mental part, are unified using the fundamental principle of existence that the polar opposites form the complementary parts of a whole. Accordingly, every phenomenon is a whole called system, with dual parts termed as phenomenal body and phenomenal mind. The systems of world exist in a hierarchy, which is ultimately due to the existence of a dualist reality having two parts, body and mind, with cross (+) model. This theoretical construction solves the Cartesian mind–body problem, as well as the conflict between deism and naturalism. The ensuing philosophy of mind postulates that human mind exists with various levels of knowing and doing (organizing), each level being dualist with rational and empirical parts. The epistemological issues can be solved harmoniously through this system philosophy of mind. Thus the dualist cross (+) model of body and mind settles the problem of static existence in a scientific manner.
From idealist point of view; the model represents the dualist goals (society-interest and self-interest) of phenomena as well as reality. In the mechanistic method of science, the same model provides the philosophy behind the study of phenomenal systems by reduction to physical cause–effect relations. Thirdly, the process view is equally valid because body-mind at the reality level can be reduced to the physical notion of space– time. Then all systems are historical processes in the arrow of time.

b) Evolution

Here we have to tackle the ontological problem of transcendence- immanence or one-many. The dualist reality represented by the coordinates (+) is a structure of intentionality, and hence can be treated as a transcendental being. Surely, the phenomenal systems occur with in the first and third quadrants, implying that the coordinates are transcendent to the phenomena. From a different point of view, the coordinates are immanent in the phenomenal systems as inputs in the analogy of an industrial product made of the inputs, capital and labor. So the same ‘+’ model can show transcendence and immanence of reality. Accordingly it unifies MWV and PWV. Further, the dualist reality acts as the ultimate source of evolution of systems, thereby explaining the facts of One and Many.
This framework of systems, as combinations of physical and mental parts, shows the diverse faculties of human knowledge. In the course of evolution, human mind acquired separate faculties for science, art and religion by virtue of a dialectical process. We employ different methods for experiencing phenomena resulting in cognitive and noncognitive knowledge of fact and value. There are first person (self–consciousness) and third-person perceptive of experience. All these type of knowledge are unified in the unitary existence of intentionality of human mind, represented by the term ‘self’. In other words, self has a static structure, and it undergoes change according to historical circumstances. Thus we can arrive at a unified theory of truth.

c) Purpose

As explained in the earlier chapter, the different branches of Monistic Philosophy cannot satisfactorily answer the questions: is there purpose in this universe and why do evils occur. The reason for this failure is that these philosophies start from the noncognitive notion of God--religious, and mystical--which cannot be logically linked to the facts of evil in the world. The cognitive model of dualist reality, with opposite parts of Good and Bad, finally solves the problem of evil. The reality has opposite purposes, which work immanently in the historic process of world. Our faith in the victory of Good over Evil is a normative urge to fight against the evils. The awareness about the ontological existence of Good and Evil will empower and enlighten us to face the adversities of life. Epistemologically it provides the philosophical basis for judging the truth in our knowledge about social systems. An appropriate theory of God will be presented in the next chapter.

Towards a Unified Mechanistic Worldview

Based on the foregoing System Philosophy of reality, we can deduce a proper philosophy of human mind. In the evolutionary progress of living world, the human species emerged as a new stratum of phenomenal body and phenomenal mind. Human being exists as a psychophysical organism, which is a system of four levels--mechanical organs, mental organs, life and human mind. There are two sublevels in human mind, which are called as knowing mind and organizing mind. The knowing mind has four sublevels producing our different types of knowledge. There are seven levels of faculties in organizing mind, each faculty having dualist goal composed of self-interest and society-interest.
The Table of Dualist Reality explains the formation of seven manmade social systems by the respective operation of the seven faculties of organizing mind. These seven social systems are called Natural Life System (NLS), Economic Life System (ELS), Political Life System (PLS), Family Life System (FLS), Ethical Life System (ETLS), Artistic Life System (ALS), and Religious Life System (RLS). Note that Natural Life System is the natural world itself because human beings live together with inanimate things and nonhuman living beings. Every phenomenon in the Seven Life Systems exists with dual aspects of phenomenal body and phenomenal mind. The pictorial representation of this world under System Philosophy is given in page-----. Thus the new worldview proposed in the System Philosophy is phrased as Seven Life Systems Worldview.
System philosophy then develops its theory of knowledge, on the basis of the postulates about human mind, seven life systems and dualist reality. We get three types knowledge, named here as value knowledge, mechanical knowledge and social knowledge, about every system or phenomenon. The concerned propositions involve definitions and cause-effect relations. So there are various type of logic in theology and art as well as in science. We know three types of truths – value truth, mechanical truth and social truth--from the study of a phenomenon, which occurs in any one of the seven life systems, if the phenomenon is produced by positive self-interest and positive society-interest. On the contrary, if the phenomenon is produced by negative self-interest and negative society-interest, we know its falsehood in terms of value, mechanical and social aspects.
It may be reiterated that organic worldview and process worldview, under Monistic Philosophy are incapable to show the existence of phenomena in factual manner. OWV deals with values, while PWV focuses on the historical context of phenomena. It was the project of mechanistic worldview (deism and naturalism) to study phenomena as matters of fact, employing the methods of classical science. Existence can be known only through the analysis of parts, in terms of cause-effect relations. However MWV collapsed in the wake of quantum physics, which revealed the uncertainty, or creativity of subatomic phenomena. Then thinkers like Whitehead and Capra shifted to process worldview and emphasized on the historical and contextual study of physical and biological processes. As a result, the ultimate theory of existence has remained as a mystery in philosophical thought. Now through the innovative method of system philosophy, we can unify the divergent schemes of hitherto philosophies. For clarification the scheme of existence of natural phenomena is shown below.

The mechanistic worldview, introduced by Descartes, failed because it assumed that the phenomenal world is physical. This is the essence of body-mind dualism. The philosophers of that tradition could not recognize the true meaning of reduction employed in science. Now it is clear, the study through physical variables does not mean that the phenomenon is physical. Through similar approach, we can know the phenomena of manmade social systems also.
The fact that every phenomenon has physical part and nonphysical part allows us to reconcile rationalism and empiricism. So the mechanical knowledge provides realistic certainty about the existence of a system. Every one of us can say; “I am a system of body and mind, there for I exist.”

In conclusion, the foregoing Seven Life Systems Worldview can be conveniently called as Unified Mechanistic Worldview (UMWV) due to the following reasons. Firstly, it unifies the physical parts and nonphysical minds of phenomena, under the concept of system. Secondly, it provides mechanistic knowledge about systems, with regard to static existence and cause-effect relations. Thirdly, it unifies the quantum physics about subatomic phenomena with the classical physics about macro phenomena. Fourthly, it integrates the mechanistic knowledge of system with the value knowledge and the social knowledge.

The intellectual energy of many theologians have been spent enormously to show that religious scriptures need not be taken in literal sense and that suitable interpretations can be made to make faith compatible with scientific facts. But such exercises are mostly futile in view of the differences between religion and theology. While religion is the a social system of lived experiences and practices of worship, theology is a rational study--a second order thinking – of the concepts used in religion. The impact of theology on religion is more in academic realm, a different plane, so that traditions and emotions rules the roost in religious worship.
Hence any effort to reconcile between science and religion must be primarily with regard to the beliefs and practices of these distinct institutions as it affects the common man. And, secondarily, we have to achieve agreement at a higher level about the aims and abstract ideas of science and theology. These considerations lead us to study science and religion within the format of worldviews under philosophy, as given in earlier chapters.
In this context, we are concerned with the factual propositions of science and religion. It was indicated in the second chapter that the Organic Worldview assumed the existence of God a metaphysical and supernatural being, as the reality of phenomenal world. This religious conception apparently contradicted with the facts of science, which have been based on the materialist and physical notions of reality. However, since Organic Worldview pertains to the knowledge of values, its normative and ethical propositions cannot be directly contrasted with the scientific facts. Consequently, we have to take up the factual propositions of science and religion under Mechanistic Worldview and Process Worldview for the purpose of this chapter.
Recalling the discussion in chapter 3 on deism and rationalism, the contrasting approaches to Mechanistic Worldview, it is clear that they produce science-religion conflict in exclusively different ways. Separate detailed treatments of those topics are required for a better perspective on the issues. It will be seen in section 6.2 that deism promoted the independence between the ideas of science and religion. Subsequently section 6.3 explains the phase of conflict in science-religion relation.
Process Worldview advocates the notion of Immanent God, by which a dialogue for harmonious interpretation of science and theology is expected. A discussion on the topic of dialogue appears in section 6.4. But Process Theology is a failure on many issues, especially worth regards to the doctrine of God and the interpretation of Big Bang hypothesis.
So, as a synthesis of the opposite perspectives of Mechanistic Worldview and Process Worldview, System Philosophy proposes the notions of Dualist God and Dualist Evil in section 6.5. This Systemic Doctrine of God unifies the properties of Transcendent God and Immanent God and at the same time solves the Problem of Evil. Finally section 6.6 explains that science and Religion are two different types of knowledge based on our experiences in Natural World and Religious World respectively. The cognitive knowledge of science and the nocognitive knowledge of religion have coexistence because they are two levels of human activities, which are unified with the frame work of common goals consisting of society-interest and self-interest.

