Brett Tilford

I began my journey into process thinking with Alfred North Whitehead’s books Modes of Thought and Science and the Modern World. Initially I believed the two fields (process philosophy vs. process theology) were relatively distinct entities: the former created by Whitehead and the latter developed by John Cobb and other Christian theologians. It wasn’t until the next to last chapter of Science and the Modern World that I realized Whitehead fully understood the theological implications of his philosophy. In fact it may not be too much of a stretch to say that he was process thought’s first theologian. Below is a review of chapter twelve of Science and the Modern World titled ‘Religion and Science’ where Whitehead discusses the relationship between these two fields of thought.

Based on his description of the atmosphere surrounding the conversation between religion and science, it’s hard to believe that Whitehead was writing eighty-plus years ago. Whitehead describes the “controversialists” on either side of the science and religion debate who feel that these two disciplines are so fundamentally pitted against each other that to embrace the authority of one is necessarily to reject the other. This is why the word conflict characterizes the relationship between these two behemoths. They seem to be the immovable rock and irresistible force of the modern world. However, Whitehead believed that science and religion could not only “get along” so to speak, but that they were actually mutually enriching. His basis for this perspective was grounded in an evolutionary view of both science and religion, which considered their principles timeless (the observation of natural processes for science and a focus on aesthetic and moral values for religion), but their doctrines as “...in a state of continual development.” (181) Whitehead goes on to list a few examples of this “continual development” beginning with the religious tradition.

Early Christians believed that the return of Christ and the end of the world would occur within their lifetime, of course later generations had to reinterpret and adjust their beliefs to fit reality. In the year 535 a Christian monk named Cosmas wrote a book titled Christian Topography which, based on a literal interpretation of certain biblical texts, deduced that the earth was a flat parallelogram whose length was twice that of it’s width. In the 17th century a Jesuit named father Petavius showed that theologians in the first three centuries of Christianity used phrases and statements that in the fifth century would have been deemed heretical. In the same century (17th) the doctrine of the rotation of the earth was opposed by a Catholic tribunal. In the 19th century the doctrine of an old earth distressed religious people, while in the 20th century it was the doctrine of evolution. Of course, it hasn’t only been religious thought whose doctrines have undergone numerous updates in years past, however Whitehead doesn’t delve as deeply into scientific examples in chapter twelve of Science and the Modern World for the simple reason that the majority of the preceding chapters were focused on this topic. However he does offer a quick summation with the following quip, “Science is even more changeable than theology. No man of science could subscribe without qualification to Galileo’s beliefs, or to Newton’s beliefs, or to all his own scientific beliefs of ten years ago.” (182) He goes on to discuss the insight that in both theology and science certain distinctions and modifications are made through the years so that when a statement is made today it’s understood quite differently than it would have been five hundred, or fifteen hundred, years ago.

For example, logicians assert that a proposition is either true or false – there is no middle ground. However, we now understand that reality is more complex. Often a proposition expresses an important truth, but it isn’t until later that we realize the “truth” was dependent upon certain assumptions which turn out to be misguided in one aspect or another. For example, Galileo said that the earth moves and that the sun is fixed; the Inquisition said that the earth is fixed and the sun moves; while Newtonian astronomers (adopting an absolute theory of space) asserted that both the earth and the sun are moving. Whitehead explains that each of these three statements are “true” provided that you have fixed your sense of ‘rest’ and ‘motion’ by the way required in whichever of the three statements above you’ve chosen to adopt. Another example, is the paradoxical “particle/wave” theories of light. Newton theorized that light traveled in a stream of particles, while Christiaan Huyghens asserted that light traveled in waves. In the 18th century Newton was believed. In the 19th century Huyghens was believed. In the 20th the debate continued as scientist’s awaited a wider vision that reconciles the two perspectives, which as we come into the 21st century, may occur based on changes in our perspective on matter and what constitutes reality at it’s most basic level.

Whitehead felt that we should apply this same principle of “waiting for a wider vision” to areas where science and religion overlap, and thus conflict, with each other. So rather than hastily abandoning doctrines that we have good reason to believe, which inevitably leads to mutual anathemas, Whitehead believed that a clash of doctrines (whether within religion, within science, or between the two disciplines) need not signal a disaster, but rather an opportunity. He states, “The clash is a sign that there are wider truths and finer perspectives within which a reconciliation of a deeper religion and a more subtle science will be found.” (184)

To summarize Whitehead’s position, he believed that science and religion really are two separate projects, focused on two different aspects of our lived reality. With that truth in mind, they should be willing to submit to the other’s area of expertise. Thus in all matters of the observation of physical phenomena, religion should submit itself to the findings of the scientist, and in matters of moral and aesthetic values science should leave that to the ruminations of the theologian (and perhaps – the philosopher). Of course, as the 21st century is showing, the trick is getting the “controversialists” on either side to agree to these boundaries in principle, and then to begin the messy process of negotiating where those boundary lines fall. I’ll close with a few quotes from Whitehead on this topic.

“On the one side there is the law of gravitation, and on the other the contemplation of the beauty of holiness. What one side sees, the other misses; and vice-a-versa. Consider, for example, the lives of John Wesley and of Saint Francis of Assisi. For physical science you have in these lives merely ordinary examples of the operation of the principles of physiological chemistry, and of the dynamics of nervous reactions: for religion you have lives of the most profound significance in the history of the world.” (184)

“Consider this contrast: When Darwin or Einstein proclaim theories which modify our ideas, it is a triumph for science. We do not go about saying that there is another defeat for science, because it’s old ideas have been abandoned. We know that another step of scientific insight has been gained. Religion will not regain it’s old power until it can face change in the same spirit as does science. It’s principles may be eternal, but the expression of those principles requires continual development.” (188)

“Religion is the reaction of human nature to it’s search for God. The presentation of God under the aspect of power awakens every modern instinct of critical reaction. This is fatal; for religion collapses unless it’s main positions command immediacy of assent.” (191)

“Religion is the vision of something which stands beyond, behind, and within, the passing flux of immediate things: something which is real, and yet waiting to be realized; something which is a remote possibility, and yet the greatest of present facts; something that gives meaning to all that passes, and yet eludes apprehension; something whose possession is the final good, and yet is beyond all reach; something which is the ultimate ideal and the hopeless quest. The immediate reaction of human nature to the religious vision is worship.” (191)

“The fact of the religious vision, and it’s history of persistent expansion, is our one ground for optimism. Apart from it, human life is a flash of occasional enjoyments lighting up a mass of pain and misery, a bagatelle of transient experience.” (192)

“The worship of God is not a rule of safety – it is an adventure of the spirit, a flight after the unattainable. The death of religion comes with the repression of the high hope of adventure.” (192)