Omega Vol 17 No 2 December 2018

OMEGA
INDIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Vol.13 No.2 December
Vol.17 No.2 December 2018
2014
Published Jointly with

Indian Institute of Science and Religion, New Delhi.
Phone : 0484 2623437, 2626204
E-mail : israluva@gmail.com
URL: www.lfseminary.org/html/omega.htm
Contents
The Editorial
Articles
The Internalization of Truth in Model Theory: An Alternative
Way to Enable Intercultural Dialogues among Faith,
Religion, Science and the Arts 6
Carlos E. Vasco
Claims on Fuzzy Logic: A Critique from System Philosophy 23

George Luke
The ‘Biggest Fixes’ in the Universe: Cosmological Constant

and Nuclear Resonance in Carbon Formation 40
Joseph Mathew
Rewriting the Blueprint of Life:Ethical and Theological

Concerns over the First Gene-edited Babies 58
Beena Jose
Gender Violence Embedded in Cultural Psychology and

Anti-Witch-hunt Movements in India 70
Kamaladevi Kunkolienker
The Future of Evolution in Sri Aurobindo and

Teilhard De Chardin: A Comparative Study 86
Sandeep Jagtap
Space and Time Paradigm Shift and its Philosophical

Implications 100
Sathya Balan
2 Omega
2 DECEM
o.
BE
VOL. 17 N
R 2018
Editorial
Though foundational to almost all branches of science, the
philosophical and religious implications of the developments in
mathematics have not won sufficient attention by science-religion
theorists. However, one of the most significant logicians and math-
ematicians in history, Kurt Gödel (1906-1978), was a firm theist.
He believed in a personal God. He said: “Einstein’s religion [was]
more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god
is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God
cannot be less than a person. God can play the role of a person.”1
Gödel’s model suggest the plethora of philosophical and theologi-
cal issues at stake in mathematics.
The first two papers of this issue of Omega dwells on the

interdisciplinary issues in mathematics. Carlos E. Vasco briefly
introduces a few elements of Model Theory in Logic, as devel-
oped by Gödel, Tarski, Chang and Keisler from 1930 to 1980, in as
much as it is necessary to describe an alternative model-theoretic
proof schema – MTPS. A few examples are inserted to persuade
the reader about the advantages of using MTPS when the mental
models of the dialogue partners seem so far apart, that attempted
formal logical proofs usually degrade into “dialogues of the deaf”
or “two-person monologues”. George Luke’s paper advances the
discussion on Fuzzy logic and its interdisciplinary implications.
The author specifically evaluates the philosophical claims on
Fuzzy logic in the light of the system philosophy. The principle
December 2018 3
of system model of truth is used for unifying scientific truth and
religious truth.
Though not directly related to mathematics, the following

two papers also have the implicit beauty and success of mathe-
matics at the backdrop. Joseph Mathew assumes the imprints of
mathematics at the cosmological level as he deals with two of the
most astounding instances of ‘fine-tuning’ of cosmic parameters –
of the cosmological constant and of nuclear resonance in massive
stars which explode as supernovae. From the theistic perspective,
these ‘cosmic coincidences’ can be interpreted as trails of the De-
signer God. Beena Jose explores the ethical and theological chal-
lenges of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technique particularly in
the context of the Shenzhen-based researcher He Jiankui’s creation
of world’s first gene edited twin babies.
Kamaladevi Kunkolienker looks at the gender violence em-

bedded in cultural psychology and anti-witch-hunt movements
in India. Based on a case study, the paper examines the cultural
psychology of the tribal people, and the current socio-economic,
geopolitical factors. In the following paper, Sandeep Jagtap com-
pares the similarities and differences in Teilhard’s and Aurobindo’s
interpretation of the theory of evolution as to do they both think
that there is future evolution possible. Further the similarities and
differences that they both have in perceiving the three features of
future evolution, namely, Collectivism, the individual Core, and
Transcendence are also discussed. Sathya Balan in his final paper
shows how the emergence of the new notions of space and time
have revolutionized our worldviews affecting our approach to cer-
tain dimensions of life such as Truth, Religion and Ethics.
To return to Gödel, he had stated that his “belief is theistic,

not pantheistic, following Leibniz rather than Spinoza.”2 It should
be noted that Gödel also developed a mathematical ontological
proof for the existence of God in line with the argument of St. An-
4 Omega
selm of Canterbury. We hope that along the path shown by Gödel,
some of the insights shared in this volume will provoke a positive
intersection between science and religion in general and science
and mathematics in particular.
Dr. K. S. Radhakrishnan
References
1. Hao Wang, A Logical Journey – From Gödel to Philosophy (Cambridge:
MIT Press, 1996), p. 88.
2. Hao Wang, p. 88.
December 2018 5
Omega
ISSN 0976 - 0601
XVII (2018)2, 6-22
The Internalization of Truth in

Model Theory:
An Alternative Way to Enable
Intercultural Dialogues among Faith,
Religion, Science and the Arts
- Carlos E. Vasco*
Abstract: The paper briefly introduces a few elements of Model Theory

in Logic, as developed by Gödel, Tarski, Chang and Keisler from
1930 to 1980, in as much as it is necessary to describe an alternative
model-theoretic proof schema – MTPS. This schema is closer to the
daily use of language in actual verbal dialogues and debates centred
around different interpretations of written texts than the usual ways
of developing mathematical, scientific and philosophical arguments
derived from formal logic or formal-logical proof schemes – FLPS. In
MTPS, theories are taken as linguistically articulated strings of discrete
symbolic expressions, and models as spatio-temporally bounded systems
of multi-modally perceptual or imagined objects that are used for mental
interpretation of theories. A few examples are inserted to persuade the
reader about the advantages of using MTPS when the mental models of
the dialogue partners seem so far apart, that attempted FLPS usually
degrade into “dialogues of the deaf” or “two-person monologues”.
Keywords: Model Theory, Model-Theoretic Proof Scheme, Formal-
logical Proof Schemes.
* Carlos E. Vasco is Professor (Emeritus) in mathematics at the National University of

Colombia and Doctor “Honoris Causa” at the Universidad Javeriana in Bogotá.
6 Omega
The Internalization of Truth in Model Theory
Introduction
The aim of this paper is to describe an alternative model-the-
oretic proof schema – MTPS, which is closer to the normal use of
language in actual verbal dialogues and debates centred around
different interpretations of written texts than the more developed
and studied formal-logical proof schemes – FLPS, usually as-
sumed to provide objective validity to arguments by appealing to
strict deduction rules based in modus ponens and its contra-posi-
tive schema, modus tollendo ponens. The alternative form of argu-
ment proposed here, the model-theoretic proof scheme – MTPS,
derives from a methodological separation of theories and models,
introduced in Logic after the World War II 1 and in Epistemology
by Balzer, Moulines, and Sneed2.
Theories are taken as linguistically articulated strings of dis-

crete symbolic expressions (well-formed formulas or WFF’s) that
are publicly available for repeated examination in written records
in a specific natural language L (with its syntax and lexicon, per-
haps enriched with technical symbolic formulas, but not necessar-
ily formalized in an algebraic-logical system). Models are taken as
spatio-temporally bounded systems of multi-modally perceptual or
imagined objects that are used for mental interpretation of short
segments of theories.
This model-theory opposition involves a very restricted way

of understanding the word ‘model’, which is usually assumed to in-
clude external models, like sculptures, clay, plaster or plastic mod-
els, or people, like handsome men or women that model clothing
for potential buyers. Among models, a further distinction separates
private mental models, mostly processed in the right hemisphere
of the brain, from materially stable public models (plastic, graphic,
optically or electronically screen-displayed). In case of doubt, the
reader is asked to think only of mental or internal models.
The same happens with the word ‘theory’, which is usually

allowed to be expressed not only in writing, but also orally, or even
internally in silent language or ‘mentalese’, involving not only oral
and written words but also mental imagery and conceptual aspects,
December 2018 7
Carlos E. Vasco
as well unconscious—or at least taken-for-granted—interpretation

models, also taken-as-shared by speakers and hearers, writers and
readers. A parallel distinction separates private “mentalese” the-
ories that are assumed to be produced in the brain by noetic-se-
miotic processors in the left hemisphere, and public theories as
described above. In case of doubt, the reader is asked to think only
of linguistically spelled-out public or external theories (not neces-
sarily formal), preferably formulated in writing to allow public for
repeated examination.
Model-Theoretic Proof Scheme—MTPS

The proposed MTPS was designed to be the key arguing pro-
cedure to be used in a dispute or dialog among scholars of different
faiths, religions, and cultures, according to the classical model of
argument in European universities from the 11th to the 16th century,
called disputatio in forma (a highly formalised public debate in
Latin between two philosophy or theology teachers or advanced
students about a previously posted quaestio disputata), but follow-
ing the modern analogy of the gentlemen’s sport called “fencing”.
Today’s fencing obviously derives from military training and

was practiced at the risk of life by gladiators and duellists for cen-
turies; it was developed into a civil sport in Spain, France, Italy
and the United Kingdom in the 18th and 19th century, and accepted
as official Olympic sport since 1898. According to this analogy, a
dialogue or debate about specific topics fixed in writing as a public
challenge will be called a “Verbal-Fencing Match—VFM”. In our
case, it could be a public inter-faith dialogue among a Christian
and an Islamic scholar, or a debate about controversial topics with-
in the same faith, as between a Roman Catholic priest and an An-
glican Protestant minister, or between a Sunnite and a Shi’ite cler-
ic, or an inter-cultural debate about theism vs. atheism, or about
faith vs. science.
Preparing or training for a VFM preferably would start with

a preparation exercise or training session called a “Word-Work-
Shop – WWS”, in which words and other expressions that are go-
ing to be used in the upcoming debate are spelled out and mapped
8 Omega
out jointly by the partners in the future dialogue, with the help of
concept maps (Novak), starting with their spontaneously recalled
daily use, dictionary entries, synonyms and antonyms, etymolo-
gies and translations to other languages. The purpose of the WWS
is to arrive at shared interpretations of words and expressions that
will repeatedly occur in the actual VFM without using verbal defi-
nitions. Of course, any verbal definition found in a dictionary, a
textbook or in the Internet can be aptly included as one more ex-
pression to be analyzed and diagrammed into the concept maps,
without attributing to it any special authority.
Then, the VFM would start as a language game of multiple

and opposed interpretations in a Peircean-Wittgensteinian mood.3
The VFM could be divided into sets, games and points as in tennis,
or taken as a unit or split into serial or parallel episodes. The idea
is to start by choosing a proponent that briefly explains his or her
personal interpretation of a thesis or a question literally taken from
the previously published central text; then, the opponent challeng-
es that interpretation by criticising it and then proposing an alter-
native personal interpretation of the same text. The appeal to some
other author’s interpretation can be used in the third person in the
critical phase, but it must be assumed by the opponent as his or her
own in the propositive phase of the first round.
The match proceeds by rounds of reciprocal critique of the

opponent’s alternative interpretation, followed by a reformulation
of the proponent’s question or thesis until both reach an agreement
on a shared formulation, which is very unlikely; if the agreement
is not readily found, either partner can ask for an explicit commu-
nication of the mental model in which the other is interpreting a
term or a predicate, referring to the previous WWS. Here is where
the model-theoretic proof scheme MTPS enters. The propositions,
challenges, and reformulations made by proponent and opponent
must explicitly refer to the mental models made public by the other
fencer, challenging the mental model or the specific interpretations
of terms and predicates, and trying to express the mental model
and the interpretations of terms and predicates.
December 2018 9
Carlos E. Vasco
The MTPS is more a semiotic game of making explicit the

models of interpretation of grounds and warrants in the Toulmin
model of argument than a logical game of appealing to a previ-
ously stated formula as in the Aristotelian-Euclidean formal-logic
proof schema FLPS. The key characteristic in an MTPS is that the
invoked axiom, lemma, theorem or corollary is not considered as
true or false but only as a symbol string, a formula, “a piece of
theory”, and the key assumption is that the appeal to that formula
depends more on the mental model in which it is currently inter-
preted than in the string of symbols that belongs only to the theory.
An illustrative example of appealing to the mental models in

a VFM about Euclidean geometry could be the famous inner-tube
or inflatable life-saver challenge to Euclid’s first axiom of the first
book of the Elements, EA-I.1: two points marked by tiny ink spots
of a felt-tip marker on the tube’s surface can be joined by an imag-
inary straight line “in the air” but not by a continuously-drawn
straight line on the tube.
Then, the interpretation of point as a tiny round spot or as

an ideal dimensionless “something” comes up to the forefront;
both fencing partners usually prefer the second, but the proponent
of the first axiom must acknowledge that it cannot be externally
modelled; upon further requirement of making his or her presently
activated mental model explicit, he or she must confess that it can-
not be internally modelled either. The interpretations of line and
of straight line, and of surface and plane surface suffer the same
tension, which could easily be solved if the usual FLPS is used, but
if the MTPS is repeatedly applied, the fencing alternations might
lead to the much more powerful notion of geodesic and to non-Eu-
clidean geometries, where Beltrami’s catenoid trumpet or bonnet
(‘cuffia’) models, or Poincaré’s or Klein’s disk models would al-
low a much deeper and satisfactory agreement among the partners.
A Very Controversial Hidden Assumption