6.2 Independence Thesis Under Deism

Deism anchors on the existence of a transcendent God as the creator and designer of the world, with inanimate things and living beings. There are deterministic laws provided by God, to govern the working of physical bodies. Human beings are endowed with immortal soul having freedom, so that they have self-awareness, creatively and ability to do good and bad actions. This distinction between physical body and immortal soul give rise to the independence thesis about the relation between science and religion. It says that science and religion are independent subjects in the sense of two kinds of truths, the former dealing with mechanical bodies and the latter with immortal soul. It is interpreted that science and religion are two different compartments of knowledge, or two modes of presentation of the same reality, so that there is no conflict.
Another version of independence thesis is the notion of ‘God of the gaps’ in which reference to divine influence is used to fill some gap in the current knowledge of finite causes. When science advances, such gaps are filled as far as possible. But, it is believed, there will always remain certain gaps which science cannot remove, like the origin of the universe and the emergence of life in the material structure of cell. As it is clear, the concept of God-of-the-gaps is closely associated with the issue of miracles, which is to be discussed later.
But the proposed two-truth solution is defective in view of the following points. The independence thesis is based on the Body-Mind dualism introduced by Descartes, which is the most intractable problem of western philosophy. Now we know that the notion of mind as a supernatural soul, which is the mainstay of religious faith, cannot be sustained in science that focuses exclusively on the physical world. There is mutual interaction between body and mind, as per our observation. For example, our thoughts cause movement of body and, in opposite direction, the bodily diseases reduce the mental faculties. Descartes proposed a metaphysical theory of interaction that was later rejected by empiricist philosophers. Hence body-mind dualism fails in logical and empirical grounds. Science is the product of objective and logical thinking while religious faith is a noncognitive knowledge as explained in last chapter. So treating science and religion in the same level as two compartments of rational mind raises serious questions about the existence of human mind. How can religious faith and scientific fact exist independently with in a rational mind? These points indicate that the conception of immortal soul in human being cannot be integrated with the factual knowledge of science.
When deism divided science and religion into separate domains, serious epistemological issues arose. The existence of Transcendent God, as a perfect and omnipotent person, is only a religious belief. It cannot be rationally established, as per the theory of knowledge. And, on account of the problem of evil the factual existence of perfect and omnipotent God is impossible. Similarly the notions of revelation and immortality of soul can be challenged. Rationalism, the philosophy of deist science, admits only the deductive propositions as true knowledge. Kant famously explained that the existence of God, adopted as an axiom in Deism, cannot be proved through deductive arguments. A definition of God describes one’s concept of God, but does not prove the actual existence of any such being. Existence in not a property, but is the actual state of affairs that must be verified by empirical data. There is no empirical data about the existence of a transcendent God as a perfectly good and omnipotent being, because of problem of evil.
Galileo’s emphasis on empirical observations about world contradicted the traditional faith of Roman Church and it became the background for the much debated Galileo-Church controversy. Deist religion holds the notions of Transcendent God, immortal soul and revelation, while science focuses on the finite things of the physical world.
The shortcomings of independence thesis, as explained above, clearly indicate that science and religion are in conflict under deism. When rational science adopted the role of God in certain basic questions such as origin of universe and emergence of life, it caused contradiction in the epistemology of science. Large volume of literature exists to argue that since great scientists like Galileo and Newton were devout Christians, there was no science-religion conflict under deism. We can reach at opposite conclusion on the basic of philosophical deliberation. When rationalist science failed under epistemological scrutiny, the edifice of deism collapsed. This paved the way for naturalism, the method of empirical science, which created new issues in the relation between science and religion.

6.3 Conflict Under Naturalism

The conflict between science and religion became a tooth and nail fight in western society under the vibrant cultural climate of 19th century. The atheist presumptions of naturalism were meant to liberate the society from religious dogmas hindering the intellectual progress. But its effect on human thought was damaging with the advancements of biology and psychology, notably the influence of Darwin and Freud, as well as the materialist view of social sciences like sociology and Marxism.
Richard Tarnas in his book The Passion of The Western Mind writes: “ yet simultaneously, that new world was disenchanted of all those personal and spiritual qualities that for millennia had given human beings their sense of cosmic meaning. The new universe was a machine, a self-contained mechanism of force and matter, devoid of goals or purpose, bereft of intelligence or consciousness, its character fundamentally alien to that of man……. The scientific liberation from theological dogma and animistic superstition was thus accompanied by a new sense of human alienation from a world that no longer responded to human values, nor offered a redeeming context within which could be understood the larger issues of human existence”. Such gross denial of values and goals in naturalist universe aggravated the relation between science and religion in diverse ways as following.
1. Many thinkers tried to explain religion and ethics in terms of materialist and psychological behaviour of human beings. The sociological approaches, including Marxism, became immensely popular seeking the total removal of metaphysics from human thought.
2. Naturalism tried to overcome the Cartesian mind-body problem, by proposing a materialist notion of mind based on the theory epiphenomenalism. It holds that mind can be reduced to the cause-effect relations in brain processes. This position contradicts with the fact of freedom of will, firmly entrenched in religious faith.
3. Parapsychology, the scientific study of paranormal phenomena, posed certain challenges to the atheist basis of naturalism. Similarly the issue of miracles continued to be a topic of tension between science and religion.
4. Under naturalism, the origin of universe and evolution are presented as purely materialist phenomena. This view, alternatively called as physicalism, denied the religious teaching about creation by God.
5. People with philosophical inclination feel that the diverse experiences of human being – scientific, political, ethical, artistic and religious – must be integrated for a wholesome understanding about the human phenomenon. Naturalism, in contrast, promotes pluralism and epistemological relativism.
6. Those scientists having religious belief in Transcendent God subscribe to the hypothesis of Intelligent Design as an explanation of final cause. There are many problems to be solved before reconciling between the Intelligent Design as final cause and the Darwinian evolution as efficient cause. Then the conflict between science and religion becomes similar to the independence thesis pertaining to deism.
To sum up, The central issue of mechanistic worldview under both deism and naturalism is the existence of objects either perceived by sense organs or conceived by abstract reasoning. Do phenomenal things exist? Does matter exist as the substratum of physical universe? Do metaphysical beings, God and Souls, exist? What is a source of evil in this world? When science and religion give different answers to these questions, people generally treat them as different sets of facts in conflict. The argument that naturalism is a purely methodological hypothesis will not help in this situation. The factual propositions of science and religion about the same topic like origin of universe or evolution are expressed in different literal forms, with respective set of concepts, logic and inferences. The words about God and revelation have certain emotive and literal meanings to the religious person so that it contradicts with the facts of science. Hence the unification of science and religion must be achieved at the level of worshippers and common people, not at the higher echelons of theology. This requires two stages of unification an under
 The objects of scientific knowledge (natural things which we perceive logically) and the objects of religious knowledge (symbolic objects like God, Soul, Church, Bible, etc) must be explained through an appropriate theory of reality.
 The ability of human mind to know two apparently conflicting facts--that of science and religion—about the same natural phenomenon like life, death, etc, needs unification in the theory of knowledge.
It may be anticipated that such a comprehensive epistemology will integrate rationalism and empiricism. Our diverse types of knowledge under different social systems must be united with an all inclusive theory of truth. On the basis of the System Philosophy, developed in the last chapter, we will address the ontological and epistemological challenges for solving science-religion conflict. Before that we have to examine the issues of Process Worldview also.

