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 ele