The basic conjecture about the internalization of Truth behind
the MTPS is very radical because it goes against deeply ingrained
10 Omega
beliefs and assumptions about formally spelled-out laws, axioms

and theorems in a technical language, which are commonly tak-
en as “Philosophical”, “Mathematical” or “Scientific Truths”. The
case of “Religious Truths” is even more challenging, because some
formulations in Hebrew, Greek or Latin are taken as “de fide” by
the fact of being identically written in all old extant manuscripts of
a sacred book, and if formally repeated by popes or councils, even
“de fide definita”.
The pious believer of a religion or the official representative

of an established church has no degrees of freedom to manoeuvre
in an inter-faith dialogue if he or she is sure that “there is truth out
there” in that explicitly sanctioned “article of faith”. It would be
unethical to accept and alternative interpretation or reformulation,
thus incurring in excommunication from his religious community
and even in eternal condemnation in hell. There must be a relaxed,
game-like, “als-ob” situation in which the appeal to reformulation
of de-sacralized “piece of theory” in order that the person can feel
free to imaginative, aesthetically appealing and privately uncen-
sored mental modelling will allow for satisfactory agreements
among the players that can also be felt as morally and religious-
ly allowable for both of them. The reader might run some mental
movies about inter-faith or intra-faith dialogues he has experienced
or imagined, and see if the VFG-approach and the judicious use of
MTPS is more promissory than the usual adversarial debate situa-
tions and the appeal to FLPS.
Let us advance a step further into the hidden assumption

about internalization of Truth that lies behind MTPS. Even more
than the authoritative power of solemn pronouncements it is usu-
ally the seductive power of our native language with its apparent
transparency what makes us believe that if there are internal truths
“in here”, in our brains and minds – for instance, in a Cartesian
mood, those truths we directly, clearly, and distinctly experience
with certainty when we think about the words “Dubito, Cogito,
(ergo) Sum” – , then, there must also be external truths “out there”,
recorded in symbol strings discernible as well-formed formu-
las—WFF’s—of assertive-declarative nature to which we can call
December 2018 11
Carlos E. Vasco
“Truths”, i.e., we feel sure we can attribute to the WFF the predi-
cate (_)_is_True.
Nevertheless, semiotic theories after Peirce, Model Theory

in Logic, and other theories about models and theories in Episte-
mology, especially the structuralist program of Balzer, Moulines
and Sneed,4 advise us to be more careful about assigning the predi-
cate (_)_is_True to a WFF we find “out there”, coded in writing for
public examination. Some of the paradigmatic cases to deal with in
inter-faith dialogues are the many short pieces of code in Hebrew,
Greek or Arabic found in the sacred books of Abrahamic religions
taken to be incontrovertible truths, fortunately not so acute in case
of Sanskrit or Pali sentences found in Vedic Sutras in Hindu and
Jain religions.
In spite of more than one hundred years of critical exegesis

and radical theologian diatribes against taking any statement writ-
ten in the Bible as true, practically all religions still firmly believe
that some “articles of faith” in the Torah or the New Testament
or in their Symbola or Credos are unshakable truths “out there”,
written in their respective sacred books and sanctioned by their
authorities and their traditions. This staunch attitude about truth
of written statements in sacred books often makes inter-faith di-
alogues sterile, frustrating, and—with rare exceptions of famous
“converts”—mostly unsuccessful. We do not realize that famous
converts to our religion are infamous traitors to their old religion
and their former brethren.
Nevertheless, religious personalities are not alone in hold-

ing this attitude. Since Newton’s Laws were coded in Latin words
with some further mathematical symbols, the success of predicting
the trajectories of massive bodies by substitutions of measurement
values into short symbolic formulas led many scientists to take
those syntactically well-formulated laws as paradigmatic cases of
truth-attribution to WFF’s “out there”. Also in Mathematics, the
same situation was well described in the book by Morris Kline The
loss of certainty5: Mathematicians should have left the identifica-
tion of truth with formal validity of a well-formed formula inside
12 Omega
an axiomatized theory much earlier, right after Non-Euclidean ge-

ometries in the 1820’s or, at the latest, right after Gödel’s second
incompleteness theorem in 1931.
Some critical physicists began to abandon their certainty af-

ter 1917, when Einstein published his development of the General
Theory of Relativity that seemed to contradict Newton, and many
more did so when Schrödinger and Heisenberg produced written
formulations of Quantum Mechanics that seemed to contradict
both Newton and Einstein, besides going against the grain of com-
mon sense appreciations and expectations. Some interpretations of
Einstein’s quip about God not playing dice make us surmise that
he was sure that his fundamental formulas of Special and General
Relativity were “truths out there”. No wonder many present-day
physicists and mathematicians still believe that at least some of
their formulas are “truths out there”, definitively demonstrated for
all centuries to come, and even applicable backwards to the begin-
ning of the Universe in a Big-Bang theory.
Minimal Requirements from Model Theory

A system Z = (Sub, Dyn, Str) is a compound object with three
aspects: the substrate or set Sub of components or elements, the
dynamics Dyn or set of operations on elements, and the structure
Str or set of relations among elements.
A model M is a system that is used by a noetic-semiotic agent

A or subject S as a guide to its noetic-semiotic communication-ori-
ented action.
A formal language L consists of a system L = (Sub, Dyn,

Str) with a set Sub as substrate composed of two kinds of semiotic
representations t and F called terms and formulas: Sub = T U F.
All terms t of T are generated by a set GT of single-literal and

single-numeral (alphanumeric or alphameric) generators called
basic or atomic terms, a set of operators Op on terms that produce
compound or molecular terms of T and a set of relators R among
terms that produce atomic formulas of F.
December 2018 13
Carlos E. Vasco
All formulas F of F are either basic or atomic formulas or

they are compound or molecular formulas generated by the atomic
formulas as generators GF and a set of logical operators L-Op on
formulas, and a set of logical relators L-R among formulas that
produce compound or molecular formulas of F.
All generators are terms, and all products of syntax-ruled
operators on terms are well-formed terms or WFT’s and all prod-
ucts of syntax-ruled relators on terms are well-formed formulas or
WFF’s.
A meta-language L# (Read “el-sharp”) for a first-order lan-
guage L is a second order language L# = (Sub#, Dyn#, Str#) with a
set Sub# as substrate composed of two kinds of semiotic represen-
tations f and F called formulas and meta-formulas:
Sub # = F U F#.
All formulas f of F are generated by a set G# of WFF’s called
basic or atomic WFF’s and a set of operators Op# on WFF’s that
produce compound WFF’s of F and a set of relators R# among for-
mulas that produce atomic meta-formulas of F#.
All meta-formulas F# of F# are either basic or atomic me-
ta-formulas or are compound or molecular meta-formulas generat-
ed by a set of meta-logical operators L#-Op on formulas, and a set
of meta-logical relators L#-R among meta-formulas that produce
compound or molecular meta-formulas of F#.
Recursive Axioms
If t is a single-literal and single-numeral of L, it is a term of L.
If t and t’ are terms of the substrate C of L and (_)&(_) is a

dyadic or binary operator in the dynamics of L, (t)&(t’) is a term of
L, and there are no other terms.
If t and t’ are terms of the substrate C of L and (_)R(_) is a

dyadic or binary relator in the structure of L, (t’)R(t) is an atomic
formula of L, and there are no other atomic formulas.
14 Omega
A theory in L T(L) is a sub-system of WFF’s of a language L

and meta-WFF’s of its meta-language L#, with inference operators
and inferential relators.
An interpretation of a theory T(L) in a model M = (C, D,
S) is a set of three morphisms µ that attach every term t of L to a
component tM of the substrate C of M, every operator & of the dy-
namics of L on terms to an operation &M of the dynamics D of M
and on components tM and every relator R of the structure of L to a
relation RM of the structure S of M.
The combined general theories of models and theories start-
ed by Tarski and the Polish School of Logic and fuelled by the
failure of all attempts to formulate a Theory of Truth capable of
dealing with Euclidean and Non-Euclidean geometries, Gödel’s
Incompleteness theorems, and subsequent recursivity, computabil-
ity and lambda-calculi theories allows now a sweeping conjecture
that goes beyond the gravest reservations of logical Intuitionists
like Brouwer and Heyting:
Against the earnest usage of academic writings, let us state
this theory in imaginative language first, easier to model in our
minds; let us call the main conjecture of this paper “The Nootroth
Conjecture”. Nootroth is not a place or a goddess, but a sort of ac-
ronym for: “Sorry, but there-is-no-objective-truth-out-there”.
Nootroth conjecture: There is no objective truth-out-there.
This colourful character string alludes to the introduction of
the most recent book of collected works of the most notorious athe-
ist, who has been a protagonist in many anti-faith dialogues, Rich-
ard Dawkins. He considers inter-faith dialogues useless, because
present-day science knows that “there are truths out there”, and
those truths are scientific, not theological or even philosophical:
“Whatever may be the innermost feelings of individual scientists,
science itself works by rigorous adherence to objective values.
There is objective truth out there and it is our business to find it.”6
Let us now reformulate the conjecture in a more careful lan-
guage:
December 2018 15
Carlos E. Vasco
Nootroth Conjecture: The meta-theoretic predicates “(_)_is_

True” and “(_)_is_False” are not applicable to any given WFF F
of a public theory.
The Nootroth conjecture is, of course, not taken as True, but

only as a claim that it should be thought about, not promptly dis-
missed as False, because the latter predicate is not applicable to it
either.
Corollary: There are no true public theories out there. But

there are no false public theories out there, either.
What are they, then, and how can we handle them? Pub-
lic theories and their fragments called pro-positions or asser-
tive-declarative WFF’s are subject to critical examination, inter-
preted and reinterpreted in different mental models, and either
hedged or weakened until they mentally agree with the currently
activated models, until they produce the inner evaluation of clarity,
distinctness, and certainty, which is the most we can ask of a WFF
F: to have at least one interpretation FM in a mental model M which
produces in my mind this internal but linguistically externalizable
sentence can be responsibly uttered: “(FM)_is_True (in my current-
ly model M).
Not all is lost, though. Truth is not a broken vase toppled

from its stone pillar and swept out under the rugs of public Learned
Institutions, but it is a precious internal vessel to be placed by each
one of us on a solid mental pedestal, like a queen to be enthroned
where it should be: in the Master Heads of the Head Masters, but
always sitting on a modelic throne. A WFF should be first inter-
preted by an interpreter in an internal model here-and-now to test
whether it is true or not in that model.
In Model Theory, which I learned from—and still follow—

Chang and Keisler,7 the assertion or asseveration of a WFF F as
part of a public theory T(L) is written with a horizontal ‘T’ (follow-
ing Frege’s Begriffschrift of 1879)8: |—F.
16 Omega
In this paper, we will technically call |—F not a ‘position’

or ‘thesis’ or ‘judgment’ or ‘sentence’ but a ‘pro-position’: a WFF
proposedly proposed by a noetic-semiotic agent speaker/hearer of
the language L as emitter, who purposefully proposes it to atten-
tion, examination and eventual hearing, interpreting, judging and
sentencing by other noetic-semiotic agents speakers/hearers of the
language L as receivers.
Following Peirce’ theory of signs, extended by Carlo Federi-

ci from a triad to a pentad,9the pro-position |—F is a public external
Representamen meant by the pro-poser-emitter to produce a pri-
vate mental Representamen in the intended receiver, who activates
its functioning as Interpreter; the private mental Representamen
provokes a mental cloud of potential Interpretants of which the
Interpreter chooses an immediate Interpretant that brings to mind
an immediate Object related to the current Interpretant. The imme-
diate Object is private mental, and it might or might not relate to a
public external Object.
An assertive-declarative positive WFF F of a public theory T

formulated in an articulate written language L is Chomskian-atom-
ic iff it is composed of a term t to which a monadic or unary predi-
cate (_)P or P(_) is attributed by a speaker S(L; N) of L in a space-
time neighbourhood N.
Corollary: A monadic or unary predicate (_)P or P(_) that is

attributed to a selected term t is a crypto-dyadic or crypto-binary
predicate (_)P[S(L; N)] or [S(L; N)]P(_) between the N-situated
subject S(L; N) and the selected term t selected by S(L; N).
Word pairs like ‘subject’, ‘object’ or ‘subject’, ‘predicate’

are ambiguous, especially in English, where ‘subject matter’ or
‘school subject’ or ‘the Queens subjects’ or ‘subject of right’ are
not quite what a conscious subject might mean by ‘subject’.
Let us reinterpret Peirce’s immediate Interpretamen as a par-

ticular selection of a mental model out of the cloud of potential
Interpretamina or cloud of mental models activated by a private
mental Representamen.
December 2018 17
Carlos E. Vasco
A Chomskian-atomic pro-position |—[S(L; N)]P(t) is True-

for-me-here-and-now in a currently active mental model M,
M|==[S(L; N)]PM(tM) iff
(i) I am the predicating subject as currently active noetic-se-

miotic agent S(L; N), and
(ii) the private mental Representamen corresponding to |—

[S(L; N)]P(_) activates in my mind a mental model M,
(iii) in which I can successfully test that tM is a component of

the substrate of M, and
(iv) in which I can successfully test that monadic predicate

P(_) interpreted in M, i.e., [S(L; N)]PM(_), is a binary relation [_]
PM(_) of the structure of M that agrees with the relation that tM has
with myself as S(L; N), i.e., that I can successfully test that the
ordered pair subject-component (tM, S(L; N)) is a satisfier of [_]
PM(_):
M|==[S(L; N)]PM(tM) iff [S(L; N)]PM(tM) holds in M.
The game is to refrain from proclaiming the truth of [S]P(t)

as a WFF “out there” even when the spontaneously activated initial
mental model M seems to hold in the immediate interpretation [S]
PM(tM), shifting interpretations of P and t and consciously activat-
ing other models M’ and trying different interpretations of P and
t. This is the model-theoretic version of critical-and-self-critical
thinking.
The model-theoretic proof schema MTPS that I have found

most useful for inter-science, inter-faith and inter-cultural dialogue
starts with a Word Workshop WWShop where emitter and receiver
approach common agreements about the cloud of mental models
elicited by words like t or [S(L; N)]P(_), successively take turns
as [S(L; N)], and rehearse the tests of membership of tM in the
substrate of M and of satisfaction of the relation [S(L; N)]PM(_);
and then they attempt to incorporate the interpreted pro-position
[S(L; N)]PM(tM) into the larger theory T as interpreted in the model
18 Omega
M taken for shared, using formal connections (that we shall call

‘digital’) of inference from other WFF’s of the theory T, and using
modelic-iconic connections (that we shall call ‘analog’ or ‘analog-
ic’) until a stable and communicable mental agreement of emitter
and receivers is reached after a few Verbal-Fencing Games, sets or
matches. The digital connections we call ‘theoretical supportive
discourse’ or ‘formal argumentation’, and the analog connections
we call ‘modelic supportive discourse’.
There is no pretension of arriving to truths or of exhaustive

systematic search, but only to shake the usual univocity of every-
day words and scientific vocabulary, allowing the speakers and
hearers to flexibly use their memory and their analytic powers.
Conclusion
To sum up, the most valuable sub-scheme of a MTPS is the
abstention from qualification of the pro-position |—[S(L; N)]Pt(t)
as True or False, deferring judgment and sentencing until after the
Word Work-Shop about terms t and predicates P has reached a
semi-stable status, and sufficient Verbal-Fencing Games are played
until the theoretical and the modelic supporting discourses of the
emitter and receiver have reached a semi-stable agreement. Thus,
in Science-Religion dialogues, Inter-Faith and Inter-Cultural dia-
logues, the disciplined use of MTPS needs no argumentation to
start to be used tomorrow (why not this evening), just to see how
it works. It does!
Appendix
A formal-logical proof scheme FLPS consists in a symbol-
ically recorded-in-writing display of a graph-theory-like connec-
tion between the conjectured WFF we shall call “formal thesis”,
and the initial axioms of an axiomatized formal theory. This type
of proof can be diagrammatically represented by a finite co-tree
(with all branches as arrows going down from the leaves to the
root) with (perhaps repeated) leaves at the top marked with the
WFF A(n) representing an axiom of the current formalized theory,
and a single root marked with the WFF T representing the formal
December 2018 19
Carlos E. Vasco
thesis. If you can test at each vertex that the incoming arrows val-
idly allow the continuation of the single arrow coming out of the
given vertex, we say that the formal thesis T is a formal theorem of
the current axiomatized formal theory.
Notice that there is no need to use any form of truth, not

even of axioms, or the values True-False for WFF’s in order to
test that the formulas are syntactically well formed and the proof
co-tree at the thesis (now theorem) is a valid connectivity graph.
This suggests extending the truth-value free meta-theory to other
non-formal procedures that need mental comparisons of different
interpretations of the same formal theory in a given mental model
or of different models of the same theory.
This might explain why non-Euclidean geometries could de-

velop formally for over 30 years without any spatial models, from
Lobatchevsky and Bolyai to Beltrami, Klein and Poincaré. This
also might explain why inter-faith dialogues end up not convincing
any of the adversaries, no matter how formally valid the arguments
appear to one of the sides: the contenders simply have no axioms in
common but they do not share at least one of the axioms appearing
as a leaf A(n).
The new form of argument proposed here, called ‘mod-