6.4 Dialogue Under Process Worldview

In the last fifty years, the metaphysics of Process Worldview has become central to the discourse about the relation between science and religion. Whitehead, with the publication of his book Process and Reality in 1929, had initiated this new approach, which sought to replace naturalism. His writings were devoted primarily to overcoming the apparent science–religion conflict through the vision of God and World as interrelated processes. As mentioned in chapter 4, Whitehead advocated that all worldly events are ultimately caused by an Immanent God the writings of Charles Hartshorne and David Griffin contributed enormously to the process thought, currently described as panentheism. Specifically, David Griffin in his book, Religion and Scientific Naturalism- overcoming the conflicts, develops the thesis that Whitehead’s philosophy can be fruitfully used for achieving harmony between science and religion.
In this context, David Griffin analyses naturalism, which he calls as Scientific Naturalism, in a novel manner. Griffin points out that scientific naturalism can be understood either in a minimal or a maximal sense, and writes:
“In the minimal sense, scientific naturalism is simply a rejection of supernatural interventions in the world, meaning interventions that interrupt the world’s most fundamental pattern of causal relations. Understood maximally by contrast, Scientific naturalism is equated with sensationism, atheism, materialism, determinism and reductionism.”
Scientific Naturalism in the minimal sense, according to Griffin, denies the theist belief in transcendent God, but embraces the belief in immanent God as articulated by the process Theology of Whitehead. So Griffin’s book suggests that Process Theology gives a suitable framework of science–religion dialogue. We have already used the term ‘process theology’ in the place of scientific naturalism of minimal type. So, naturalism refers exclusively to the maximal form of scientific naturalism.
Griffin characterizes the process theology (minimal scientific naturalism) of Whitehead as naturalist theism, which means atheism without involving supernaturalism. He stresses three points in this regard. First, process theology is a version of theism because it asserts the role of Immanent God in worldly process. Second, it is against the belief in the existence of Transcendent God that can be called variously as deism or supernaturalism. Third, the process theology is a form of naturalism because is assets that the natural laws are fundamental. About these aspects of Whitehead’s doctrine, Griffin writes: “According to his naturalist theism, the ultimate creativity of the universe is necessarily embodied in finite actualities as well as in the divine actually. This means that power is inherent in the world as well as in God. It means, more precisely that every one of the world’s units is inherently influenced by all prior units, that every unit inherently has some power of self–determination, and that every unit inherently has some power to inflict itself upon others, for good or for ill. The resulting universal web of finite causation cannot be interrupted, even by God. The implication is that the divine causation in the world is always persuasive, never coercive in the sense of wholly determining”.
When we reflect on the above points critically, the main problem here is to explain the two fundamental sources of power--the power of God who gives the good values or goals and the power of physical cause-effect laws. Accordingly the process thought fails in explaining the Problem of Evil. Further, the various issues of science – religion conflict remain unsolved. Due to space constraints, specific criticism on the topics of Griffin’s book is not attempted here.
The contributions of Ian Barbour to the subject of science and religion are worth for critical study in this context. Ian Barbour published pioneering works during 1950s and 1960s for creating the bridge between science and theology, on the basis of process thought. He is rightly considered as the founding father of the association of researchers in this field. And the vast volume of his writings during the last fifty years have been assessed from various points of view by contemporary scholars in the commiserative volume titled Fifty Years in Science and Religion- Barbour and his Legacy. It is not possible here to summaries the 20 odd essays, with interdisciplinary contents, included in the volume but certain essential points may be culled out for deliberation.
Adopting a historical and contextual view about the relation between science and religion, Ian Barbour suggests the term ‘dialogue’ as the strategy of removing the issues of conflict under naturalism. His notion of dialogue pertains to the general characteristics of science and religion with regards to the philosophical foundations. It is Barbour’s agenda to elaborate an integrated worldview in which the unification of science and theology is possible. At the same time he recognizes that the particular aspects of method, data and experience make science and religion two different organizations.
Philip Clayton points out that Ian Barbour contributed two fundamental principles to the science-religion debate. First, we must focus on the interpretation of science on the basis of philosophy. Second, theology must go beyond the vocabulary of faith, ritual and religious practice, and formulate a metaphysical system based on the insights from science.
Philip Clayton writes: “The primary discussion partner for religion is not the scientific data or results, or even the some total of physical theories; rather, it includes those theories as interpreted. That is, science-religion discussion actually begins with the multiple ways in which scientific theories have been construed philosophically …… What provides fuel for constructive theology is not ‘raw’ scientific theory in physics or biology but rather the philosophical implications of these theories.”
For assessing the massive volume of Ian Barbour’s writings in a brief but effective manner, we may arrange the subject under three headings as following.

a) Linkage between Science and theology
Ian Barbour follows the path of whitehead and Hartshorne, that is panentheism, to find the common ground for science and theology with regard to the theory of reality. As mentioned in chapter-4, Hartshorne modified the Whiteheads doctrine of symmetrical correlation between God and world and thereby assumed primacy to divine action in world. According to this modification, God’s relationship to the universe is partially analogous to the effect of our minds to our physical bodies. As we are sure, the mind determines every movement of our body, through an immanent relation. Similarly God is present immanently in every historical event in the universe. It may be recalled here that the notions of Transcendent God and immortal soul adopted in deism have failed to explain the facts of evolution and creativity in the world. The mechanistic worldview allows only static and deterministic laws of nature. Hence Ian Barbour argues, the concept of Immanent God is the link between modern Science and Theology. In this vein, he advocates to study the character of body – mind within the framework of Process Worldview, rather than through reductionist science.
Here Barbour has to tackle an issue that is a legacy of the Whitehead’s doctrine of momentary actual entities with historical prehensions (feelings). For Whitehead, the actual entities acquire higher complexities by virtue of the divine purpose of realizing higher values. This metaphysics, admittedly a process version of Platonic idealism, is not satisfactory in the interest of science. The atomic nature of actual entities is not competent to explain empirically the emergent capacities of higher levels of phenomena. Hence, with an empirical orientation of panentheism, Barbour adopts the principle of emergence that evolutions give rise to higher complexities of physical structures with new emergent mental properties. The whole cannot be reduced to the properties of component parts.
Various scientists, both from idealist and materialist points of view, have proposed emergence theories. The common thread is the idea that the hierarchy of structures in the physical world has corresponding levels of emergent functions. The differences in structure and function can empirically describe the peculiarities of human mind and consciousness also. As noted earlier, Fritjof Capra relies on the ideas of fellow scientists to postulate a materialist view of emergence, designating it as ‘systems view.’
But the project of Ian Barbour is to explain the facts of emergence in terms of the creativity of Immanent God, so that Whitehead’s doctrine can be strengthened. However it may be remarked here, his efforts are not successful. Whitehead’s process theory of mind, called panexperientialism, deals with the momentary experiences of atomic actual entitles directed by the consequential nature of God. This metaphysics cannot empirically explain the emergence of complex levels of mental states such as memory and will, which persist for long duration of time. Self has an integrative structure as well as temporal continuity. This issue of permanence in the case of self cannot be tackled under process view. Similarly physical bodies of biological organisms have dynamically stable structures with empirical cause-effect relation. This stability of structure is beyond the scope of process theology
So we need a genuine metaphysics about emergence, which is competent to overcome the weakness of panentheism. In this connection Philip Clayton writes: “This leads us to take on the very difficult challenge of developing a metaphysics of emergence that is as sophisticated as Whitehead’s metaphysics of process… To do justice to the emergence of genuinely new types of entities at new levels, one will need to integrate Whitehead with an emergence-based metaphysics. Barbour’s comments, it seems, commit him to this task, although he has not yet sufficiently acknowledged its urgency”. In short, linking of emergence with process thought will not answer the ontological question: how do different levels of body and mind exist?
Ian Barbour adheres to the position that Process Theology provides the best way of relating God’s action with the phenomenal world. But many thinkers are skeptical about the application of process thought as the ultimate explanation of the existence of phenomenal world reveals by science. The reason is that the idealist metaphysics of Whitehead does not take into account the emergence of material structures observable by empirical science. Here the tension is similar to that between deism and naturalism belonging to mechanistic worldview. There are many epistemological issues to be settled in the project of linking science and religion through Process Thought and it will be mentioned in a later section:
A group of process theologians hope for a radical shift in the method of science so that the notion of Immanent God serves as the ground for explaining the basic issues of physics and biology. However, it may be pointed out here on the strength of the epistemological differences between mechanistic worldview and process worldview as shown in various parts of this book, that the process thought will not provide a viable and suitable method for science. But, unfortunately a grave confusion exists in the minds of many process thinkers, when they hold the conviction that reductionist science invariably points to the mechanistic worldview. In this connection the larger question whether science can be done through the process view of phenomena, must be addressed philosophically.
This problem started as early as 1920s, with the heated debates between Einstein and Bohr regarding the interpretation of particle–wave duality. Bohr, Hiesenberg and friends argued that the facts of indeterminism and interconnectedness revealed by quantum physics implied the truth of process worldview.
With this background, a few scientists like David Bohm attempted in later decades to develop process models in science, in tune with Whitehead’s process theology. But such efforts have not made any significant impact on the status of traditional science and hence the tension between mechanistic and process view continues even today.
John B.Cobb Jr. discusses the matter focusing on biology, quantum theory and Relativity theory and commends that Ian Barbour has not dealt with this issue seriously. This reflects the general problem with contemporary scientists. Cobb writes: “The situation was disheartening for one such as me committed to Whitehead’s metaphysics. It seemed that physics could succeed only on the basis of the more substantialist metaphysics assumed by Einstein. It was hard to argue that the evidence could be interpreted equally well on the basis of Whitehead’s metaphysics when this claim had to be taken on faith”. Cobb proceeds to mention about certain attempts to study Whitehead’s contribution to quantum physics and admits that there is no satisfactory application of process thought in modern science.

(b) Problem of Evil and Process Theology
The problem of evil finds prominent place in the books of Ian Barbour even though he does not go beyond Whitehead, Hartshorne and Griffin in any significant manner. As explained in section 4.3, Whitehead assumed that God acted on the primordial material flux in order to produce order and teleology to the world. The natural laws, at the phenomenal level, have self-determination because even God cannot change them. Since God has not created this universe exnihilo, the natural laws have contrasting power derived from the inherent properties of material processes. The divine process is just one aspect of the eternal process of creativity, which is metaphorically described as void (Sunya) in Buddhism. As such, the God is not omnipotent, but has limited power. The creativity of the actual entities (occasions) in phenomenal world is partly due to divine process and partly due to the material process of natural laws. As John H. Hick writes, “Thus God’s power over each occasions and in directing the stream of occasions as a whole, is necessarily limited, and the reality of evil in the world is the measure of the extent to which God’s will is in fact thwarted.” In a sense, evil is an inherent part of the creative process.
It is an empirical fact that phenomenal events (actual entities, according to Whitehead) are historically linked by cause-effect relations. Certain regularities of such cause–effect relations are formulated as general laws in terms of physical variables. These physical laws are called natural laws. For example, ‘man is mortal’ is a natural law because life and death can be expressed in physical terms such as movement, growth, metabolism and soon. Due to the chain of causation, each actual entity is partly determined by past, but has an element of creativity for causing future events. This creativity that can be expressed as natural laws, causes limitation to the God’s power meant for realizing good values. As a clarification, consider the event in which a man tries to cross a railway track, but gets killed by the advancing train. There is certain natural laws, physical cause effect relations, for causing the death. The moot point here is: why God did not stop the man or train and prevent the accident. Process theory holds that God is helpless in preventing such evils because natural laws take its own course. The foregoing assertions of process theology can be judged as unsatisfactory for explaining the problem of evil, on account of the following points.
1. The theory that God Process and natural laws have distinct, but interacting, power cannot be admitted from ontological point of view. As noted in an earlier section, Process Worldview is merely a description of the historical and contextual factors pertaining to phenomena; it does not address the issue of ontology or existence. We can ask: what is the ultimate source of natural laws? If natural laws come from primordial flux, then it is a contradiction because by definition flux (chaos) cannot have the structure of laws. Further, God does not deserve the designation of Architect, if natural laws are fundamentally preexisting. Whitehead’s metaphysics fails in linking the Immanent God (metaphysical process with teleology of good values) with the natural laws, which are expressed in physical variables. These points logically indicate that Process Theology about Immanent God is not a valid theory of reality.
2. The above tension between metaphysical God and physical laws is a legacy of Platonic idealism, which created the nagging dualisms like reality-appearance, mind – body and God-world. There is no answer to these questions in idealist philosophy because it is concerned with value knowledge, ignoring the facts. We must recognize that the dual concepts--reality and appearance, mind and body and God and world–are metaphorical terms meant to indicate contrasting values. Since Plato and other idealist philosophers including Whitehead assumed that the metaphysical God exists as fact, the said dualisms persist as intractable problems in monistic philosophy. In that situation the Problem of Evil can never be solved.
3. Whitehead’s concept of Immanent God as a metaphysical process with good values is a noncognitive knowledge in tune with the religious belief. On the other hand, the evils of world are cognitive, being amenable to scientific perception. These two categories of knowledge – noncognitive and cognitive – cannot be linked for the purpose of explaining evils in a factual manner. Process theology gives the impression that good aspects of world originate form God, while evil is caused by the fundamental power of natural laws. It is misleading because no scientific evidence is possible in this regard. Natural laws are equally valid for both good and bad events. So we need a doctrine of God, which accounts for the real existence of Evil also.
4. Additionally, the Immanent God with limited power does not evoke religious feelings in devotees. That is, a limited God is not an object of worship. It may be recognized that transcendence implies permanence and existence; hence only transcendent God is worshipped in religions. Even the so-called atheist religious like Buddhism focus on the property of transcendence of God during worship. When a person performs symbolic activities of worship and thinks about the attributes of God such as love, perfection and goodness, he conceives God as a transcendent being only. The notion of Immanent God arises when we try to link philosophically the nature of God with the aspects of changing phenomena. In other words the concept of immanence (change) belongs to the Process Worldview, white transcendence (permanence) pertains to Mechanistic Worldview. Accordingly the reconciliation of the two contrasting notions of God requires the unification of the corresponding worldviews through an innovative theory of reality.
5. Theodicy is a technical term referring to the attempt to solve the theological problem of evil. That is, theodicy tries to explain the occurrence of evil, assuming the factual existence of perfect God. Process thought, as a theodicy, holds that evil exists because the Immanent God is not omnipotent. This limitation protects God from being held responsible for the evils of this world. But it sounds like an apologetic and self-effacing argument, in the light of the reasons given above.

(c) Big Bang cosmology and Evolution
In the foregoing paragraphs, we examined critically the ontological perspectives of Ian Barbour for relating science and religion. What remains to be considered in this brief review is his interpretations of certain key doctrines of science such as Big Bang hypothesis, quantum physics and evolution in the light of process thought. Here the discussion is rather epistemological as it deals with the question how the different kinds of knowledge under modern science and religion can be related in a coherent manner. In philosophy of science, this question in characterized as the problem of justification of propositions, without considering the ontology. Justification is on the basis of certain attributes about the validity of scientific inferences such as agreement with data, coherence and practical use. So the present issue is: can we justify propositions of science and religion simultaneously. In specific topics like the origin of universe and the emergence of hierarchy of living beings, there is marked difference in the concepts, words and narrations employed by science vis-à-vis religion. The methodology adopted by Ian Barbour for bridging science and religion is called ‘critical realism’, which is an adaptation of empiricism to the process worldview. We nay compare this approach with classical realism (‘naïve’ realism) and instrumentalism, the rival theories of knowledge under mechanistic empiricism, for clarification.
As per classical realism, the objects studied by empirical methods must be treated as actually existing. The sense data, which we receive, pertain to some external object made of matter. This view, proposed by earlier empiricists like Locke and Hume, is also called ‘representative realism’. The ideas formed on the basis of sense data are representations of the material objects existing in the world. But an opposite group of empiricists holds that this kind of realism applies only to objects known by direct observations. In the case of non-observable objects like electrons we have only scientific models prepared by ‘hypothetic – deductive’ method. We are not certain whether such non-observable objects exist really. So the said group proposes the principle of justification called ‘instrumentalism’ which treats scientific theories as mere instruments or models for achieving certain practical uses like prediction and control. Accordingly, the propositions of science are justified on the basis of pragmatic criteria; there is no talk about the actual existence of the objects under scientific investigation.
From the characteristics of critical realism and instrumentalism, it is clear that both the doctrines are not concerned with the propositions of religion (theology), which contain ontological and ethical ideas. Religion ostensibly speak about the existence of phenomenal things and values, as well as metaphysical beings like God and soul. Hence the said doctrines of naturalism (mechanistic empiricism or philosophy of science) do not serve the purpose of relating science and religion epistemologically under a common principle of justification. In this situation, the theory of paradigms introduced by Thomas Kuhn approached the knowledge problem from a historical and contextual perspective. This process view of philosophy of science holds that scientific theories have a significant element of subjectivity as they are based on the prevailing paradigms (set of beliefs, hypotheses, metaphors or concepts of worldview) in the society.
Paradigm, being historical, is subject to change due to socio-cultural factors. Existing paradigm is replaced by a new one in due course. Imre Laktos modified this notion of progressive paradigms with the concept of ‘research programs’, which applies uniformly to both science and theology. He asserts that research programs are empirically progressive in the sense of corroboration with new facts and explanation of phenomena. The underlying unity between science and theology rests on the power of explanation, rather than on the verification through experimental facts. Hence socially or culturally determined beliefs of religion can have the same explanatory power as the scientific laws. This hermeneutics places equal importance to rational facts of science and non-rational facts of art and religion. Ian Barbour used the criteria of Laktos to formulate a new process theory of justification, which he named as Critical Realism. Here the project of Barbour is to emphasis that the propositions inferred through paradigms or research programs actually correspond to the phenomena in a realistic manner.
Niels Henrik Gregerson writes: “Since the mid 1960s critical realism (CR) has been a majority position in the Anglo-American science-religion dialogue. Introduced by Ian Barbour and further developed by Arthur Peacock and John Polkinghorne, CR has for decades been the ‘orthodox’ position in the field of science and religion.” Critical realism says that science and theology need not be taken literally because both are based on metaphors, models and paradigms. Scientists believe in the real existence of physical world, as it serves the purpose of formulating axioms and hypothesis. Similarly, religious people are justified in believing the existence of God as the ultimate cause of all phenomena. Gregerson adds: “there for it is natural to regard both science and religion as making cognitive claims about reality. Committed to ‘realism’, scientists and believers are co-discoverers of the world, albeit investigating reality from different angles… CR only articulates the working assumption of a majority of practicing scientists and believers. For just as scientists believe that atoms are real, though beyond picturability, so religious people believe that God is real …. Moreover, theories about atoms and God can be challenged by data and experiences, and are thus open to revision and improvement; in this sense both science and theology can be said to ‘approximate reality’… CR is thus a suggestive position, which further more offers theology a sort of epistemic parity with science.”
The above words of Niels Henrik Gregerson amply, though unwittingly, express the inherent drawbacks of critical realism. A systematic assessment of critical realism may be differed to a later chapter on theory of knowledge. However for the time being its basic shortcomings in the context of science-religion conflict may be given as following.
(1) Since critical realism adopts Process Worldview, it does not deal with ontology, which is the existence of reality and phenomenal things. No discussion about the existence of God is possible. Hence the ultimate foundation of theological statements, regarding the attributes of God cannot be establishment under critical realism. The same criticism applies to the notion of physical reality adopted by scientists also.
(2) The belief in metaphysical reality (God) pertaining to theology cannot be reconciled with the scientific presumption about material universe. This issue lies beyond the scope of critical realism, as it focuses on epistemology from the position of postmodernism.
(3) Ian Barbour recognizes that science and religion differ in several crucial ways, mainly in the types of data (cognitive and noncognitive respectively) used for inferences. But, Barbour resorts to “paradigm analysis to place science and religion on a continuous spectrum in which both display ‘subjective’ as well as ‘objective’ features, though the former is more prominent in religion and the latter in science.” It may be remarked here that the distinction between subjective and objective aspects requires further excursion to the philosophy of mind adopting the mechanistic view of knowledge. Without addressing this issue, Barbour adopts critical realism merely as a working assumption. In the following section we well see that the paradigm approach is not efficient to correlate the different interpretations of science and religion with respect to the origin of universe and evolution.