el-theoretic proof scheme’—MTPS— derives from a methodolog-
ical separation of theories and models, understanding theories as
linguistically articulated strings of expressions (well-formed for-
mulas or WFF’s) that are publicly available in written records in
a specific natural language with its syntax and lexicon (perhaps
enriched with technical symbolic formulas but not necessarily for-
malized in an algebraic-logical system), and understanding mod-
els as systemic mental objects used for interpretation of short seg-
ments of those theories.
It is assumed for the purposes of simplification that those

scientists willing to participate in a Science-Religion dialogue are
usually philosophically not too well trained in Gnoseology (as The-
ory of Knowledge) and Epistemology (as Theory of Science), and
20 Omega
that those theologians and philosophers of religion that respond to

them are usually scientifically not too well trained in the specific
“hard” science of the contender and in its technical language, thus
giving the impression that the scientifically formulated sentences
are true or can be proved as true in a few years at most, whereas the
theological and philosophical sentences are fuzzy and subjective,
“only symbolic”, as if not every WFF as a piece of theory is nec-
essarily only symbolic and subjective, in the sense that they only
strings of symbols that are subject to subjective interpretations in
equally subjective mental models.
We note—with regret—that concrete Science-Religion dia-

logues are usually very asymmetric in the sense that scientists who
wish to participate in these dialogues are usually quite sure of the
scientificity of their qualitative and measurably quantitative pred-
icates and of the empirical testability—and even the truth, actual
or proximal—of their theses and of the validity of their arguments,
thus downgrading as “soft” or “weak” or “fuzzy” any philosophi-
cal category, statement or argument wielded by one of their oppo-
nents, while philosophers who engage in these type of dialogue are
usually quite sure of the clarity of their refined conceptualization
of their abstract categories as verbally defined, and of the formal
validity of their arguments as syllogistically expressed, and there-
fore feel immunized from the need of engaging in operationaliza-
tion of predicates, in analysis of relations and in empirical testing
of conjectures as demanded by their opponents.
This undesirably asymmetric situation can be repeatedly ob-

served in the current not only a-theistic but anti-theistic controver-
sy led by Dr. Richard Dawkins and his multiple opponents from
different schools of theology and of philosophy of religion.
A recent example was the Dawkins-Remolina dialogue

in Bogotá, Colombia, on occasion of the 70th-anniversary of the
Theological Faculty of the Pontifical Xaveriana University led by
members of the Jesuit Order, and then followed by two sessions in
Medellín and Cartagena. The overall impression is that Dawkins
speaks in scientifically formulated sentences that either are true or
December 2018 21
Carlos E. Vasco
will be proved true by additional empirical evidence in a few years,

while Remolina as a theologian following Thomas Aquinas and as
a philosopher following Karl Jaspers is only repeating myths and
fables, and defending himself from scientific challenges by appeal-
ing to symbolic, indirect and vague illusions.
Notes and References

1. C
hen Chung Chang and H. Jerome Keisler, Model Theory (Amsterdam:
North-Holland, 1973).
2. Wolfgang Balzer, Carlos Ulises Moulines, and Joseph D. Sneed, An Ar-

chitectonic for Science: The Structuralist Program, Synthese Library, 186
(Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1988). See also Joseph D Sneed, Carlos Ulises Mou-
lines and Wolfgang Balzer, Structuralist Knowledge Representation: Par-
adigmatic Examples, Poznán Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and
the Humanities 75 (Poznan: Rodopi, 2000).
3. Adalira Sáenz-Ludlow (2006), “Classroom Interpreting Games with an Il-

lustration,” in Educational Studies in Mathematics 61 (1–2), 183–218.
4. Balzer, Moulines, and Sneed, An Architectonic for Science, 1988.
5. Morris Kline, The Loss of Certainty (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1980).
6. Richard Dawkins, Science in the Soul (New York-London: Random House,

2017), 7.
7. Chang and Keisler, Model Theory, 1973.
8. Gottlob Frege, Begriffsschrift: eine der arithmetischennachgebildeteFor-

melsprache des reinen Denkens (Halle: Louis Nebert, 1879).
9. Carlos E Vasco, Shea Zellweger, and Adalira Sáenz-Ludlow (2009), “García

de la Madrid: Ideas and Signs in the Iberian Gray Zone (1650-1850) that
Follows the Black Hole,” (1350-1650), in Semiotics 2008 «Specialization,
Semiosis, Semiotics» [Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Se-
miotic Society of America. 16-19 October 2008], edited by John Deely and
Leonard G. Sbrocchi, (New York-Ottawa-Toronto: LEGAS), 91-111.
22 Omega
Omega
ISSN 0976 - 0601
XVII (2018)2, 23-39
Claims on Fuzzy Logic:

A Critique from System Philosophy
- George Luke*
Abstract: The paper envisages to advance the discussion on Fuzzy logic

and its interdisciplinary implications. The author specifically evaluates
the philosophical claims on Fuzzy logic in the light of the system
philosophy. The principle of system model of truth is used for unifying
scientific truth and religious truth. Author holds that system philosophy
of knowledge and truth is the only method towards science-religion
synthesis.
Keywords: Fuzzy logic, System philosophy.
This paper envisages to advance the discussion on fuzzy log-

ic by subjecting the following two articles published by Binoy Ja-
cob to a philosophical criticism.
1. Beyond Binary Thinking: A Fuzzy Logical Framework for

Science-Religion Dialogue published in OMEGA, VOL. 13,
No. 2 December 2014, pages 148-164 (this article is hereaf-
ter denoted by OME).
2. Malayalam article titled dvantha chinthakkappuram pub-

lished in EZHUTHU MAGAZINE, July 2018 issue, pages
62-65 (this article is hereafter denoted by EZH).
* George Luke is Director of PGL Books & Academy of System Philosophy, Changa-
nacherry, Kerala.
December 2018 23
George Luke
The second article is a free translation of the first. Both these

articles start by differentiating between Classical Logic and Fuzzy
Logic. A brief summary of the main points of the articles is given
in the next section. Subsequent sections present my criticism on
the proposals of the articles in the light of System Philosophy.
1. Major Claims in the Articles

The fundamental principles of classical logic were original-
ly given by Aristotle. Hence it is alternatively called Aristotelian
logic, in which the most important principle is that things of the
universe are treated as absolute and distinct. Each object exists in
the complete and independent way. For example, man, dog, cat,
paper and pen are distinct objects, which are defined using differ-
ent set of properties.
The above assertions are expressed in mathematical lan-

guage by denoting the given object A by 1 and the opposite not-A
by 0. According to this method, when A is specified, an individual
object is either A or not-A; that is either 1 or 0. For example, when
A is man, then dog is not-A (man is 1 and dog is 0). When A is tall
man represented by 1, then short man is not-A represented by 0.
Now it can be said that the objects – classes or particulars -- of this
universe are distinguished using the binaries 0 and 1.
The main drawback of the above binary scheme is that it

cannot talk about the variations in a given object. In other words,
when an object is specified, we cannot consider its variations. For
example when A is mango, we cannot consider the varieties of
mango as per different colors like green, yellow, pink and red. If
we treat green mango and yellow mango as distinct objects as per
the binary scheme, then we cannot say that these are two varieties
of mango. To explain this point, Binoy Jacob writes:
Traditional philosophy and classical mathematics divide the re-
alities of the world into “yes or no” or “true or false” paradigms.
There is no possibility of being in between. Most often this kind
of binary-valued thinking runs through our language and thought
patterns. Such binary logical worldview is often held in religions
24 Omega
Claims on Fuzzy Logic: A Critique from System Philosophy
too, leading to exclusive truth claims. In our daily life, thinking

and language cannot be restricted to two-valued logic, as there is
always a need for something beyond binary thinking.
The rationale for a new method of logic called Fuzzy Log-

ic will become clear now. It assigns values in the range between
0 and 1 in order to denote different varieties of a thing. Take the
example of four varieties of mango. Suppose that we assign value
0.2 to green mango, 0.4 to yellow mango, 0.8 to pink mango and
1 to red mango, while the class not-mango is denoted by 0. If we
consider other colors of mango, those varieties can be suitably as-
signed values in the interval [0, 1]. In mathematical way, we can
say that there is a function which links the varieties of mango to the
numbers in the interval [0, 1].
As a simple definition, Fuzzy Logic is a branch of logic which

assigns the intermediate values between 0 and 1 to the elements of
a set X. The set of mangos forms the set X in the above example.
The salient aspects of Fuzzy Logic may be summarily given

using mathematical language as following. Consider a nonempty
set X. Then define Fuzzy Set A as the set of a property (class) in
which the elements of X has membership. Now we can find the
grade of membership of elements of X in A. Then define a map-
ping function whereby the grade of membership of each element of
the set X in A is associated with a value in the unit interval [0, 1].
Now we can say that fuzzy set consists of mapping functions from
X to the interval [0, 1]. Fuzzy Logic consists of the logical analysis
for determining the truth of combinations of fuzzy sets.
In the above examples we have taken the following: X = set

of mangoes; Fuzzy Set A = colors of mangos
It is now obvious that fuzzy logic is radically different from

the classical logic or Aristotelian logic. As mentioned earlier, the
main feature of classical logic is that it has only two membership
vales (truth values) namely 0 and 1.
December 2018 25
George Luke
To show the aim of the articles, the following words of the

author, Binoy Jacob, taken from OME may be quoted:
This paper claims that contrary to binary thinking, in fuzzy logical
thinking religions can sensibly make their claims to uniqueness
as fuzzy logic takes into account intermediate truth values along
with the absolutes. The paper also argues that the fuzzy logic of-
fers an inclusive epistemological framework for science-religion
dialogue in multi-religious and multi-cultural contexts.
The objective of present essay is to verify whether the

said aims are achieved in the articles under review. For clarity of
critical assessment, I will focus on a few important ideas of System
Philosophy in the next section.
2. Some Relevant Points from System Philosophy

My three recently published eBooks -- Origin of Universe,
Life and Mind, Discovery of Reality - deal with the epistemological
aspects of science, religion and social systems through the light of
System Philosophy. Certain fundamental ideas elaborated in these
books are reproduced here to build up my criticism.
Classification of Propositions
The unit of knowledge is a true proposition. Here a proper
taxonomy of propositions is required to facilitate the objective un-
derstanding of knowledge. Since knowledge is the creation of our
mind, it is reasonable to connect the taxonomy with the fundamen-
tal aspects of our mind. The following three methods of classifica-
tion of knowledge are crucially important for our purpose.
Fact and Value

Here we may propose that fact and value represent the dual
purposes of our knowing mind. The first purpose is to know about
the existence or characteristics of the concerned object as well as
the circumstances causing change in the object. In other words,
the opposite aspects of permanence and change are considered in
the stage of acquiring knowledge – the resulting propositions are
collectively called as facts.
26 Omega
The second purpose of knowing mind is to assess the utility

of object as far as our life is concerned. Various kinds of informa-
tion about such utility maybe denoted generally as value. Obvious-
ly, value represents our objective to recognize the qualities of the
object that are good or bad. Since value represents the intentions
of our mind, it has positive and negative directions. In other words,
values appear as duals like good-bad, beauty-ugly, love-hate and
so on.
Content View and Process View

The descriptions about the structure of an object are often
expressed in content view. It deals with the static existence of the
object having such and such components. The words denoting the
constituents of the object have representational contents. For ex-
ample, consider the proposition ‘earth is round’. Here ‘earth’ is a
word under content view since it implies that earth exists statically
as an object with certain perceivable components. Additionally, the
word ‘round’ represents the geometrical object called sphere. The
definition of things as appearing in a dictionary is produced under
content view. Further, for example, ordinary perception of world,
the laws of classical science and religious doctrine called theism
belong to this category.
Process view is concerned with the description about the

circumstances causing change in the object. Change can be alter-
natively viewed as an activity or process. For instance, the growth
of a plant is the aspect of change happening to it; the same can be
treated as the activity of plant. In the case of the growth of plant it
is caused by certain circumstances such as the biological features
of plant as well as the external factors like availability of water,
manure and proper climate. The word context is generally used to
refer to the totality of internal and external circumstances causing
change.
We have already mentioned the two classes of propositions

pertaining to the permanence and change of an object. These op-
posite features are complimentary. Every object has permanence
or static existence for a particular period of time. And it undergoes
December 2018 27
George Luke
change when we consider the static aspects of different periods.

This pen has permanent existence today, but it may be destroyed
tomorrow due to some circumstances.
The aspect of complimentarity is very important for the anal-

ysis of knowledge. We cannot talk about the change of a thing, un-
less the thing is already defined under content view. For example,
consider a river. It is a flow of water under process view. But this
moving river makes sense as a complimentary to the content view
of ‘river’. We can define river using the static features like banks
of river, width and volume of water flowing per hour. As another
example, we have to define wind by contrasting it against fixed
structures like buildings and trees.
The point which we stress here is that the knowledge about

an object -- under fact and value -- consists of both content view
and process view in a complimentary manner.
Rational and Empirical

It is well known that the typical examples of rational propo-
sitions are those belonging to mathematics and logic. Additionally
we can include the various abstract concepts about things of uni-
verse. Generally speaking the class of rational propositions is fur-
ther divided into definitions, meanings of words as given in a dic-
tionary, concepts about quantitative measurements and qualitative
values as well as the cause-effect relation. More often, we will call
this kind as deductive propositions, which are rational obviously.
On the other hand, the class of empirical propositions – al-

ternatively called as inductive propositions -- pertains to various
kinds of knowledge obtained through our sense organs, namely,
eye, ear, nose, tongue and skin. When I see this table I get the idea
that its length is six feet and breadth is four feet. The propositions
about length and breadth are obviously empirical, since it is de-
rived from particular sensory perceptions. It may be added that the
empirical propositions are constituted using the rational ideas also
in the form of definitions and other abstract concepts. In this exam-
ple, the words like table, length, breadth, six, four and feet denote
28 Omega
rational definitions. So we can presume that there is an organic link

between rational and empirical propositions.
What is Epistemology?
It is instructive to hold that knowledge has hierarchical lev-
els in a similar way as the levels in biological world such as cell,
organ, organism and species. Aggregation of disciplines in suc-
cessive stages will reach finally at the macro fields or kingdoms of
knowledge called science, religion, art, philosophy and spiritual
science.
Philosophy aims to study the basic aspects of knowledge

about world consisting of observable things and unobservable
things. It has two main branches called ontology (theory of reality)
and epistemology (theory of knowledge). The ontology deals with
our notion of reality or first cause of universe. But epistemology
is concerned with the essential aspects of knowledge, as elaborated
below.
An innovative idea of System Philosophy is that the innu-

merable topics or disciplines can be finally brought to a 2x2 Table
using the criteria of Content View, Process View, Rational part and
Empirical part. It is the traditional practice to study the topic of
knowledge by considering the level of individual propositions; but
it has caused many philosophical issues.
The knowledge pertaining to any discipline is generally ob-

tained through the sequence of theory (Ty), hypothesis (H), de-
duction (D), testing (T), and inductive inference (I). These stages
are ordered like the organs of an animal. The propositions coming
under successive stages of Ty, H and D together is called deductive
propositions (DP); the propositions of T and I are collectively des-
ignated as inductive propositions (IP). We have suggested the new
phrase TyHDTI scheme to denote the scientific method of combin-
ing DP and IP.
The radical proposal here is that the study of knowledge

must be shifted from the level of propositions to the level of meth-
December 2018 29
George Luke
odological stages called Theory, Hypothesis, Deduction, Testing

and Induction. In this context we can list the connotations of the
four components of epistemology as following:
• Methodology is the deliberation about the general compo-

nents – Ty, H, D, T and I -- of scientific method as well as
about the relative importance of DP and IP in the meaning
of scientific laws. Also, the various definitions and mean-
ings given to the fundamental terms are clarified in different
theoretical situations. Since DP is rational while IP is empiri-
cal, hitherto epistemology has been divided into the opposite
doctrines called rationalism and empiricism.
• Source denotes the theory about the structure of human

mind, which generates the diverse kind of propositions under
DP and IP. Human mind can be said to have two main areas
namely intellectual mind and mystical mind.
• Justification deals with the issue whether the scientific law

represents actually existing aspects of universe. Accordingly,
we must get sufficient evidences to judge that the concerned
scientific law is valid. The essence of justification is that the
components of theory (Ty) -- namely space, time, matter, en-
ergy, and so on -- as a whole represent the reality of physical
world. It finally leads to the question: does matter or physi-
cal world exist?
• Truth is the quality of a justified belief under the TyHDTI

scheme, when it conforms to the actually existing things of
universe. Moreover, truth is the unifying principle applicable
to all kinds of knowledge such as science, religion and art.
Now let us consider the case of religious knowledge, main-

ly theology, produced by our mystical mind. We can divide it into
content view and process view. In the context of Christian reli-
gions, the content view of theology is called theism, while the pro-
cess view leads to pantheism, mysticism and allied doctrines. Both
these branches of theology consist of deductive propositions (DP)
and inductive propositions (IP) as per the TyHDTI scheme. Here
30 Omega
the outstanding philosophical problem is to explain the multiplici-

ty of religions.
The Dilemmas about Truth

A factual proposition can be treated as knowledge only if it
is true; so we come to the question: What is it for such a proposi-
tion to be true? Here we have to take into account the distinction
between content view and process view with respect to the two
kinds of propositions – deductive propositions and inductive prop-
ositions; here we expect correspondingly different types of truth.
Truth of deductive propositions under content view