Big Bang Cosmology
There is remarkable consensus among scientists that the origin of present universe is around fourteen billion years ago due to an explosion characterized as Big Bang. The beginning of our universe that is the Big Bang, occurred out of a singularity or point at which the entire mass and energy of universe was compressed. Mathematical physics says that at the singularity, time is zero and space has infinite curvature so that the known laws of physics break down. Hence Big Bang marks the origin of space and time, the two fundamental concepts required for knowing the phenomenal events.
The hypothesis of Big Bang explosion is based on the discovery of Edwin Hubble on 1929 that the universe is expanding. It implies that, going backwards in time, the universe must have a finite past at which the expansion process started. The empirical support for Big Bang theory is provided by Alan.H.Guth’s Inflationary Theory, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and related astronomical observations. The issue whether the initial condition of an inflationary universe must be postulated as the Big Bang singularity is a matter of debate among eminent physicists. For space constraints, those points are not mentioned here. In view of the controversies, we can adopt Big Bang as a metaphor meant to represent the origin of present universe in terms of physical concepts used by scientists. Thus the following assertions are adopted as the basic premises for the ensuing discussion.
1. Our universe has a beginning at a finite past. But scientists cannot observe the beginning (Big Bang) as it studies only the phenomena existing after Big Bang that is after the origins of time. Time does not exist at t = 0. So Big Bang is beyond the observable phenomena.
2. The scientific view that Big Bang is a physical event does not satisfy our philosophic mind. We intuitively feel that physical world must be explained by a metaphysical theory of reality.
The present problem is to relate the scientific theory of Big Bang with the religious notions of God and creation, which is the greatest challenge in science-religion dialogue. If we cannot establish the equivalence of the narratives of science and religion with regard to the origin of universe no meaningful progress will be achieved in unifying their disparate languages and beliefs. The claims of Critical Realism – the process view about propositions of knowledge as abstract symbol systems, which inadequately and selectively represent particular aspects of world, on the basis of relevant paradigms, must be evaluated in this context.
As noted earlier, Big Bang is the origin of matter and fundamental forces, which evolved to constitute the hierarchy of phenomenal objects. When scientists go backwards from present to past, through the history of evolution, they reach at the Big Bang where (s= 0, t = 0). This shows that our universe has a finite history, a duration of about 1400 crores years according to the present level of astrophysics. The finite history is an empirical fact of science; even through it is revisable through further discoveries. And here scientists ask the question of historical origin. How did the universe begin? From the perspective of history, we are tempted to ask what existed before the Big Bang. As we have already reached the point zero of time, we cannot go further backwards. Then the point 0 (s=0, t=0) becomes the origin of universe under the historical point of view.
This point 0 (historical origin) is interpreted in Buddhism and other eastern traditions of mysticism as nothingness or void (sunyatha) because nothing exists at a point. As per the version of mysticism, the beginning of our universe is from nothingness, which is conceived as a dynamic and eternal process. This rules out the existence of God (being) as Creator, the doctrine of theism, because being is a static concept. Hence the notion of eternal process at point 0, adopted in Buddhism and similar traditions is treated as non-theism. The tentative conclusion here is that the historical perspective of Big Bang as origin of the universe is in conformity with the doctrine of non-theism under eastern mysticism.
Many process thinkers, notably Ian Barbour, have tried to link the Big Bang cosmology with the notion of Immanent God. The similarity between process theology and Eastern mysticism essentially lies in the common perception that reality is an immanent process with creative power. Ian Barbour analyses the implications of Big Bang explosion to theology in the wake of the interpretation of Pope Pius XII in 1951 that Big Bang supports the theist belief about creation exnihilo. Creation presupposes the ontological existence of God as a being. Barbour, however, is not inclined to accept the creation-view because of his commitment to the historical view of origin as per the process thought.
Instead of treating Big Bang as the event of creation, Barbour inter alia holds that the Big Bang might be the beginning of an infinite set of oscillations of the universe and that scientific theories are replaced eventually. He then adopts the position of process theology, in which Big Bang is seen as the original act of Immanent God for establishing order out of chaos. But it may be remarked here that the harmony between Big Bang hypothesis and process worldview is superficial and misleading, due to the following reasons.
1. The Buddhist concept of nothingness is a metaphor, representing the eternal creativity of reality without any form or structure. Obviously nothingness (void) is a metaphysical process, which is manifested in the ever-changing nature of phenomena. Quantum theory, focusing on wave property as a process, shows that subatomic particles emerge from a more basic physical reality called ‘field’. In this sense the quantum field is the scientific version of the mystical idea of void. But here arises the philosophical question: how does the eternal and metaphysical void get converted into the finite processes which exhibit physical properties together with mental behaviors and values? This is the process version of the traditional problem of mind-body and one-many. The complexity of physical structures and mental faculties as well as the purposive behaviour pertaining to living beings indicate the existence of a transcendent personal reality, which is described as God in religion. Thus the doctrine of Immanent God assumed in Buddhism must be reconciled with the theist belief in a Transcendent God.
2. The above criticism applies well to the Whitehead’s process theology also. The drawbacks of Panentheism has been explained earlier to show that the paradigm of Immanent God is not an adequate description of reality in view of the formation of levels and the problem of evil in the world.
3. Even though process thought treats Big Bang (t=0) as the historical origin of present universe, it is silent about the ontological question: what did exist at the Big Bang singularity? This problem about the existence of initial conditions is the realm of mechanistic knowledge about reality as a transcendent being. Thus Big Bang hypothesis must be cast in such manner as to unify the immanence and transcendence of reality.
4. The Big Bang explosion is not a mere physical event as science faithfully asserts but is the beginning of a process of evolution involving the formation of matter and fundamental forces which progressively constitute the hierarchy of nonliving and living forms culminating in the consciousness’ of humans. The scientific narration of Big Bang does not incorporate the visions of purpose or goal, which is patently the mental aspect of reality.
As a recapitulation, the attempt of process thought for viewing Big Bang hypothesis as a means to reconcile science and religion fails on four grounds.
Firstly, process thought about Immanent God, either of Whitehead or of Buddhism, has inherent weakness as a doctrine of God.
Secondly, the scientific narration of Big Bang as a physical event cannot be linked philosophically with the metaphysical nature of process reality. Since time is a physical concept, its historical origin (t=0) in a finite past must be treated as an empirical fact, which defies any integration with the noncognitive belief of religion.
Thirdly, it must be deliberated further whether Big Bang can be reasonably construed as a physical event, in view of the fact that scientific investigation about the history of physical world goes up to Plank time (t=10-43 seconds) only.
Fourthly, Big Bang hypothesis is in the nature of a metaphor or science fiction, which purportedly explain the state of phenomenal world at the Plank time, the back-end of experimental observation.
These points indicate that Big Bang hypothesis must be interpreted philosophically through an appropriate doctrine of God.

6.5 Systemic Doctrine Of God

The aim of this section is to develop the concept of God that will foster the unification of science and religion in a commonsense manner.
The doctrine of God is a set of coherent ideas which answers the three questions
1. Does God exist as a metaphysical being?
2. What are the attributes of God?
3. What is the nature of our knowledge about God?
As such, the doctrine of God is the central theme in the philosophy of religion which is a systematic and critical study of the common features of all religions. A brief resume of the issues regarding the beliefs about God adopted in organic, mechanistic and process worldviews may be given here as a statement of the problem.
The Organic Worldview famously developed by Plato and Aristotle, treated ‘God’ and ‘reality’ as synonymous words. God, the prime mover of universe, exists as a metaphysical being responsible for all good values observable in finite things. This Transcendent God is the creator of the variety of phenomena, which are unified so that the world is like an organism. The deliberation about God is metaphysics, but it is based on the revelations of spiritual leaders. Accordingly, the scrutiny of God-concept in the light of empirical science is ruled out emphatically. This theory of God under idealism fails on the following grounds.
a) The metaphysics about Transcendent God does not agree with science. Organic worldview deals with the knowledge of values only. It does not enquire the existence of God as fact.
b) The notion of God as an omnipotent and perfect being fails due to the challenge of problem of evil.
c) There is no satisfactory explanation about the origin of physical world, which is supposed to be made of matter.
Mechanistic worldview under deism adopts the factual existence of transcendent God as an axiom and hence runs into irremediable difficulties. How can we rationally establish that the physical world was created by a nonphysical divine agency? This issue is popularly called Mind-Body Dualism. When science studies the physical world through logic and sensible date, the belief in God is a matter of religious faith: and there is no way of reconciling these two distinct types of knowledge. The facts about the evils of world aggravates the situation. Similarly, as demonstrated in the earlier sections on Process Worldview, the notion of Immanent God has a baggage of puzzles and controversies.
So in a nutshell, an appropriate Doctrine of God must reconcile the ideas about Transcendent God and Immanent God on the basis of a unification of the three worldviews. As a matter pf fact, reality is a cognitive or scientific concept, while God belongs to the field of religious faith. But our intuition tells that the two concepts, reality and God, are translations in a curious manner. Can we establish this correspondence through cognitive methods, going beyond the symbolic and mystical language of theology?
Let me begin with the distinction between the two terms ‘reality’ and ‘God’ that is appropriate for the present purpose. In the first chapter, ‘reality’ has been defined as the first cause or ultimate cause of all finite phenomena in the universe. Then chapter 5 developed a theory of reality, characterized as System Philosophy, on the basis of such important notions like relative infinity, systemic dualism of Body and Mind, hierarchy of systems and the contrast between cognitive and noncognitive classes of knowledge. It resulted in the cognitive model of Dualist Reality, with the ‘+’ structure, for ultimately explaining the formation of the hierarchy of phenomena with good and bad qualities.
The Dualist Reality can be viewed in alternative ways – as a transcendent being and as an immanent process. When we see the plane paper and x-y coordinate system, without considering the phenomenal systems, it is the transcendent nature of Dualist Reality. Here the term ‘transcendent’ means ‘that is beyond the range of finite phenomena knowable by empirical methods.’ Transcendent being is external to phenomenal world; it is the Creator who is intuitively (through our abstract reasoning) known to exist independent of created objects. On the other hand, the historical view of finite systems will reveal the immanent nature of Dualist Reality, as per input-output relation. The two components of Dualist Reality, body and mind, serve as the inputs for producing a finite system having the two levels of phenomenal body and phenomenal mind. This cognitive knowledge about Dualist Reality, with twin natures of transcendence and immanence, is essential for developing a Systemic Doctrine of God in the following paragraphs.
The distinction between absolute infinity and relative infinity, and the idea of Seven Life Systems may be recalled from last chapter. For want of space, the details of the System Philosophy of Mind and the salient features of the Seven Life Systems are postponed, but a few points are mentioned here. Human mind is primarily divided into two sub-levels in terms of functions – knowing mind and organizing (doing) mind. The seven faculties of our organizing mind have different defining goals with dual components of self-interest and society-interest. It means, we can define the dualist goals of one faculty as distinct from that of other six faculties. The formation of seven types of goals in our organizing mind occurred in the course of evolution of human species. Accordingly human beings created seven life systems – NLS, ELS, PLS, FLS, ETLS, ALS and RLS as defined in last chapter.
There are four faculties in knowing mind--cognitive value, cognitive fact, noncognitive value and noncognitive fact--which correspondingly produce four different types of knowledge. The distinction between cognitive and noncognitive can be represented in terms of the dual aspects of ‘objectivity’ and ‘subjectivity’ also. Here ‘objectivity’ means ‘reduction to physical aspects’ the objective knowledge about this pen pertains to its physical aspects like weight, length, color, etc. In economics, I study a market objectively in terms of its physical aspects such as qualities, price and time. On the other hand, subjectivity is defined here as ‘without reduction to physical aspects.’ We perceive an object subjectively treating it either as purely mental or as a combination of body and mind. But when I see a painting, religiously or artistically, I do not consider its physical features but imagine certain other attributes related to religion or art as the case may be. So the perception of painting has subjectivity. But, it can be clarified that objectivity and subjectivity are relative aspects giving a spectrum of degrees of reduction to physical features. We can write for getting a two-fold classification as under:
Cognitive = (more objectivity, less subjectivity)
Noncognitive = (less objectivity, more subjectivity)
When we consider knowing as a relation between subject (self or knowing faculty of mind) and object (externally existing entity), there is another interpretation frequently adopted in traditional epistemology. That is cognitive knowledge involve the distinction between subject and object, where as noncognitive means the absence of subject- object distinction. However, the theory of knowledge under System Philosophy, to be developed in a later chapter, will show that noncognitive facts of art and religion also involve subject-object distinction, just like cognitive facts. Hence the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity, and consequently the definitions of ‘cognitive’ and ‘noncognitive’, must be made in terms of reduction to physical aspects.
The twin sublevels of human mind, knowing mind and organizing mind, function in an interdependent manner so that human mind has a unity of purpose. In the System Philosophy of Mind, the existence of eleven faculties of human mind (for faculties of knowing mind and seven faculties of organizing mind) can be unified as a hierarchy of levels according to a ‘+’ model depicting the dualist goals of society–interest and self-interest. So each faculty has complementary parts of reality— society-interest represents mind and self-interest represents body. This Model of Dualist Human Mind explains the contrasting aspects like permanence-change, unity-plurality and rational-empirical which are arguably the most puzzling issues in hitherto existing psychology and philosophy of mind. It suffices to state here that knowing mind and organizing mind act in perfect unison, so that human mind as a whole is a system. We organize economic system cognitively and we know its features cognitively. But we organize the institutions and activities of religious worship in a noncognitive manner, and we know its concepts and beliefs similarly. In the case of art also the organizing faculty and knowing faculty are noncognitive in character. The integrative existence of 11 faculties of human mind can be shown in the following Table.

The above table helps us to focus on the existence of Religious Life System formed by the dialectical behaviors of Body-part and Mind-part of religious faculty (spirituality) of organizing mind. We observe the phenomenal world and intuitively find certain order in the events. This prompts us to think of a deity (a Being or many beings) as the ultimate cause of the events in our life and world, through our noncognitive faculties involving imagination, symbolism and mysticism. We organize institutions of worship and get inspiration to write poems and prayers about the deity. All these phenomena--institutions, holy books, prayers and other forms of worship--constitute a social system called religion. Certain saints had the highest levels of religious faculty so that they created holy books, which formed the basis for organized religions. Jesus Christ, Buddha, Muhammad Nabi are main examples as founders of religions, who belonged to the noblest stratum of spirituality. There are numerous religions (including cults) with less organized structure. The totality of all religions is called the Religious Life System.
God is the most important concept adopted in religions to represent the reality of world in a noncognitive manner. Depending on the worldviews adopted by different groups of worshippers, there are various descriptions of God, which can be essentially divided into the two opposite properties called Transcendent God and Immanent God. So under monistic philosophy, the God-talk has two wings as under.
1. Transcendent God. This view of God as a monistic being with exclusively mental nature is adopted by monotheist religions like Christianity and Islam, and polytheist doctrine of Vedanta Hinduism. It correspondents to the reality of world jointly under Organic Worldview and Mechanistic Worldview. The Vedanta Tradition of Hinduism conceives a pantheon of gods to represent the reality, and it is the best example of polytheism.
2. Immanent God. Buddhism and Chinese religions (Confucianism, Taoism, etc) subscribe to the view of God as eternal process, in tune with the Process Worldview.
The contrasting notions of Transcendent God and Immanent God are based on the alternative visions of reality as transcendent and immanent respectively. Since religious beliefs are noncognitive, the description and attributes of God vary due to the socio-cultural factors and teachings of religious leaders. In this context we can distinguish between three levels of knowledge pertaining to religions as under.

a) Religious knowledge (first order knowledge)
These are the prepositions expressing the religious experience of devotees of a religion. Such propositions, both fact and value, include beliefs, testimonies, prayers and religious books. They express lived experiences involving commitment and devotion; hence religious knowledge is evidently noncognitive. The term religion usually refers to this first order knowledge of religious experience.
In religion, we engage in a personal communication with the object of worship, the deity. A devotee prays, as a personal talk, to God and expresses his feelings of friendship and gratitude. The belief in the existence of God is a prerequisite for the personal relation with God. The question whether God exists occur in a person only in the moments of non-religious life such as natural life, and economic activities.

b) Theology (second order knowledge)
Theology consists of the concepts and logical interpretations pertaining to a particular religion. The task of theology is to present an abstract narrative of all aspects of religious belief and worship so as to protect and foster the interests of the religious organization. Obviously different religions will have separate theologies and the truth of a particular theology of problematic. There are definitions, concepts and cause–effect relations employed in theology. But, it may be emphasized here, such ideas belong to the realm of noncognitive fact and value.
Theology, literally meaning ‘talk about God’, is an intellectual activity expressing the commitment to the religion to which the theologian belongs. It aims to construct a theoretical framework, involving reason and cause-effect relations, for interpreting the beliefs and practices of the concerned religion. We can treat each theology as a separate paradigm of noncognitive, religious thought.