It was Aristotle who first explained that deductive method
consists of a syllogism of premise, fact and conclusion. An im-
portant feature of the syllogism is that the truth of conclusion is
contained in the premise. This kind of truth is called necessary
truth – it is alternatively called as the coherence theory. In this
situation, it is important to explain that necessary truth does not
mean factual truth. This implies that, even if the premise is factu-
ally false, we can get the necessary truth of the conclusion through
valid syllogism; in that case the conclusion also would be false
factually.
Truth of Inductive proposition under content view

We may consider first the inductive propositions of science.
Typically, an inductive proposition is an inference about cause-ef-
fect derived out of experimental observations, collection of data
and analysis. There is no logical necessity in the inductive infer-
ence since it is based on a sample. This issue is called the problem
of induction. It essentially means the possibility that some future
observation may refute the inference. The experiment for deriv-
ing an inductive inference (scientific law) gives only a sample of
observations. So it is possible that some future experiment may
contradict the inference or law.
Since the problem of induction cannot be removed from ex-

perimental inference, the notion of contingent truth is adopted.
December 2018 31
George Luke
This means that the truth of inductive inference is contingent on

sample observations. In other words, a particular inference is true
so long as it is not falsified by a future experiment. Considering
the possibility of refuting the inductive proposition (scientific law)
by means of counter evidence in future, the criterion of truth is
ambiguous here. However the underlying principle applied here is
that the proposition or law represents the state of affairs of world.
The best theory of contingent truth pertaining to inductive

propositions under content view is called correspondence theory.
It holds that an inductive proposition is true if it corresponds to the
actual state of affairs; this correspondence is to be established by
experimental evidences. The critical analysis of correspondence
theory reveals that there are many ambiguities in determining the
correspondence between the proposition and the external object.
To illustrate this point consider the proposition P: this bridge is
safe for vehicles. Here, the truth of P depends on a set of unknown
conditions of future. This statement challenges our absolute idea of
truth as an immutable property. We have to admit that truth varies
according to change of evidences or circumstances.
When deductive propositions (Ty, H, D) and inductive prop-

ositions (T, I) have different kinds of truth, is there any method to
synthesize deduction and induction? This is the unsolved problem
regarding the notion of truth under content view, especially in clas-
sical science and theist religion.
Physical process view of truth

What is the theory of truth related to process view of sci-
ence, as exemplified in quantum mechanics, quantum cosmology,
evolutionary biology and related disciplines? Here knowledge is
defined as an activity of giving meaning to theoretical entities by
collecting experimental evidences so as to eliminate the dichoto-
my between deductive and inductive propositions. In this situation,
we have to consider the pragmatic theory of truth as the process
version of contingent truth. It is originally expounded by William
James (1842-1910) and his followers in the context of the study of
32 Omega
survival instincts of organisms. Accordingly, a proposition is taken

as true if the concerned knower derives practical benefit from that
knowledge. In the case of science, true propositions satisfy certain
practical purposes of our ordinary life.
In the second half of twentieth century, the pragmatic the-

ory of truth became the foundation of post modernism, which is
defined here as the approach to knowledge that takes into account
the changing aspects of language, culture, gender, tastes, etc. This
method naturally leads to the position of relativism with regard to
truth. The correspondence of a proposition with the actual state
of affairs of world must be conceived in different social contexts,
causing relative notions of truth. Accordingly, there is no single
truth, but a lot of competing truths is possible. The mathematical
approach of fuzzy logic is relevant here.
Now we shall emphasize that, from ontological consider-

ations, the physical process view of truth must lean on the content
view of truth explained earlier. Something must exist so that it can
undergo change. So the truth of propositions under physical pro-
cess view depends on the truth of concerned propositions under
content view. Thus we are back to the conflict between rationalism
and empiricism leading to the dichotomy of necessary truth and
contingent truth.
Truth of religious propositions

We hold that the terms ‘physical’ and ‘natural’ pertain to the
actual state-of-affairs of world. . It is reminded now that religion is
organized by the faculty of mystic mind, which is complementa-
ry to intellectual mind, of human beings. Hence, religious entities
like God, soul, heaven and hell are not actual state-of-affairs of
the world. In this situation, the truth of propositions under religion
presents many difficulties of a different order. Since the meaning
of religious words goes beyond the literal and ordinary sense, we
need another kind of theory of truth, as compared to scientific truth.
This philosophical point will be elaborated in the next section for
finding a method for unification.
December 2018 33
George Luke
System Philosophy of Truth

The concept of truth is the overarching principle in the en-
tire corpus of philosophy and especially in the epistemology of
various kinds of knowledge. But the various dimensions of truth
would refute the possibility of an absolute idea of truth. In this
situation, for clearing the age-old controversies, I have proposed
to analyze knowledge at the level of laws produced by TyHDTI
schemes and also at the higher levels of concerned disciplines.
This approach is to be applied for the deliberation about truth
also.
The TyHDTI scheme involves the judicious combination

of deductive propositions and inductive propositions with respect
to the phenomenon under study. The confusion about truth arises
from the traditional view that deductive proposition has necessary
truth while inductive proposition holds contingent truth. The point
of contention is about the combination of these two types of truths
in a systematic manner.
Our analysis indicates that necessary truth and contingent

truth would together form a system of truth. This point leads to the
following principle: Truth is a system of necessary truth of theory
and contingent truth of inductive propositions. At the same time,
these kinds of truth are two levels of rational ideas and empirical
ideas in different proportions. Hence we suggest the phrase neces-
sary-contingent truth (NCT) to refer to the duality inherent in the
notion of truth. This is the system model of truth.
The above system model of truth synthesizes the opposite

aspects of coherence theory (necessary truth) and correspondence
theory (contingent truth). The system model of truth is amenable to
process view also, when we study the changing aspects of physical
world. Knowledge under process view is a combination of deduc-
tion and induction with respect to changing phenomena. Here we
resort to the idea that knowledge is a manufacturing process in-
volving creativity and sensory experience; in this situation, it does
not have the baggage of pragmatism or instrumentalism.
34 Omega
The most important topic to be considered here is the truth

of religious propositions. The existence of religion as a social sys-
tem at the global level is the justification for the mystical proposi-
tions about God and other aspects of religious worship.
In order to formulate the propositions like “God exists” and

“God is love”, a believer depends on the theory about religion and
also the evidences of mystic (religious) experiences. Through our
innovative philosophy we have shown that such inferences or laws
are formulated through TyHDTI scheme that involves the proper
combination of deductive propositions and inductive propositions.
Happily now we have the principle of necessary-contingent truth
(NCT) to arrive at the comprehensive system model of truth as ap-
plicable to the mystic knowledge pertaining to religion.
This innovative theory of truth is capable of resolving the

dichotomy between rationalism and empiricism in the propositions
about supernatural things conceived through mystic mind.
A few additional insights are in order. The foregoing notion of
necessary-contingent truth implies that the truth of a particu-
lar piece of knowledge is a systematic conjecture, because it is
derived from the framework of theory and experiment. In other
words, truth is our judgment; it is not external to our mind. So we
have to avoid realism in the case of truth also.
Synthesis of Science and Religion

Seeing science and religion as two parallel systems of
knowledge with the same methodological scheme denoted by Ty-
HDTI. Further, the ontological existence of the different faculties
of mind – scientific mind and mystic mind -- is the key principle
for synthesizing science and religion. Next, the principle of sys-
tem model of truth is used for unifying scientific truth and religious
truth.
We note that science and religion have separate levels of nec-

essary-contingent truth (NCT). But all types of knowledge exist
on the basis of the dual goals of human mind, namely self-interest
December 2018 35
George Luke
(SEI) and society-interest (SOI). Using the X-Y coordinate model

of SEI and SOI, we can define good and bad as complementary
and opposite qualities. This principle serves as the norm for ethics.
And, it is the method for linking fact with value. Thus we get the
system model of truth in terms of dual goals, which shows the on-
tological existence of truth and falsehood.
These separate levels of necessary-contingent truth (NCT),

pertaining to science and religion, can be unified by the X-Y model.
In the layered view of universe, the Ultimate Reality or paramp-
orul is an X-Y coordinate system of body and consciousness. It
causes the formation of a hierarchy of things – including inanimate
and living things – in the universe. The existence of human mind
with various levels of faculties is explained in this theory of reality.
3. Claims on Fuzzy Logic – Critique from System Philosophy

On the basis of the foregoing ideas of System Philosophy, I
will present specific criticism on the articles of Binoy Jacob. For
that purpose, I have chosen six sets of keywords below with page
number & line number given in brackets.
• Keyword set1 (OME page number 157 / line numbers 1, 4,

10, 11) – relativist thinking, way of thinking, worldview,
postmodernity.
The sentence that “Fuzzy Logic allows a way of thinking

beyond binary and relativist thinking” is not correct. Reason is that
relativist thinking is the same as process view as explained in my
books. This branch of philosophy deals with change in phenomena
on account of contextual factors. It has long history including great
thinkers like Heraclitus. Plotinus, Leibniz, Hegel, Chardin, Witt-
genstein, Whitehead, Ian Barbour, Kuhn and Lakatos. On the other
hand Fuzzy Logic is a branch of logic, which uses mathematical
techniques for the analysis of change in the meaning of concepts.
In other words, Fuzzy Logic is a mathematical and logical version
of process view; it cannot go beyond relativist thinking.
36 Omega
It may be emphasized that the binary worldview is associat-

ed with the ancient philosophy of idealism as well as the modern
mechanistic worldview, which are under content view. Further, it
is already stated that post modernism is the process approach de-
veloped in the second half of 20th century. Hence the statement
“Fuzzy Logic can overcome the binary worldview of modernity
and relative worldview of postmodernity” does not conform to the
history of Western philosophy.
• Keyword set 2 (OME page number 157 / line numbers 16,

18, 24, 31) – logical truth from factual truth, necessary, con-
text, factual, partially accurate.
It is now clear that the terms logical truth from factual truth
must be changed to deductive truth from inductive truth. Factu-
al knowledge contains both deductive propositions and inductive
propositions. The term context is used for process view. The words
factual statements must be changed into inductive statements; its
truth depends on evidences under content view. This is the area of
contingent truth; we should not call it partially accurate.
• Keyword set 3 (OME page number 161 / line numbers 13, 19,
24, 29, 32) – epistemology of fuzzy logic, concept of truth,
degree of truth, uniqueness claims, accommodates various
religions
The description of epistemology of fuzzy logic, as given by

Binoy Jacob is misleading and wrong. The key difference between
binary logic and fuzzy logic is that the former is in content view
while the latter is in process view. The concept of truth is vari-
able under Fuzzy Logic. But how can we say that one religion has
greater truth than another religion? That is, assigning truth values
from the interval [0, 1] to different religions is controversial, or
arbitrary, involving vested interests. Fuzzy Logic cannot help us to
solve the problem of comparative truth.
In this difficult situation, System Philosophy advocates the

system model of truth pertaining to social systems. Now let us
consider the good systems and bad systems appearing in the realm
December 2018 37
George Luke
of religion. The actions in various religions have the properties of

truth and falsehood depending on the good and bad aspects. This
gives us the criterion of truth in contrast to falsehood. Accordingly,
truth is defined as the necessary-contingent truth pertaining to the
knowledge about good systems. Conversely, falsehood is defined
as the necessary-contingent truth pertaining to the knowledge
about bad systems. In this manner we can link fact with value.
Truth and falsehood exist ontologically as per the system model of
self-interest (SEI) and society-interest (SOI). This conception of
truth is called the ‘system model of truth in religion’.

24, 30) – ultimate reality for Buddhism, truth and reality,
nature of reality.
In Eastern religions namely Hinduism, Buddhism and Jain-

ism, the ultimate reality is not defined absolutely in binary logic.
On the contrary they hold that reality – represented variously by
the concepts like Brahman, shunyata, souls and spirits -- must be
known through relativist and contextual thinking. This epistemol-
ogy has been thoroughly discussed in the concerned books on phi-
losophy of Eastern religions. Hence we understand that process
view is predominant in the concerned ontological perspectives of
those religions.
Without referring to the term process view, Binoy Jacob tries

to show the parallels between fuzzy logic and ontological doctrines
of Eastern religions namely Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.
He argues that the description of reality can be better understood
through fuzzy logic. This is an unreasonable and tall claim because
mathematical language pertaining to Fuzzy Logic and religious
language are categorically different. By transforming the concepts
of reality to the method of Fuzzy Logic will not add anything to
our existing knowledge of philosophy of eastern religions.