e) Religious philosophy / Philosophy of Religion (third order knowledge)
This subject is a purely objective and disinterested enquiry in to the common features of different religions as well as the theory of truth of various theological statements. Particularly, religious philosophy deals with such questions as: How do different religions evolve historically under concerned social contexts? Do religious entities like metaphysical beings, heaven, hell and life-after-death exist as matters of fact? Does God exist? What is the justification for various attributes of God assumed in religions?
A doctrine of God is to be regarded as the most important part of philosophy of religion because different religions and concerned theologies propose divergent descriptions about God. The three worldviews of monistic philosophy has produced a virtual division of religious philosophy into the camps of transcendent God and Immanent God.
The existence of transcendent God as fact, which is the basic belief of a theist religion, belongs to realm of deism under mechanistic worldview. It may be reiterated here that existence is a mechanistic knowledge involving definitions, reduction to parts, cause-effect relations and empirical observations. As explained in the earlier section 6.2, deism with its allied theory of knowledge called rationalism has failed to prove the existence of God as omnipotent and perfect being. On the other hand, the Process Worldview advocates the belief in Immanent God as a historical process, and thereby avoids the question of existence of God.
The failure of rationalism to prove the factual existence of God is well known, thanks to Kant’s illustrious treatment of the topic. Later empiricist philosophers approached God problem by distinguishing between religious experience and scientific experience. They recognized that religious experience is noncognitive and hence the propositions about God are not testable through experimental data. In this empirical approach, only the epistemological issues are addressed, ignoring the ontological questions. In the last century, Logical Positivism and Linguistic Philosophy focused on the analysis of the meaning of concepts about God and other religious beliefs. Such epistemological discussion does not fruitfully address the issue whether God exists as a matter of fact.
Theological concepts like God, evil, soul, heaven and hell are noncognitive ideas which do not mean existence as cognitive (scientific) fact. Theist beliefs about metaphysical beings are part of theology and hence are not factual statements like ‘this pen exists’ and ‘earth is round.’ Theist God is the supreme form of mind and this conception cannot explain the existence of body (material substratum) and the occurrence of evil.
The basic reason for the failure of hitherto religious philosophy in demonstrating the existence of God is that it deliberated within the framework of theology, which presumes the existence of God as an axiom. Hence, a systematic articulation of the doctrine of God is beyond the scope of idealism, deism and process theology. Theology starts with the foundational belief that God exists as an infinite being with the attributes of omnipotence and perfection. Since the entire theology and the allied religious philosophy are built upon this axiom, a critical examination of God-concept is not possible. In other words, the traditions of monistic philosophy, which adopts the metaphysical notion of God as the reality are incapable of addressing the issue of existence of God. In this situation mind-body dualism and problem of evil can never be solved. The state of philosophy of religion is in utter confusion and verbiage so far. A detailed study of the debates with in the existing philosophy of religion, which includes the epistemology of theological statements as the main part, is postponed to a later occasion.

Model of Dualist God and Dualist Evil

In view of the foregoing, I propose that the philosophical study about the existence of God must satisfy the following premises, so as to agree with the tenets of System Philosophy.

a) We must recognize that the concept of God and the allied notions of souls, evil spirits, heaven, hell, etc. are noncognitive religious beliefs involving emotion, imagination and commitment. Such concepts do not mean actual existence as fact in the sense pertaining to a statement like ‘this table exists.’
b) The notion of existence belongs to philosophy, rather than theology. Existence is not a property, but is a fact contingent on empirical data and logical deduction. Hence, there must be cognitive evidences, which can be tested, verified and falsified, about the existence of God. But Transcendent God and Immanent God, adopted in theologies, are noncognitive ideas, which are not supported by cognitive evidence, in the wake of problem of evil.
c) Existence of God must be recast in a new manner so as to explain the problem of evil and the creative evolution of a hierarchy of living organisms as well as the factual knowledge about natural laws and the other aspects of physical world.
d) Further, the notions of Transcendent God and Immanent God need unification in an innovative manner. Though existence of God is a static concept, it is to be recognized that the cognitive evidence about God can be found only in the ever-changing phenomenal world. That is, God’s transcendence cannot be verified by empirical methods. Once we establish the existence of Immanent God in a cognitive manner, the question of transcendence will be proved by deduction.
e) Our experience of the world implies certainly that evil has fundamental existence, just as an opposite to goodness. No quality exists without its opposite quality. The opposites are complementary parts of a whole.
The thesis of this chapter is that a proper doctrine of God must be based on the Model of Dualist Reality, which is the foundation of System Philosophy. Since God and Evil are non-cognitive concepts employed in religion, it must be formerly supported by a cognitive theory of reality as developed in last chapter. Here the distinction between relative infinity and absolute infinity may be recalled. The religious belief that God is a being with infinite goodness and perfection corresponds to the notion of absolute infinity, which is a noncognitive concepts. We do not have any scientific evidence about absolute infinity. But the Dualist Reality with ‘+’ model is a cognitive knowledge based on the concept of relative infinity. It shows that the Dualist Reality has two complementary parts, Good and Bad. The good part of Dualist Reality consists of the positive mind (positive society-interest) and positive body (positive self-interest) in a dialectical relation. On the contrary, bad part of Dualist Reality consists of negative mind and negative body as complementary attributes.
It is reasonable to think that the good part of Dualist Reality represented by the co-ordinates (+ body, + mind) is the same as Dualist God when conceived in the non-cognitive manner of religious experience. In contrast, Dualist Evil is the same as the religious version of the bad part with co-ordinates (-body, -mind). If we adopt the notion of relative infinity, then the ‘+’ model represents Good and Bad cognitively. Further, if the idea of absolute infinity is employed, then the same model represents the dialectical relation between Dualist God and Dualist Evil as metaphysical beings of religion. Thus the stubborn problem of evil is solved under System Philosophy.
The Dualist God and Dualist Evil are opposite parts of the ‘+’ model under non-cognitive (or religious) version. In this manner, we explain that the Dualist God, with positive body and positive mind as complementary attributes, produces the good events of world. On the contrary, the bad events of world are the products of the Dualist Evil, with ( -body, -mind ) attributes. The ‘+’ model of Dualist God and Dualist Evil show existence as cognitive knowledge, even though the concepts of Dualist God and Dualist Evil themselves are noncognitive. Why? Two opposite concepts make a whole, and it has existence as per System Philosophy. For example, the opposite feelings ‘love’ and ‘hate’ are to be treated as the complementary parts of a whole mental state, which exists really. In a similar way, Dualist God and Dualist Evil can be conceived as two opposite feelings, or ideas, of our religious mind: So the whole consisting of the complementary parts, Dualist God and Dualist Evil, has real existence.
The underlying principle of existence of the whole of opposite entities is an innovation of System Philosophy. It radically negates the idealism of Plato who treated the opposite ideas as absolute and independent existences. For example, Plato considered ‘love’ and ‘hate’ as two independent ideas without any relation. Treating them as opposite qualities is the epistemological function of our reasoning mind rather than an ontological fact, Plato asserted. However, the process philosophy of Heraclitus, Hegel, eastern mysticism and allied doctrines treat the opposites as ontological parts of the ever-changing world.
Next question is whether Dualist God and Dualist Evil, the opposite noncognitive concepts of religions, have existence as matters of fact. It is in accordance with the popular concern: Does God exist? The answer is yes, with a qualification. A noncognitive object cannot be said to exist in the sense of a cognitive statement like ‘this pen exists.’ But in the case of God and evil, which are now recognized as the fundamentally opposite aspects of universe conceived noncognitively, we are not satisfied with the mere existence of noncognitive and opposite concepts. So I hold the view that the existence in the case of Dualist God and Dualist Evil is derived existence. The good and bad parts of Dualist Reality have real existence in a cognitive sense. Then Dualist God and Dualist Evil have derived existence because they are the same as the opposite parts of Dualist Reality, conceived in noncognitive experience of religion. To clarify this point, the statue of Gandhi has real existence as a statue primarily on account of the shape and other physical features. The same statue assumes the derived existence as the statue of Gandhi, when we aesthetically perceive it. The point here is that the statue of Gandhi is not a mere mental concept--it has both ontological and epistemological aspects. Does statue of Gandhi exist? We can answer affirmatively, on the basis of the above arguments.
Now it is not difficult to demonstrate that the Model of Dualist God and Dualist Evil synthesizes the contrasting aspects of Transcendence and Immanence. The plane paper and the ‘+’ structure can be postulated as the property of transcendence, since it shows the state of Dualist God and Dualist Evil independently of phenomenal world. When we depict phenomenal systems in the first quadrant and third quadrant of the coordinate structure, the figure represents the aspect of Immanence. Every good system is made of the inputs (+body, +mind) pertaining to Dualist God. That is, the Dualist God acts immanently in the good systems of phenomenal world. The opposite manifestation of immanence of Dualist Evil can be visualized in bad systems of world. In the case of industrial production, if we analyze the product we can know the measure of inputs. Similarly, we can estimate cognitively the extent of Dualist God present in a good system, using the technical model of isoquants borrowed from economics. Same method is to be applied for estimating the quantity of Dualist Evil contained in a bad system.
The ‘+’ model applies equivalently to the Dualist Reality of Natural Life System and the dialectical existence of Dualist God and Dualist Evil under Religious Life System. These are respectively the cognitive and noncognitive ways of comprehending the reality of world. But both the versions of ‘+’ model are cognitive schemes, just like the production model of economics. To reiterate, the model is cognitive, and it can be applied equivalently to both cognitive and noncognitive versions of knowledge of reality. Thus we get a new scientific method to do philosophy of religion through the perspective of System Philosophy.
With the aim of clarification, the innovative concepts of Dualist God and Dualist Evil may be compared with the popular notion of God and Evil respectively. In theist religions, God and Evil represent metaphysical beings, which are assumed to exist under noncognitive knowledge. In the philosophical interpretation of theology, God and Evil are mental beings with attributes of positive mind and negative mind respectively. Due to the underlying philosophy of idealism, God is believed to be the supreme mind with the attributes of omnipotence, perfection and rationality. Evil is accorded only a subordinate and ambiguous position and it resulted in the intractable problem of evil. Though philosophical deliberation of theology speaks exclusively about the metaphysics of mental beings, the major part of religious beliefs (lived religion) and the allied theology take into account the complementary relation of mental part and body part of deities.
The Theology of Catholic Church upholds monotheism, following the idealist philosophical tradition of Plato, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. But the mundane aspects of theology and worship involve the dualist notion of God, especially in the beliefs about Mother Mary, Veneration of saints as well as the concept of Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). The polytheism of Hinduism abounds with examples of deities (gods and goddesses) who are divine persons with body and mind. The characterization of Brahman as the Godhead (with the attribute of pure consciousness) is the attempt of Advaita Philosophy to unify the pantheon of deities in the line of Idealism.
The idea of God, as adopted in theist philosophy of religion, pertains to positive-mind part of the dualist being. That is, the positive–body aspect of God is neglected in the traditional philosophy of religion through idealist perspectives. The belief in supernatural forces and the view of dualism between mental and physical aspects of world might have contributed to the monistic concept of God as mental being. However, the noncognitive belief in God with mental aspect only is justified within the theory of knowledge about religion. That is, the belief about God as a mental being only or as a dualist being can be shown to be true, if it satisfied the good goals pertaining to Religious Life System.
So we have to differentiate between ‘belief about God’ and ‘existence of God’. The Model of Dualist Reality shows the existence of God and Evil as dualist beings, both having mental part and bodily part. This conception of existence satisfies the essential requirements of a Systemic Doctrine of God;
The final point to be discussed in this brief essay about God is the Problem of Evil. David Griffin has formalized this issue as per the following syllogism using three premises;
(i) If God is omnipotent, God could prevent all evil.
(ii) If God is perfectly good, God could want to prevent all evil.
(iii) There is evil.
(iv) There fore (an omnipotent, perfectly good) God does not exist.
So, the Problem of Evil refers to the contradiction between the facts of evil in the phenomenal world on the one hand, and the religious belief in the power and goodness of God on the other. There is a long tradition of theodicies (arguments to defend God in face of the fact of evil) with respect to the Transcendent God such as the responses of St. Irenaeus (130-202 AD), St. Augustine (354-430 AD), and St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Unfortunately all these arguments have failed due to the monistic conception of God as a mental being with the attributes of omnipotence and perfection. Process theology, advocated by Whitehead, Hartshorne and David Griffin, made a fresh attempt on the basis of the notion of Immanent God who aims to provide good values and direction to the material world. As per this process view of Architect God, evils occur due to the inherent power of physical world possessing the natural laws. It implies dualism between the metaphysical God-process and the physical laws of world and at the same time holds that God is not omnipotent. This concept of ‘limited God’ takes us no nearer to the solution of Problem of Evil, nor it becomes the object of religious worship. In this context, there exists voluminous interpretations about the nature of God’s action in the wake of evils in the world, but it cannot go beyond the confines of theology and religious faith.
It is a matter of great relief and joy that the present Model of Dualist God and Dualist Evil provides us a convincing solution. Dualist God is in eternal and dialectical conflict with the Dualist Evil, according to the ‘+’ model. The existence of Evil is a fundamental aspect of Dualist Reality. But this fact does not lessen the attributes of Dualist God because it is still an infinite being. Any finite number cannot divide infinity: Infinity divided by two is still infinity. So the two parts of Dualist Reality, named here, as Dualist God and Dualist Evil, are infinite in their own right. It is understandable that two infinite forces, good and bad, exist as polar opposites on the basis of the theory of reality of System Philosophy.
Dualist God, as an infinite Being with positive Body ad positive Mind, is omnipotent and perfect, engaged in the production of good systems of phenomenal world. Negatively, Dualist Evil is responsible for bad systems. Thus we arrive at the solution to the problem of evil on the strength of the following points.
 Both Dualist God and Dualist Evil are diametrically opposite qualities of Omnipotence and Perfection. Even though we conceive these opposite powers both as infinite beings, they do not have separate existence. There is non-dualism between two infinite Beings. Hence the facts about Dualist Evil do not effect any limitation to the infinite virtues of Dualist God.

 The existence of Dualist God and Dualist Evil are proved, as a derivation form the Model of Dualist Reality. Since it is cognitively shown, using the concept of relative infinity, that Evil has fundamental existence, the problem of evil is no longer sustainable.
 The theist vision of God as the object of worship; with Omnipotence and perfection is justified because the transcendent nature of Dualist God can be demonstrated in the ‘+’ model.
Thus we reach the conclusion : God really exists as a Dualist Being, though religious philosophy traditionally holds that God is a monistic being with mental aspect only. And, Evil also exists as a Dualist Being, which is in a dialectical relation to God. Adopting a religious view, the complementary aspects of God and Evil explains the good and bad events in the phenomenal world. There are three types of knowledge about Dualist God. The value knowledge pertains to the attributes such as omnipotence, benevolence and perfection. The mechanical knowledge deals with the facts about the derived existence of Transcendent God, including definitions and cause-effect relations. Thirdly, social knowledge speaks the facts about the Immanent God in tune with process theology. Thus we can unify the noncognitive facts of religion and theology with the facts of science, through a suitable theory of knowledge to be developed in a later chapter. This is the essence of the Systemic Doctrine of God under System Philosophy.
The forgoing Systemic Doctrine of God will be linked to the scientific postulates of space, time, Big Bang cosmology and Evolution in the following section. It may be anticipated, the event of Big Bang explosion is the same as the Model of Dualist God and Dualist Evil with the ‘+’ structure. This idea will help us to solve the Science-Religion conflict.

NOTES and References
Chapter 6: Systematic Coexistence of Science and Religion

1. a) Griffin, David Ray, Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the conflicts. (State University of New York Press, 2000), pp. 5-6.
b) Robert John Russell (Ed), Fifty years in Science and Religion
(Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2004), referred hereafter as FYSR
c) Christian Berg, “Barbour’s Way (s) of Relating Science and Theology”, in FYSR, .pp. 61-72
2. Griffin, Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the conflicts. (State University of New York Press, 2000), , P.6
3. Ibid., pp.34, 51, 93-95
4. (a) Hick, John. H; Philosophy of Religion (Prentice- Hall of India, Pvt. Ltd. 1994), pp.18-19
(b) Masih. Y, Introduction to Religious Philosophy (Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1995), pp.189-327
5. Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind (Pimlico, London, 1991), p. 326
6. Owen Gingerich, “Dare a Scientist believe in Design”, in OMEGA: Indian Journal of Science and Religion. (ISR, Aluva, Kerala. Vol.3, No.2, Dec. 2004), pp. 48-66
7. (a) Whitehead, Alfred North, Process and Reality, (Free Press, 1968, originally 1929)
(b) Donald. W. Sherburne (Ed.) A Key to Whitehead’s Process and Reality (India University Press, 1966)
8. Griffin, David, Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the conflicts. (State University of New York Press, 2000)
9. Ibid., p.11
10. Ibid., p. 93
11. Robert John Russell (Ed), Fifty years in Science and Religion
(Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2004), referred hereafter as FYSR ………The notion of ‘dialogue’ is explained in pp. 24, 65
12. Philip Clayton, “Barbour’s Penentheistic Metaphysic”, in FYSR, p.114
13. Ibid., p.114
14. Ibid., p.116
15. Ibid., p.118
16. John. B. Cobb. Jr, “God and Physics in the Thought of Ian Barbour”, in FYSR, p.262
17. Ibid., p.264
18. Hick, John. H ; Philosophy of Religion (Prentice- Hall of India, Pvt. Ltd. 1994), p. 50
19. Niels Henrick Gregerson, “Critical Realism and other Realisms” in FYSR, ……… p.77
20. Ibid., p.77
21. Robert John Russell, “Ian Barbour’s Methodological Break through: Creating the ‘Bridge’ between Science and Theology”, in FYSR,..p. 47
22. Paul O. Ingram, “A reflection on Buddhist – Christian Dialogue with the Natural Sciences” in FYSR. pp.317-320
23. Robert John Russel, “Barbour’s Assessment of the Philosophical and Theological Implications of Physics and Cosmology, in FYSR. p.155
24. (a) Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics (Flamingo, London, 1992, Third Edition), pp.34-43.
(b) Ian. G. Barbour, “A Personal Odyssey” in FYSR, p.19.
25. Books on philosophy of religion
26. Books on philosophy of religion

27. &28. (a) Kurian Kachapally, “A Theodicy for the Postmodern Age”, in Augustine Thottakara CMI (Ed.) in Philosophical Education in Indian Seminaries: Prospects and Perspectives. (Dharmaram Publications, Bangalore, India, 2003). pp. 169-194
(b) Kurian Kachapally. CMI (Ed.). God-talk – Contemporary Trends and Trials. (Dharmaram Publications, Bangalore, India,…2006)
(c) Stanley. J. Grenz & Roger E. Olson, 20th century Theology (OM Books, Secunderabad, 2004)
(d) William Sweet, Religion, Science and Non-Science (Dharmaram Publications Bangalore, India …2003)
(e) William Sweet, Religious Belief: The Contemporary Debate (Dharmaram… Publications Bangalore, India , 2003)

29. About Problem of Evil.
30. About Transcendent God…..
31. About Immanent God…….
32. Other books on philosophy of religion.

DIAGRAMS

Site best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 in 800 x 600 resolution