15) – the profound notion of fuzziness in religious thinking.
38 Omega
In the final part of the article, Binoy Jacob states that Fuzzy
Logic can be used as an interpretative (hermeneutical) category
for religious language. And, it will enable us to understand the
multiplicity of religions in various social contexts. This view can
be criticized here by noting that process view of religion does not
answer the fundamental question of existence. Any entity can be
said to exist only if it is defined in the static sense of content view.
When we see the change of a thing, we do not consider its exis-
tence per se. So process view or Fuzzy Logic does not deal with
the existence of religion as well as its theoretical entities like God,
soul, heaven and hell.
System Philosophy shows that various religions are social

systems giving a range of interpretations about God and allied con-
cepts. Using process view we can see the variations in religious
knowledge. But it must be understood along with the complemen-
tary concept of static existence of levels of religions.
In similar vein, we can criticize that the attempts to synthe-

size religion and science through process view – remember the
books of Ian Barbour and fellow writers – does not solve the on-
tological questions about God, matter and social systems. As men-
tioned above, system philosophy of knowledge and truth is the only
method to solve this age-old question.
December 2018 39
Omega
ISSN 0976 - 0601
XVII (2018)2, 40-57
The ‘Biggest Fixes’ in the Universe:

Cosmological Constant and Nuclear Resonance
in Carbon Formation
- Joseph Mathew*
Abstract: The paper deals with two of the most astounding instances of
‘fine-tuning’ of cosmic parameters – of the cosmological constant and
of nuclear resonance in massive stars which explode as supernovae.
The cosmological constant which represents the cosmic repulsive
force is finely adjusted in an extremely subtle manner - to the tune of
one part in 10120. Similarly, the phenomenon of nuclear resonance in
carbon production is another exceedingly astonishing instance of fine-
tuning. From the theistic perspective, these ‘cosmic coincidences’ can be
interpreted as trails of the Designer God.
Keywords: Fine-tuning, Nuclear resonance, Cosmic coincidences,
Fundamental constants, Cosmological constant, Quantum vacuum,
Supernova explosion, Designer God.
1. Introduction
The phrase ‘biggest fixes’ in the title of the present paper is
adapted from Paul Davies’ reference to the ‘fine-tuning’ of cosmo-
logical constant which he calls the ‘biggest fix in the universe.’1 We
* Prof. Dr. Joseph Mathew is a senior professor of Philosophy. He teaches philosophy

at various seminaries in India and abroad.
40 Omega
The ‘Biggest Fixes’ in the Universe
extend its connotation also to the fine-tuning of nuclear resonance

in the processes that take place in massive stars which explode as
supernovae. Cosmological constant and nuclear resonance in car-
bon production are two of the most astounding instances of what
cosmologists call ‘cosmic coincidences’ which they have stumbled
upon in their routine scientific investigations. These coincidences
involve cases of fine-tuning of a number of cosmic parameters or
fundamental constants. Physicists believe that “the basic structure
of the entire physical world — not just atoms but stars and people
as well — is in principle determined by a few basic ‘constants.’”2
These quantitative parameters determine virtually every process
in the universe. The various interactions and interrelationships
among space, time, and different kinds of emissions of energy are
governed by these fixed, long-term fundamental constants. Phys-
icists have come across a number of such parameters, like cos-
mological constant, constant of speed of light, Planck’s constant,
gravitational constant, strong force constant, weak force constant,
charges and masses of protons and electrons, and so on. They have
assigned certain numerical values to these constants, which they
obtain from empirical investigations.
Now, these numerical values are all perfectly adjusted —

‘fine tuned.’ “The ‘fine tuning’ consists in the relative values of
the fundamental constants of physics (constants determined in the
end by pure numbers) being in certain ratios to one another. Slight
differences in any of these ratios would lead to a Universe very
different from that which actually exists.”3 The Big Bang explo-
sion, the expansion of the universe, supernova outburst, formation
of the Sun and nuclear processes in it -- all depend in extremely
subtle ways on the incredible accuracy of the numerical values of
the constants. Incredibly, such fine-tunings render the universe and
its various structures life-friendly and anthropic. Great physicists
like Arthur Eddington, Paul Dirac, Fred Hoyle, Stephen Hawking,
Steven Weinberg and Paul Davies have expressed great awe and
wonder at the fine-tuning of these cosmic parameters. The present
paper deals with two such ‘biggest fixes’ -- of the cosmological
December 2018 41
Joseph Mathew
constant and of nuclear resonance in carbon formation, and their

theistic implications.
2. The ‘Biggest Fix’ of Cosmological Constant

In fact the problematic of cosmological constant has its start-
ing point in Newton’s cosmology. Newton discovered the law of
gravitation and applied it to the solar system explaining the mo-
tions of planets. He held that it was a universal law applicable to
all objects in the universe. Newton believed that the universe was
infinite in extent and populated evenly by infinite number of stars
similar to the Sun. It was essentially a static universe, filled with
stars in all directions, acting under the influence of mutual gravita-
tional forces. However, Newton realized that according to his the-
ory of gravitation, stars should attract each other, and so it seemed
that they could not remain static and motionless. He admitted that
this would indeed happen if there were only a finite number of
stars distributed over a finite region of space.
But Newton reasoned that if there were an infinite number of

stars, spread out more or less uniformly over infinite space, they
would not collapse together because there would not be any central
point for them to fall to, and so the universe would remain stat-
ic. Hence, the only way to prevent the Newtonian universe from
collapsing onto itself was to assume an infinite, perfectly uniform
distribution of matter in it, which would result in a static universe.4
Hawking remarks that Newton and others should have realized that
a static universe would soon start to contract under the influence of
gravity. He goes on to comment: “This behaviour of the Universe
[its contraction] could have been predicted from Newton’s theory
of gravity at any time in the nineteenth, the eighteenth, or even the
late seventeenth centuries. Yet so strong was the belief in a static
universe that it persisted into the early twentieth century.”5 It was
generally accepted that either the universe had existed forever in
an unchanging state, or that it had been created by God at a finite
time in the past more or less as we observe it today.
42 Omega
Even Einstein was a staunch believer in a static universe.

However, when he applied his general theory of relativity to the
whole universe, the resulting equations suggested that space was
either expanding or contracting, but not static. But there was no
observational evidence at that time to confirm that the universe
was expanding. Hence, Einstein modified the equations of his
theory to make the model of the universe static by introducing
the famous ‘cosmological constant.’ It is designated by the Greek
letter ‘Λ’ -- ‘lambda.’ This constant represented a cosmic repulsive
force that would exactly balance the gravitational attraction of all
matter resulting in a universe. Hawking explains:
Einstein introduced the new ‘antigravity’ force, which, unlike oth-
er forces, did not come from any particular source, but was built
into the very fabric of space-time. He claimed that space-time has
an inbuilt tendency to expand, and this could be made to balance
exactly the attraction of all matter in the universe, so that a static
universe would result.6
Such a repulsive force is extremely small on the scale of the

solar system, but it produces a huge cosmic repulsion on a large
scale. It would be zero on small scales, but would increase as a
function of distance.
In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies in the uni-

verse are all receding from each other at enormous velocities. This
meant that the universe is not static, as astronomers had previously
believed, but that it is actually expanding like a balloon that is
blown up. When Einstein learned about Hubble’s discovery of the
flight of galaxies and the consequent expansion of the universe, he
eliminated the cosmological constant from his equations by setting
its strength to zero. This permitted his field equations to represent
a universe that was expanding/contracting. Einstein is famous-
ly quoted to have said that the introduction of cosmological
constant was the ‘biggest blunder of his career.’7 Until recently,
all the data gathered by astronomers about the expansion of the
December 2018 43
Joseph Mathew
universe were in agreement with models that set the strength of

cosmological constant to zero.
With the progress in theories of particle physics, physicists

found that cosmic repulsive force could be generated also by phys-
ical processes taking place in empty space or quantum vacuum
which is a fundamental feature of quantum reality. “The key to un-
derstanding the re-discovered cosmic repulsion is the nature of the
quantum vacuum.”8 From the perspective of quantum physics, the
cosmic repulsive force represented by cosmological constant can
be produced by the energy density of quantum vacuum. Although a
region of space can in principle be emptied of ordinary matter, this
vacuum contains a residual energy. In quantum physics, Heisen-
berg’s uncertainty principle does not permit empty space -- the vac-
uum -- to be totally quiescent. Rather, it is believed to be a seething
sea of ‘vacuum fluctuations.’ The various fields that inhabit the
universe are subject to continuous quantum fluctuations that
gives an energy density even to nominally empty space. The
vacuum energy of empty space is thus a direct function of all
fields and particles in the universe. This energy is confined, not
only to regions of pure vacuum, but is present throughout all space,
including regions where matter and other forms of energy are pres-
ent. The vacuum energy density is assigned a value proportional to
its strength; this value represents the cosmological constant from
the point of view of quantum physics. It is not a simple quantity,
but it is a composite value that contains a very large number of
contributing factors.9
In this way, like the general theory of relativity, quantum

physics also admits the energy of empty space — of quantum vacu-
um. But unlike the cosmic repulsive force of the general theory, the
energy of quantum vacuum is enormously gigantic. In the words
of Davies, “the quantum vacuum behaves exactly like the previ-
ously hypothetical medium which produces cosmic repulsion, only
this time the numbers are so big that the strength of the repulsive
force is 10120 times greater than Einstein needed to prop up a static
44 Omega
universe.”10 Similarly, Weinberg remarks: “But, with any reason-

able guess . . . , the vacuum energy per volume comes out to be
enormously large: it is about trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion
trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times larger than is allowed
by the observed rate of expansion of the universe.”11 All studies on
the behaviour of elementary particles and energy fields existing
in the universe predict that the value of cosmological constant is
extremely large — about 10120 times bigger than its actual value
based on the data of expansion of the universe. In other words,
astronomical observations of the rate of expansion of the universe
show that the cosmological constant is amazingly small — smaller
by a factor of 10-120 than the predicted energy of the quantum vac-
uum.
However, the problem is that if the value of the cosmological

constant were so enormous, as particle physics tells us -- about
10120 times bigger than its actual value -- the universe, if at all it
exists, would be totally different from the one in which we live; we
would not find ourselves living in a universe ‘just right for life.’
Many physicists have openly admitted this fact. Weinberg con-
fesses: “With the total cosmological constant this large, space
would be so radically curved that it would bear no resemblance
to the familiar three-dimensional space of Euclidean geometry
in which we live.”12 Similarly, Larry Abbott remarks: “If the vacu-
um energy density, or equivalently the cosmological constant, were
as large as theories of elementary particles suggest, the universe in
which we live would be dramatically different, with properties we
would find both bizarre and unsettling.”13 Hawking and Leonard
Mlodinow make a similar observation: “The one thing that is cer-
tain is that if the value of the cosmological constant were much
larger than it is, our universe would have blown itself apart be-
fore galaxies could form and — once again — life as we know
it would be impossible.”14 Weinberg is emphatic that “the only
universe in which we could expect to find ourselves is one in
which total cosmological constant is small enough to allow life
December 2018 45
Joseph Mathew
to arise and evolve.”15 He explicitly admits the anthropic connec-

tion of the cosmological constant:
Such a cosmological constant is so much less than would have
been expected from estimates of quantum fluctuations that it
would be difficult to understand on any other than anthropic
grounds. Thus, if such a cosmological constant is confirmed by
observation, it will be reasonable to infer that our own existence
plays an important part in explaining why the universe is the way
it is.16
Hence, the value of the cosmological constant had to be set

near zero as at present for the universe to be life-permitting.
In fact, physicists are wonder-struck at the magnitude of the

fine-tuning of cosmological constant. Davies calls it the ‘biggest
fix in the universe.’17 Lawrence Kraus admits: “This [fine-tuning of
the cosmological constant] would involve the most severe fine-tun-
ing of any physical quantity known in nature without the slightest
idea how to adjust it.”18 Hawking and Mlodinow acknowledge:
“The most impressive fine-tuning coincidence involves the so-
-called cosmological constant in Einstein’s equations of general
relativity.”19 It is indeed astonishing that in the present universe
the cosmological constant should have the small value it has; but
even more amazing is the fact that the universe with life-forms in it
could never have existed if this constant occupied any value other
than the present one. Truly, it is fine-tuning par excellence.
3. The ‘Biggest Fix’ of Nuclear Resonance in Carbon Formation

Another instance of incredible fine-tuning has to do with nu-
clear resonance in the production of carbon atoms in massive stars
which explode as supernovae. Most of the atomic elements on
Earth have been produced in the interiors of such massive stars.
They manufacture heavy elements, such as carbon, oxygen, iron,
magnesium, silicon and so on, which are needed for life; and they
scatter these elements through space when they explode as super-
novae. These explosions enrich the interstellar clouds of gas – hy-
46 Omega
drogen and helium -- which are compressed to form new stars like
the Sun and planets like the Earth. Thus, every element on Earth,
except hydrogen and helium, has been produced inside massive
stars before the Sun and the Earth came into existence. A great deal
of material in our own bodies consists of elements that have been
formed in the cores of these stars. As Gribbin and Rees express it,
“we are, quite literally, made from the ashes of long-dead stars.”20
We are indeed made of stardust.
In the present context, we are concerned with the formation

of carbon atoms inside massive stars. Living beings including the
humans are often qualified as ‘carbon-based.’ Indeed, it is literal-
ly true. Carbon is uniquely suited to be the structural backbone
upon which the biochemistry of life is based. It can form multi-
ple bonds extensively with its four available outer level electrons.
This gives it the structural flexibility that is so important in building
complex biochemical structures which are essential to life. Carbon
also has the capacity to store a maximum amount of information
in its various compounds because it can form a wider variety of
composites than almost any other atomic element. The capacity
of living systems for storing information is made possible by this
unique property of carbon, and so carbon compounds are espe-
cially suitable to serve as the basis of life.21
Carbon atoms are manufactured in the deep interiors of mas-

sive stars which explode as supernovae. The production of carbon
atoms is an extremely subtle process. There are two possible ways
in which carbon can be made inside these stars. The first is called
‘triple alpha’ process.22 This mechanism involves simultaneous
fusion of three helium atoms (each helium nucleus with two pro-
tons and two neutrons) into a single carbon nucleus with six protons
and six neutrons. This would require three helium nuclei to collide
at the same time and at the same place in order to produce carbon
nucleus. But this is extremely unlikely to happen. Hence, the rate
of carbon production employing triple alpha process would be
quite small. In fact, when physicists first estimated how much
December 2018 47
Joseph Mathew
carbon would be produced in stars in this way, they found that the
quantity of carbon thus generated would be much less than the
amount which actually exists in the universe. Hence, there should
be some other method by which carbon could be manufactured at
a faster rate and in sufficient quantities; otherwise virtually there
would be no carbon at all in the universe.
The alternative route to carbon production consists of a be-

ryllium atom fusing with a helium atom. The atomic element after
helium in the periodic table is beryllium with four protons and
four neutrons which may be formed by fusing two helium atoms.
An additional collision of a beryllium atom with a helium nucleus
can produce a carbon atom. However, this process is complicat-
ed by the fact that the beryllium in question is not the normal form
of beryllium found in nature, but it is the most wildly unstable
isotope of beryllium. It is so unstable that it disintegrates almost
as soon as it forms, within 10-17 sec. of its production. Hence, there
should be some factor in order to compensate for this exceedingly
short life time of beryllium atoms; otherwise, carbon would not be
generated in sufficient quantities as observed in the universe.23
Fred Hoyle reasoned that the concept of ‘nuclear resonance’

holds the key to the explanation of carbon production inside mas-
sive stars.24 The phrase ‘nuclear resonance’ refers to the vibrational
frequencies of atomic nuclei. All physical objects possess sympa-
thetic vibrational frequencies. For example, plucking one string on
a guitar can cause others to vibrate sympathetically. Atomic nucle-
us also vibrates like a guitar string at certain discrete frequencies.
If two nuclei vibrate at almost the same frequency, they are said to
possess nuclear resonance; that is to say, when one is excited, the
other too may be excited. Nuclear resonance becomes an important
factor when two nuclei collide. Nuclear reactions are either facil-
itated or hindered by the specific resonances of interacting nuclei.
If there is resonance between colliding nuclei, they are more likely
to fuse together; if no resonance occurs, they are more likely to
‘bounce off’ one another and remain separate.
48 Omega
Hoyle realized that the only mechanism to produce enough

carbon atoms inside massive stars is a resonance involving helium,
beryllium and carbon. He predicted that there must be an ener-
gy level in carbon nucleus that would resonate or match with the
combined energies, including kinetic energy, of incoming atoms
of beryllium and helium under conditions prevailing inside stars.
This resonance would have the effect of greatly prolonging the life
of unstable beryllium nucleus to the tune of a hundred billion bil-
lionths of a second, giving the third helium nucleus a chance of
hitting it. Such resonance greatly increases the chances of helium
and beryllium atoms sticking together to produce abundant quan-
tities of carbon nuclei inside massive stars. Hoyle made precise
calculations of the energy levels of helium, beryllium and carbon
atoms. William Fowler carried out experiments to test his predic-
tion. Measurements showed that carbon has an energy level just
4% above the calculated energy. Kinetic energies of the colliding
nuclei can readily supply this excess. The remarkable nature of
Hoyle’s successful prediction cannot be over-emphasized. Sup-
pose, for example, the energy level in carbon had turned out to be
just 4% lower than the combined energy of helium and beryllium.
There is no way of compensating that difference, and so carbon
formation would not take place. The energy levels of helium and
beryllium atoms on the one hand, and of carbon atom on the oth-
er match up perfectly; this has the effect of helium and beryllium
atoms fusing to produce carbon in abundant quantities as found in
the universe.
We realize the importance of this mechanism of nuclear res-

onance when we look at the next step in stellar nucleo-synthesis,
namely, the production of oxygen from a combination of carbon
and helium atoms. When a carbon nucleus and a helium nucleus
collide, they would fuse into oxygen if there were an appropriate
resonance. But the oxygen resonance has one percent less energy
than that of helium and carbon combined, and so the required reso-
nance among the three nuclei does not occur. Thus, oxygen nucle-
us possesses a resonance level that actually prevents its production
December 2018 49
Joseph Mathew
from the fusion of carbon and helium nuclei. If a more favourable

resonance level existed between carbon, helium and oxygen, most
of the carbon that is essential to life would have become trans-
formed into oxygen. Of course, oxygen is manufactured in stars,
but only in small quantities compared with carbon.25 As a direct
consequence of this harmonious interplay among four distinct nu-
clear structures — helium, beryllium, carbon and oxygen -- and
three distinct resonances, carbon could be produced in the interiors
of massive stars in sufficient quantities to allow carbon-based life-
forms to evolve on Earth. In order for this to have happened, the
nuclear resonance levels of helium, beryllium, carbon, and oxygen
nuclei had to have been fine-tuned to an incredible degree.
Furthermore, the instability of beryllium itself is crucial to

the development of other heavy elements upon which life so essen-
tially depends. If beryllium nuclei were even a little more stable,
the production of heavier elements would proceed so rapidly that
violent stellar explosions would inevitably result, and this would
effectively prevent the gradual fusion of heavier elements in suf-
ficient quantities to take place. In order to make possible the exis-
tence of carbon-based life-forms like the humans, it was necessary
that the life-time of beryllium atoms be balanced on knife-edge be-
tween two extremes, both of which would have made the evolution
of life impossible. On the one hand, the life-time of beryllium atom
had to be short enough to slow down fusion process in stars suffi-
ciently so as to prevent catastrophic intra-stellar explosions from
occurring too soon. On the other hand, it had to be long enough to
allow sufficient time for a third helium nucleus to hit so that carbon
nucleus could be produced. Indeed, the actual life-time of berylli-
um atoms is so precisely fine-tuned as to permit the production of
carbon based life-forms like man.
4. The Theistic Dimensions of the Big Fixes

We suggest that there are important philosophical and re-
ligious implications for the ‘biggest fixes’ we have considered
50 Omega
above. Great scientists are wonder-struck at the fine-tuning of the

cosmological constant as well as that of nuclear resonance in car-
bon production. As we noted above, without the exquisite fine-tun-
ing of the cosmological constant, a life-permitting universe would
not come into existence. John Polkinghorne says: “The small value
of the cosmological constant is a particular example of how very
precisely ‘fine-tuned’ the given magnitudes of the forces of nature
have to be in a universe if it is to be capable of sustaining so in-
teresting a development as the generation of carbon-based life.”26
He categorically states: “This is the most stringent of all anthropic
requirement.”27 Hence, for our life-supporting universe to exist,
the cosmological constant must occupy a value which is 10120
times smaller than the one which the best calculations of theoreti-
cal physicists indicate it ‘should.’
Indeed, eminent physicists find the magnitude of the

fine-tuning of this most important cosmic parameter absolutely
extraordinary and exceedingly unbelievable. Davies and Gribbin
point out that in order keep the value of this constant close to zero
as at the present rate, “the influences of different kinds of particles
and fields have to be delicately arranged to cancel against each
other to at least a precision of 120 decimal places. It seems highly
implausible that this would occur accidentally.”28 Davies thinks
that this instance of fine-tuning is utterly incredible:
The cliché that ‘life is balanced on a knife-edge’ is a staggering
understatement in this case: no knife in the universe could have
an edge that fine. Logically, it is possible that the laws of physics
conspire to create an almost but not quite perfect cancellation.
But then it would be an extraordinary coincidence that that level
of cancellation – 119 powers of ten, after all – just happened by
chance to be what it is needed to bring about a universe fit for
life.29
Davies continues: “That level of flukiness seems too much

to swallow.”30 Similarly, Weinberg states: “This is not the sort of
thing [fine-tuning of the cosmological constant] that we would
December 2018 51
Joseph Mathew
be happy to leave unexplained.”31 Though they are non-theists,

Hawking and Mlodinow ask:
What can we make of these coincidences [of the fine-tuning of the
cosmological constant to one part in 10120]? Luck in the precise
form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind
of luck from the luck in environmental factors. It cannot be so
easily explained, and has far deeper physical and philosophical
implications. Our universe and its laws appear to have a design
that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves
little room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises
the natural question of why it is that way.32
The scientists quoted above express their astonishment in

similar phraseology. For them it is incredible that the fine tuning
of the cosmological constant has happened ‘accidentally’ (Davies
and Gribbin). It is ‘an extraordinary coincidence,’ and is a ‘level
of flukiness too much to swallow’ (Davies). This sort of fine-tun-
ing cannot be ‘left unexplained’ (Weinberg), but has ‘deeper
philosophical implications’ (Hawking and Mlodinow). For many
contemporary religious philosophers, such deeper philosophical
implications and explanations lead us to the Cosmic Designer/Cre-
ator of the universe.
Similarly, Gribbin and Reese are awe-struck at the fine-tuning

of nuclear resonance in carbon formation in the interiors of mas-
sive stars. They remark that such a fine-tuning render the universe
‘tailor-made for man.’ “This combination of coincidences, just right
for resonance in carbon-12, just wrong in oxygen-16, is indeed re-
markable. There is no better evidence to support the argument
that the Universe has been designed for our benefit -- tailor-made
for man.”33 Hoyle too was wonder-struck by his discovery of this
extremely subtle nuclear resonance. In fact, it has taken him to the
affirmation of a super-intellect. Hoyle is reported to have said that
“nothing has shaken his atheism as much as this discovery [of nu-
clear resonance in the formation of carbon atoms].”34 He suggested
that a ‘superintellect,’ must be responsible for it:
52 Omega
Would you not say to yourself, ‘Some supercalculating intellect

must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise
the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of
nature would be utterly minuscule?’ Of course you would . . . A
common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superin-
tellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and
biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in
nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so
overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.35
Hoyle further added in another context: “If this were a purely

scientific question and not one that touched on the religious prob-
lem, I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence
would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics
have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences
they produce inside the stars.”36 The significance of Hoyle’s state-
ments cannot be overemphasized because of his blatant non-theis-
tic background. Against this setting, his admission of a ‘super-cal-
culating intellect’ at work in the universe is very remarkable. In
fact, Hoyle has stopped short at categorically affirming the
existence of the Designer God, although he refers to a ‘super-
calculating intellect.’
5. Conclusion
The foregoing discussions on fine-tuning and its theistic im-
plications are part of the ‘new’ philosophical theology based on
the new argument from design.37 It attempts to make sense of the
manifold instances of fine-tuning of cosmic parameters that render
the universe ‘just right for life.’ This insight has come from the ex-
plorations of physicists and cosmologists. In their routine scientific
forays, they have come across a number of physical ‘coincidences’
that seem to convey a deep element of truth about the nature of the
universe: that it has an apparent design. Anna Case-Winters aptly
says:
We have in the intelligibility of the universe and in its suitability
for life arguments from design that are emerging from within the
December 2018 53
Joseph Mathew
scientific community. From this scientific picture of the universe,

theologians make the interpretative leap to the existence of an in-
telligent designer—a Creator with an investment in life, and even,
apparently, intelligent life. 38
Similarly, Polkinghorne remarks:

There seems to be the chance of a revised and revived argument
from design — not appealing to Paley’s Cosmic Craftsman work-
ing within physical process (which process science explains in a
way not requiring intervention by such a God of the gaps) — but
appealing to a Cosmic Planner who has endowed his world with
a potentiality implanted within the delicate balance of the laws
of nature themselves (which laws science cannot explain since
it assumes them as the basis for its explanation of the process).39
The new argument from design is qualitatively different from

old design arguments. In fact, we are in a much better position than
St. Thomas Aquinas or William Paley to employ such an argument
precisely because our present state of scientific knowledge is vast-
ly greater than it was at the time of these philosophers; we have
immensely superior observational data and mathematical models
about the universe. This means that “the proof from Order is to-
day more complete, more comprehensive, and more majestic than
in the form in which it was presented in the thirteenth century.”40
In fact, the two instances of fine-tuning we discussed above are the
‘biggest fixes’ or cosmic coincidences. As we have noted, great
scientists are literally dumbfounded at the extent of the fine-tun-
ing of the cosmological constant and of nuclear resonance in the
process of carbon formation. Religious thinkers and philosophers
have attempted theistic interpretations of these wonderful phenom-
ena of the universe. Indeed, contemporary physics and cosmology
provide us with a launching pad in our reflection on the Designer
God.
54 Omega

1. Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma (London: Allen Lane, 2006), p. 166.
2. John Gribbin and Martin Rees, Cosmic Coincidences (London: William
Heinemann, 1990; Black Swan edition, 1992), p. 4.
3. J. J. C. Smart, “Atheism & Theism,” in Smart and J. J. Haldane, eds., Athe-
ism & Theism (Oxford; Blackwell Publishers, 1996), p.17.
4. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (London: Bantam Press edition,
1988; Bantam edition, 1989), pp. 5-6.
5. Ibid., p. 42.
6. Ibid., pp. 42-43.
7. There are indeed a few interesting comments about this ‘blunder’ of
Einstein. Hawking calls it “one of the great missed opportunities of theo-
retical physics.” [Hawking, “The Edge of Time,” in Paul Davies, ed. The
New Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989; paperback
edition, 2000), p. 64.] Davies remarks that “Einstein missed the chance
to predict one of the great observational discoveries of twentieth-cen-
tury science, which would have provided a further triumphant test of
his cherished theory of relativity.” (Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma, p.
67). Likewise, John F. Hawley and Katherine Holocomb observe that
if Einstein had “believed what his equations, in their original form, were
telling him, he could have predicted the expansion of the Universe before
it was observed.” [Foundations of Modern Cosmology (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2005), p. 297)]. Peter Coveney and Roger Highfield
caustically comment: “The possibility of a dynamical cosmological model
was probably the greatest prediction Einstein never made.” [The Arrow of
Time (HarperCollins, 1990; Flamingo edition, 1991), p. 99.]
8. Paul Davies, “What Caused the Big Bang?” in John Leslie, ed., Physical
Cosmology and Philosophy (New York: Macmillan Co., 1990), p. 227.
9. M. A. Corey, God and the New Cosmology: The Anthropic Design Argu-
ment. (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1993), pp. 124-25. Steven
Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory (London: Hutchinson, 1993; Vintage
edition, 1993), p. 179.
10. Davies, “What Caused the Big Bang?” p. 228.
11. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, p. 179. Ellipsis mine.
12. Ibid., p. 180.
December 2018 55
Joseph Mathew
13. Abbott, “The Mystery of the Cosmological Constant,” Scientific American

Vol. 3, No. 1, (1991): 72, quoted in Corey, God and the New Cosmology,
p.125.
14. Hawking and Mlodinow, The Grand Design (Bantam, 2012), p. 162.
15. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, p. 180.
16. Ibid., p. 182.
17. Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma, p. 166.
18. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing (New York: Free Press, 2012), p. 76.
19. Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow The Grand Design (London: Bantam,
2012), p. 161.
20. Gribbin and Rees, Cosmic Coincidences, p. 34.
21. John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
(Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 510.
22. ‘Alpha’ particle is another name for helium.
23. Gribbin and Reese, Cosmic Coincidences, pp. 243-51.
24. The concept of resonance can be explained with the example of sound,
breaking a pane of glass. For this to happen, an audio-generator has to be
tuned through the frequency spectrum to the right note which is the specif-
ic resonance for that particular goblet. As the machine begins to produce
sound, the piece of glass starts vibrating; and as the volume is increased, it
vibrates more and more violently until it breaks into pieces.
25. Most of the oxygen on the Earth was produced by biological processes.
26. Polkinghorne, Science and Religion in Quest for Truth (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2011), p. 54.
27. Polkinghorne, Beyond Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996), p. 82.
28. Paul Davies and John Gribbin, The Matter Myth (London: Viking, 1991;
London: Penguin Books, 1992), p. 275. Italics mine.
29. Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma, p. 170. Italics mine.
30. Ibid. Italics mine.
31. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, p. 179. Italics mine.
32. Hawking and Mlodinow, The Grand Design, p. 162. Italics mine.
56 Omega
33. Gribbin and Reese, Cosmic Coincidences, p. 247.

34. Owen Gingerich, “Is There a Role for Natural Theology Today?” Rae
Murray, Hilary Regan and John Stenhouse, eds., Science and Theology
(Edingurgh: T & T Clark, 1994), p. 39.
35. Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Engineering
and Science (November 1981): 12, quoted in Gingerich, “Is There a Role
for Natural Theology Today,” p. 40. Ellipsis in Gingrich’s article.
36. Hoyle, “The Universe: Some Past and Present Reflections,” p. 64.
37. For an in-depth study of the new philosophical theology see, Joseph
Mathew, From Cosmos to Theos: Towards a New Philosophical Theology
(Delhi: Media House, 2017).
38. Case-Winters, “Argument from Design: What is at Stake Theologically,”
Zygon 35 (March 2000): 79.
39. John C. Polkinghorne, Reason and Reality (London: SPCK, 1991), p. 78.
Italics in the original text.
40. Edmund Wittaker, Space and Spirit (London: Thomas Nelson, 1947), p.
131.
December 2018 57
Omega
ISSN 0976 - 0601
XVII (2018)2, 58-69
Rewriting the Blueprint of Life:

Ethical and Theological Concerns over the
First Gene-edited Babies
- Beena Jose*
Abstract: Recently Shenzhen-based researcher He Jiankui edited the

blueprint of life with CRISPR/Cas9 technology and created world’s
first twin babies. Though CRISPR has been hailed as an innovation
with tremendous potential, many in the scientific community believe the
technology is still experimental and not ready for human application.
Recent breakthroughs in science and technology are all the more rendering
the need for ethical values indispensable for the creation of a richer and
wholesome humanity. As the research on editing human embryos with
CRISPR is moving ahead, modifying embryos even for the purposes of
preventing a disease’s spread could precipitate a slippery slope effect.
Creation of babies by editing human genome may raise question on the
Supremacy of God and the ultimacy of the value of human well-being.
Thus, the study on the theological and ethical implications on the creation
of gene-edited babies gains accelerated pace in the current scenario. In
this context, a creative and harmonious blending of scientific ideas and
ethical values is not just an option, but an obligation, if humanity is to
progress along the right path. In this paper I make an attempt to examine
this controversial situation fairly, objectively and critically in the light
of the recent development in Genetic sciences, viz., creation of the first
gene-edited babies in the laboratory through CRISPR/Cas9 technique.
Keywords: Blue Prints of Life; CRISPR/Cas9 Technique; Gene-edited
Babies; Ethics.
* Dr. Beena Jose is the Principal of Vimala College, Thrissur, Kerala, and a Visiting
Scholar in Science & Religion, SCIO (Scholarship and Christianity in Oxford),Ox-
ford.
58 Omega
Rewriting the Blueprint of Life
Introduction
CRISPR is a gene editing technique that has rapidly found
its way into the pipettes of researchers everywhere. CRISPR is an
acronym for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic
Repeats that are short DNA repeats of viral origin found in the
bacterial genome. Cas (CRISPR-associated) is an endonuclease
that recognizes and cuts the DNA. CRISPR-Cas complex recog-
nizes the DNA of the invading virus and guides the Cas protein to
cleave the virus.1 CRISPR sequences are a crucial component of
the immune systems of these simple life forms.2 If a viral infection
threatens a bacterial cell, the CRISPR immune system can prevent
the attack by destroying the genome of the invading virus.3 It is
faster, cheaper and more accurate than previous methods of tinker-
ing with the genetic code and with applications in treating human
disease, agriculture – even designer babies. Thus it is no wonder
that the technology has created a storm of controversy. It has set us
on the doorstep of a genetic revolution.
Science and technology is advancing with an enormous

speed and naturally the temptation is very high to apply the new
genetic knowhow to the human beings. CRISPR/Cas9 gene edit-
ing technique would be a profound leap of science and scientists
used this technique for editing human embryos. This has raised
profound questions about how people use this technique to alter
not only their own DNA but the genomes of future generations.
The technique is associated with ‘off target mutations’;4 the

use of this technique in editing human embryos with CRISPR is
a major concern; and to develop a precise method and to work
out the ethics are the need of the hour. A public dialogue over the
theological and ethical implications with the regulatory needs of
the system is necessary.
December 2018 59
Beena Jose
Editing the Blueprint of Life: The First Gene-edited Babies

In recent years scientists have discovered a relatively easy
way to edit genes - CRISPR/Cas9 technique – that makes it pos-
sible to operate on DNA to supply a needed gene or disable one
that is causing problems. Chinese scientists have reported editing
the genomes of human embryos in 20155 and 20166 respectively.
Junjiu Huang’s group from SunYat-Sen University edited human
embryo to study the ability of the CRISPR/Cas9 system in editing
the gene responsible for β-thalassaemia.7 In 2017, UK researchers
have used the genome editing technology to study the role of genes
in human embryos in the first few days of development.8 Hong
Ma, et al.9 edited a human embryo for correcting a pathogenic gene
mutation. Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health and Science Uni-
versity announced that he has genetically edited human embryos
to eliminate mutation that causes hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a
dangerous heart condition.10 On 26th November 2018, He Jiankui
from China claimed to have used CRISPR gene-editing tool on the
twins when they were embryos. His goal was to make the embryo
resistant against HIV infection by disabling a gene called CCR5
that forms a protein doorway that allows HIV, the virus that causes
AIDS, to enter a cell. In the experiment, the sperm was washed
to separate it from semen, the fluid where HIV can lurk. A single
sperm was fertilized with a single egg to create an embryo. When
the embryos were 3 to 5 days old, a few cells were removed and
checked for editing with CRISPR/Cas9. Sixteen out of 22 embryos
were edited, and 11 embryos were used in six implant attempts
before the twin pregnancy was achieved. The result showed that
one twin had both copies of the intended gene altered and the oth-
er twin had just one altered, with no evidence of harm to other
genes.11
The use of CRISPR/Cas9 technique in human embryos was

met with criticism globally. That is because changes made to genes
of embryos are heritable in nature and can be passed on to future
generations. Many scientists argued that this experiment on human
60 Omega
embryos is not morally or ethically defensible as there was almost

nothing to be gained in terms of protection against HIV and, more-
over, the scientist has exposed that child to all the unknown safety
risks. This has raised caution flags against the use of CRISPR/Cas9
technique on human germline editing.
Ethical Concerns over Human Germline Editing

CRISPR is a type of ‘molecular scissor’ that can be used to
switch a mutated gene from one parent for a healthy gene inherit-
ed from another parent. The development of CRISPR/Cas9 as an
efficient genome-editing tool is under scrutiny because it brings
with it the possibility that scientists could make permanent modifi-
cations to the human germline. These recent studies have reignited
concerns about the ethics of heritable human gene-editing which
may lead to the creation of ‘designer babies’, where parents seek
taller, stronger or smarter children with specific physical charac-
teristics.12
Researchers have also expressed concerns that any gene-ed-

iting research on human embryos could be a slippery slope towards
unsafe or unethical uses of the technique.13 The tool called CRIS-
PR is powerful, radical and controversial and it holds the incredi-
ble potential of curing genetic diseases such as cancer. However,
it also can be used to alter physical traits including gender, height,
hair and eye color. New DNA tests will become widely available,
enabling doctors to screen unborn babies for some 3,500 genetic
disorders.
While risks and benefits need to be weighed, clinical appli-

cations can be evaluated within existing and evolving regulatory
frameworks for gene therapy. It must also be recognized that many
of the most important consequences of CRISPR are not the ones
grabbing the headlines. The technology makes many experiments
easier to carry out facilitating basic research on diseases such as
cancer and autism. Another promising area of development is the
December 2018 61
Beena Jose
production of non-human organ donors. Scientists have reported

that they were able to use CRISPR to modify a record number
of genes in a pig embryo, opening the possibility of growing do-
nor organs that would not be rejected by the human immune sys-
tem.14 The CRISPR genome editing technique promises to be a
transformative leap in genetic engineering and therapy affecting
almost every area of medicine. This includes plastic surgery, with
potential advances ranging from prevention of craniofacial malfor-
mations, to therapeutic skin grafts, to new types of rejection-free
transplants.15
However, it raises many ethical questions because the results

could be used as an argument for abortion. These concerns are
highlighted by pro-life campaigners, who say that widespread use
of such a test would inevitably lead to more abortions.16
A growing number of scientific practices have extended be-

yond national borders. The necessity of setting universal ethical
guidelines covering all issues raised in the field of bioethics and the
need to promote the emergence of shared values have increasingly
been a feature of the international debate. UNESCO has contrib-
uted to the formulation of basic principles in bioethics, in particu-
lar through the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and
Human Rights. It states the human genome as part of the heritage
of humanity, outlining rules that need to be observed to respect
human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedom.17
The CRISPR technique, in providing a relatively simple way

to alter the DNA of living things, has unlocked new possibilities
for improving everything from medications to the food we eat. Ad-
vances in genetics make designer babies an increasing possibility.
United Nations panel called for a moratorium on editing the human
genome, pending wider public debate lest changes in DNA be trans-
mitted to future generations. Interventions on the human genome
should be admitted only for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic
reasons and without enacting modifications for descendants.18
62 Omega
As He Jiankui and team are unaware of the consequences

of the gene editing in the ‘twin girls’, the editing of human em-
bryos without adequate safety and security measures cannot be
promoted. Humanity has to pay due respect to human dignity and
any attempt that leads to violating human dignity must be discour-
aged. Human life is sacred. Solutions to human problems which
do violence to man’s essential dignity are not acceptable.19 More-
over, many human embryos are destroyed during the gene editing
process and accuracy of the technique is a matter of concern. The
genetic changes introduced into the human gene pool are going to
affect not just one individual, who might have been able to give
consent to the risks associated with that procedure. In the case of
an embryo, who is not able to give consent, there is also concern
about safety, particularly the safety of future generations who were
not able to agree to the risks involved in such an experiment.20
Playing God with Genes

Editing the DNA of human embryos provokes the opponents
of genetic modification technology. They warn that we are “play-
ing God” with our genes. The changes to an embryo’s DNA could
have unknown harmful consequences throughout a person’s body,
which will be passed down the generations. The greatest fear is
that we may be trying to ‘play God,’ with unforeseeable conse-
quences, in the end precipitating our own destruction.
As children are genetically altered, what may this mean

for ‘natural’ family bonds? Has humanity evolved from creature
to creator? Genetic modification produces inheritable differences
among human beings. Parents could make their children taller or
blonder, more often male, or less likely to get cancer. Governments
could engineer children to win Olympic medals, be better soldiers,
be compliant workers or be brilliant scientists. Could this reinforce
old racial divisions or create new ones?21 The human genome edit-
ing may be looked upon by many, particularly by atheistic-mind-
ed people, as a first step to dispense with God from the role of
December 2018 63
Beena Jose
giving life. Discussions about gene editing techniques and related

technologies often raise the objection that scientists are ‘playing
God.’22
Editing human embryo for creating the designer baby will

lead to the creation of babies with superior qualities and this will
eventually cause fresh discriminations in the society. Gene therapy
involving the replacement of a defective gene by a normal one and
thereby correcting a genetic disorder or curing a disease or slowing
down the progress of a disease is morally acceptable. Whereas the
genetic enhancement assumes that man’s normal state is flawed or
lacking something and it needs to be enhanced. Genetic modifi-
cation for purposes such as changing the eye colour of a yet to be
born baby is completely unnecessary and morally not acceptable.
For an extreme example, only the rich, who could afford the genet-
ic modification would benefit, which could lead to physical as well
as social discrimination between the rich and the poor and must be
avoided.
However, a better understanding of the genetic methods for

cancer reminds us of the possibility of better treatments. On the
other hand, a better understanding of chromosomal abnormalities
in the preborn leads to the promotion of abortion as a means of
‘preventing genetically influenced disabilities’. Medicine should
always be oriented to the good of persons, wherever possible, for
restoration of good health, and for alleviation of pain and distress.
The human person, by his very nature, is filled with curiosi-

ty, creativity, and innovation. A dynamic theological anthropology
centered on the concept of the ‘created co-creator’ in its core is
elaborated by the theologian Philip Hefner. Humans, Hefner ex-
plains, are created by God to be co-creators in the creation. The
word ‘created’ thus relates to being created by God as part of the
evolutionary reality and ‘co-creator’ reflects the freedom of hu-
mans to participate in fulfilling God’s purposes. 23 We are made in
God’s image, so it’s no surprise that we share His desire to create.
64 Omega
Manipulating organisms and even generating new ones will never

actually be an act of creation in and of itself. At best we can learn
how God’s creation operates and harness it for our own purposes,
but in doing so, we do not create anything rather we are modifying
what God has already created.
The editing of human genome for therapeutic purposes is

a promise for the betterment of humanity. With the harmonious
blending of scientific ideas and ethical values, humans can prog-
ress along the right path. Hence scientists who execute their free-
dom in responsible and morally accountable ways are not to be
competitors but co-creators or collaborators in the act of creation.
Conclusion
Making a baby from gene-edited embryos, ‘designer babies’
may be a reality in the future. He Jiankui edited the genetic struc-
ture of the human embryo to create twin girls and changed the in-
trinsic essence that makes them who they uniquely are. This raises
caution flags against editing of human embryo and the ethical line
should not be crossed until the technology is proven safe and fol-
lowing an open discussion as to the benefit to society.
The benefits of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technique is

incredibly promising as it allows the scientists to locate the bad
sections of DNA and replace it with a normal gene to correct the
genetic disorder; but the precision remains suspicious. Researchers
are not in a position to determine with precision the effect of genet-
ic modification of the embryo before the birth of the child. Hence,
the technique needs to be made precise and accurate by performing
gene editing experiments in animal models or somatic cells before
applying on human embryos.
The potential benefits of gene editing are exciting, and wor-

ries for the future will lead to an absolute ban. Instead, society and
governments should discuss where they want to draw the line on
what is right and wrong when it comes to gene editing, and draw
December 2018 65
Beena Jose
up regulations to ensure the line is not crossed. Substantial ba-

sic research is needed to check the safety, accuracy and feasibility
of genome editing as a potential clinical tool. Therefore, clinical
applications can be considered only after strong research ground-
work has been done, only in cases that are deemed acceptable after
careful examination of alternatives and further societal debate.
Prudence and vigilance require ongoing risk analysis, rather

than stopping scientific progress until we know all the potential fu-
ture risks. Responsible conduct of the research is vital to synthetic
biology in order for it to be operated within a framework of safety,
ethics and public acceptance. Responsible research guarantees a
respectful approach to human life and prevents all attempts that
deny the dignity of life.
Scientific discoveries are acceptable when they are carried

out responsibly, focused on stewarding Nature and ensuring peace,
harmony and order in the world. Any attempt to generate geneti-
cally modified humans through the modification of early embryos
needs to be prohibited until we can resolve both the ethical and
scientific issues.
Acknowledgements
This work is part of the ‘Oxford Interdisciplinary Seminars in Science and Reli-
gion’ and is supported by a grant, Bridging the Two Cultures of Science and the
Humanities II, a project run by Scholarship and Christianity in Oxford (SCIO),
the UK subsidiary of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, with
funding by Templeton Religion Trust and The Blankemeyer Foundation. I am
greatly indebted to them for their financial support.
66 Omega

1. Otieno MO., “CRISPR-Cas9 Human Genome Editing: Challenges, Ethi-
cal Concerns and Implications,” Journal of Clinical Research & Bioethics
6, no. 6 (2015): 253.
2. Barrangou R., Fremaux C., Deveau H., Richards M., Boyaval P., Moin-
eau S., Romero D.A., and Horvath P., “CRISPR provides acquired resis-
tance against viruses in prokaryotes,” Science 315, no. 5819 (2007): 1709;
Jinkek Martin, “A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in
adaptive bacterial immunity,” Science 337, no. 6096 (2012):816.
3. Brouns S.J., Joe M.M., Lundgren M., Westra E.R., Slijkhuis R.J., Snijders
A.P., Dickman M.J., Makarova K.S., Koonin E.V., and van der Oost J.,
“Small CRISPR RNAs guide antiviral defense in prokaryotes,” Science
321 (2008): 960; Palca Joe, “A CRISPR way to fix faulty genes”, Harvard
University, http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/06/26/325213397/a-
crispr-way-to-fix-faulty-genes (accessed June 26, 2014).
4. Pennisi Elizabeth, “The CRISPR Craze,” Science 34, no. 6148 (2013):
833.
5. Liang Puping, “CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronu-
clear zygotes,” Protein & Cell 6, no. 5 (2015): 363; SaeyTina Hesman,
“Gene in human embryos altered by Chinese researchers,” Science News,
April 23, 2015.
6. Ibid, “Researchers edit genes in human embryos for second time,” Sci-
ence News, April 8, 2016; Baltimore David, “A prudent path forward for
genomic engineering and germline gene modification,” Science 348, no.
6230 (2015): 36.
7. David Cyranoski and Sara Reardon, “Chinese scientists genetically modify
human embryos,” Nature News, April 22, 2015.
8. The Francis Crick Institute, “Genome editing reveals role of gene import-
ant for human embryo development,” Science Daily, http:/www.science-
daily.com/releases/2017/09/170920131645.html (accessed September 20,
2017).
9. Hong Ma, Nuria Marti-Gutierrez, Sang-Wook Park and Jun Wu, “Correc-
tion of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos,” Nature 548(2017):
413.
10. Julia Franz and Katie Hiler, “New developments in human gene editing face
an ethical and regulatory quagmire in the US,” Health & Medicine, https://
December 2018 67
Beena Jose
www.pri.org/stories/2017-08-27/new-developments-human-gene-edit-
ing-face-ethical-and-regulatory-quagmire-us (accessed August 27, 2017).
11. Marilynn Marchione, “Chinese researcher claims first gene-edit-
ed babies,” AP News, https://www.apnews.com/4997bb7aa36c-
45449b488e19ac83e86d (accessed November 26, 2018)
12. Tanya Lewis, “Scientists may soon be able to ‘cut and paste’ DNA
to cure deadly diseases and design perfect babies,” Business Insider,
http://www.businessinsider.in/Scientists-may-soon-be-able-to-cut-and-
paste-DNA-to-cure-deadly-diseases-and-design-perfect-babies/article-
show/49849921.cms (accessed November 19, 2015).
13. Edward Lanphier, Fyodor Urnov, Sarah Ehlen Haecker, Michael Werner
and Joanna Smolenski, “Don’t edit the human germ line,” Nature News,
March 12, 2015.
14. Regalado Antonio, “Everything You Need to Know About CRISPR Gene
Editing’s Monster Year,” MIT Technology Review, http://www.technolo-
gyreview.com/news/543941/everything-you-need-to-know-about-crispr-
gene-editings-monster-year (accessed December 1, 2015).
15. Wolters Kluwer Health, “CRISPR gene editing will find applications in
plastic and reconstructive surgery,” Science Daily, http://www.science-
daily.com/releases/2018/10/181030134342.html (accessed October 30,
2018).
16. Stephen Adams, “Unborn babies could be tested for 3,500 genetic faults,”
The Telegraph News Letter, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/
news/9315265/Unborn-babies-could-be-tested-for-3500-genetic-faults.
html (accessed June 06, 2012)
17. UNESCO, “Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights,”
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_
TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (accessed October 19, 2005).
18. UN News Centre, “UN panel warns against ‘designer babies’ and eugen-
ics in ‘editing’ of human DNA,”http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as-
p?NewsID=52172#.WiEDvNKnHIU (accessed October 5, 2015).
19. Pope John XXIII, “Mater et Magistra,” 188-191, http://www.lifeissues.
net/writers/fle/cmt/cmt_humangenome10.html (accessed May 15, 1961).
20. Stephanie Foley, “The moral concerns over gene editing and the first
‘CRISPR babies,” Relevant Radio,https://relevantradio.com/2018/12/the-
moral-concerns-over-gene-editing-and-the-first-crispr-babies (accessed
December 6, 2018)
68 Omega
21. Craig Calhoun, “Human Gene Editing Is Leaving Ethics Dangerously

Far Behind,” The world Post, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/
crispr-gene-editing us 598238a0e4b0fa1575fbda57 (accessed August
03, 2017)
22. Peter Dabrock, “Playing God? Synthetic biology as a theological and ethi-
cal challenge,” Systems and Synthetic Biology3, nos.1-4 (2009): 47.
23. Hefner Philip, The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture, and Religion (Min-
neapolis: Fortress Press; 1993), 128; William Irons, “An Evolutionary Cri-
tique of the Created Co-Creator Concept,” Zygon: Journal of Religion and
Science 39, no.4 (2004): 773; Gregory R. Peterson, “The Created Co-Cre-
ator: What It Is and Is Not,” Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 39,
no.4 (2004): 827.
December 2018 69
Omega
ISSN 0976 - 0601
XVII (2018)2, 70-85
Gender Violence Embedded in Cultural

Psychology and Anti-Witch-Hunt
Movements in India
- Kamaladevi Kunkolienker*
Abstract: Although human civilisation has progressed in scientific

temper, even today there are people who believe in witchcraft and
witch-hunting in different lands and cultures, across the world. This evil
practice was ignored by historians for over a period of time and less
discussed because it is socially acceptable for a variety of reasons. Many
social workers, NGOs and Missionaries have been working against witch
hunting practice, yet it is not easy to eradicate such a cruel practice,
which is culturally embedded in the psyche of the people. This paper
is an attempt to highlight one such movement against witch-hunting,
carried out by Sr. Ann Moyalan and the other sisters belonging to the
congregation of Sisters of Charity of Nazareth. It also inquires into the
cultural psychology of the tribal people, and the current socio-economic,
geopolitical factors and some legal aspects. Because of her scientific
background and training she was able to show that the brutal practice of
killing women as ‘witches’ has no scientific grounding. With theological
and scientific background she was able to fight against this practice with
great personal risk. She is of the opinion that whatever the problems
faced by tribal people, they all have natural and identifiable causes. Her
movement presents hard facts about cruelty against women and she also
suggested many solutions for overcoming this cruel practice.
Keywords: Witchcraft, Witch-hunting, Gender Violence, Cultural
Psychology, Land Politics.
* Dr. Kamaladevi Kunkolienker is associate professor at P.E.S R.S.N. College of Arts

and Science, Farmagudi, Ponda, Goa.
70 Omega
Gender Violence Embedded in Cultural Psychology and Anti-Witch-Hunt
Blaming women for the acts of violence committed against

them is not a new idea to societies that are bound by patriarchy.
Taking it further, we have witch-hunting - blaming women for ev-
erything that happens in society, even if it is a natural occurrence.
If you thought it was a thing of the past, think again. In India, there
is a death for witchcraft reported every third day, with the majority
of the victims being women.
Think Change India, 30th March 2017
The death of a child, a disease outbreak in a village, bad

weather, a meagre harvest. These are some of the reasons women
in India are accused of sorcery, branded as witches, and hunted.
Public health and development failures thus become exacerbat-
ed by forces of patriarchy, misogyny, and the caste system. Some
states have outlawed witch hunts, but the practice continues with
thousands of women hunted each year; hundreds are tortured and
murdered.
- Pulitzer Centre Updates.
Introduction
There have been many movements to oppose witch-hunting.
This paper is about one such anti-witch-hunt movement. Sister
Ann Moyalan along with Sisters from Charity of Nazareth from
West Singbhum, Jharkhand launched a movement (1991-1997)
against witch hunting.
On the one hand we discuss ‘women-empowerment and gen-

der issues’ in mainstream conferences and seminars, along with
scientific and technological advances. On the other very little at-
tention is paid to the issues like witch-hunting and inhuman prac-
tices/atrocities meted out to these women, who are murdered in
December 2018 71
the name of age-old practice of witch-hunting. The practice of

witch-hunting in India, includes extreme violence against wom-
en, particularly against widows, due to deep rooted beliefs that
have led to the torture and murder of women, allegedly labelled
as witches. Laws have been passed banning witch-hunting,
however the practice continues till date, which is very much
disheartening.
The term ‘witch’ refers to a person of female gender who

acquires supernatural powers who is capable of performing black
magic or sorcery and may cause purposeful harm to human health.
Terms like ‘daayan’ and ‘chudail’ are used to label a woman as a
witch. The term ‘witch’ is looked upon as a gender attribution and
so witchcraft is looked upon as a gender perspective.
Witch-hunting in India is rampant in forest areas and hinter-

lands of states in central and North-eastern India because these ar-
eas are densely forested and have rich mineral resources, but with
poor economic development, with little or no access to primary
healthcare services or education. They are not only economically
backward but also have strong superstitious beliefs and any trage-
dy that might befall them like displacement, damaged crop, deaths
due to epidemic, sudden and unexplained deaths of children are
some of the causes which are considered as the work of the evil
witches. Often an ‘ojha’ a local person - an unqualified medical
practitioner, a tantric or a sorcerer, or priests are observed to be the
facilitators of witch-hunting in some of the districts of Jharkhand
in backward regions where scientific temper is absolutely missing
due to illiteracy and very poor healthcare facilities.
The following tables present certain facts and fig-

ures associated with witch-hunting (Source: The National
Crime Record Bureau).
72 Omega
Table I - Number of People Killed
Sr. No. Year FIR Men Women Total

1 1991 14 8 15 23
2 1992 15 5 15 20
3 1993 19 6 19 25
4 1994 12 2 13 15
5 1995 12 5 16 21
6 1996 7 4 5 9
7 1997 7 0 6 6
8 1998 6 3 6 9
9 1999 9 0 6 6
Total 101 33 101 134
Table II - Witch Killings in Ghumla District
Sr. No. Year FIR No. of Killings

1 1992 15 18
2 1993 16 17
3 1994 14 15
4 1995 10 12
5 1996 7 7
Total 62 69
Table III - Witch-Killings in Jharkhand
Sr. No. District Year No. of Killings

1 Lohardaga 98
2 Ranchi 1991-97 89
3 Palamu 96
4 Gumla 69
5 West Singbhum 134
Total 486
December 2018 73
Jharkhand, is a state carved out of Bihar in November 2000.

It has clearly emerged as the hotbed of “witch- hunting” in India.
The National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB) records maintain that
as many as 464 women, majority of them from tribal communities,
have been branded “witches” and killed in cold blood in Jharkhand
between 2001 and 2014. A report from ‘India Today’ mentions:
“India has seen killings of 2290 persons, mostly women for prac-
ticing witchcraft, in Jharkhand, clearly the worst affected State,
accounting for more than one fifth of the victims. While the NCRB
is yet to post updated figures for the subsequent years after 2014, it
is unlikely to present a better picture in Jharkhand, which has con-
tinued to witness mindless killing of women. On June 14, septua-
genarian Jugni Devi was axed to death in Kersai area of Simdega
district. On June 10; a 46-year-old woman was stripped and gan-
graped in Tonto area of West Singhbhum district. While majority
of these crime have been reported from Southern Jharkhand, the
menace is also seen in North-east Jharkhand, called Santhal Parag-
nas, which borders Bihar and has a different tribal dialect.2
Sr. Ann and her group struggled almost for seven years to
bring about a transformation in the mindsets of these tribal people.
Their work was also supported by Mr. Khare, Deputy Commis-
sioner of West Singbhum district, who had also started a campaign
against superstition and witchcraft in October 1995, which was
known as anti-superstition campaign. Also Zilla Mahila Samiti
(District Women’s Forum) worked together with the government
in sensitizing people against witch-hunting by organizing ‘pady-
atras’ and public meetings. This campaign gave a boost to Zilla
Mahila Samiti members - more importantly a group of local wom-
en, who took it upon their shoulders to fight against this practice.
Further, supporting each other, they came together, formed Mahila
Mandals and self-help-groups and stayed in the villages, visited
people and interacted with them to understand the complexity and
gravity of the problem.
74 Omega
Witch-hunt as a Gender Issue

The gender discriminations in Jharkhand are observed in
Santhal, Ho and Munda tribes. The surveys and reports show the
maximum killings took place in Jharkhand and so is the hotbed of
witch-hunting.
In an interview with Sr. Ann, she asserted that the core issue
is a gender issue, although very closely connected with socio-eco-
nomic aspects. She also attacked the cultural psyche of these peo-
ple, since this practice is deeply rooted in tribal belief system, in
particular among the ‘Ho’ tribe. Witch-hunting is an intra-tribe
matter. Those who make the accusations and those who are ac-
cused belong to the same tribe. In an overall patriarchal set up this
practice as a gender issue received scarce attention because the
patriarchal mindset has already made it socially acceptable. This
issue of gender violence is supported by the silent sanction of the
patriarchal structure of the society. This sends a message to mis-
erable women that their safety, living and freedom are dependent
upon remaining submissive to the male members of the tribe or
family or community. In case a strong woman revolts against the
system or subjugation or questions male domination, discrimina-
tion or deprivation of wages, or deprivation of livestock or an-
cestral property, she is apprehended by powerful men assisted by
an ‘Ojha’ who formally brands her a witch either to be killed or
boycotted, or she is met with a life-threatening punishment. The
‘devas’ and the ‘pujaris’ and sometimes even the doctors not able
to cure some of the sicknesses. This also leads to branding some
ladies as witches and later on killing her trough the social sanction.
Further, the allegedly branded witch or witches are subjected to
inhuman cruelty inflicting injuries and pain both physically and
psychologically.
Most of the victims who survive the atrocities do not dare

to report at a police station due to the fear of getting lynched and
prefer to suffer the trauma and pain silently. In his research paper,
December 2018 75
titled, “Witch Hunting: A Case of Gender Violence in the Garb of

Vigilantism in India,” Mohammad Tarique Iqbal puts the horrifying
facts as follows: “In villages, law and order is basically monitored
by a patriarchal Panchayat system. Men take advantage of poverty
and ignorance of women, and resort to crimes against them with
impunity in the garb of vigilante justice. Most of the victims who
do survive the atrocities of witch hunting do not report to the local
police due to fear of getting lynched. So, they suffer the pain and
trauma silently. The witch is kicked out of her house, stripped na-
ked, her head tonsured and hair burnt, face smeared with cow dung
or blackened; paraded naked across the village; her nose is slit,
teeth pulled out (believably she is defanged) so that she can no lon-
ger curse; she is also whipped with chappals, and sticks. To utter
horror, sometimes, she is forced to eat human excreta before she is
thrown out of the village and forced to flee to the nearby forest or
lynched to death or buried alive. Surprisingly, such gut-wrenching
brutalities occur in daylight and in the midst of a cheering crowd.
Where these women are left to live, they are considered inauspi-
cious and malevolent, socially ostracised and forced to forego their
livelihood. Where they don’t end up losing their life, they are made
to lose their mental balance.”3
Socio-economic Factors
It is to be noted that the phenomenon of witch-hunting
among indigenous people is not only practised against women but
sometimes her whole family is being killed to stop the breeding of
‘witches’. Many researchers have observed that the branding of
widows as ‘witches’ are actually meant to disown their land and
property, houses, livestock. The perpetrators are their own family
members, relatives, neighbours, the land grabbers. There is always
a struggle for land or property in a kinship. Since land becomes
the central issue in this struggle, witch-hunting is a natural conse-
quence of it. Women had varied rights over land as widows - rang-
ing from the right to full use to the right to be merely maintained.
In the case of a widow without sons, her property is transferred to
76 Omega
the nearest male kin from the husband’s side. Often, to take over
that land, such kin might initiate a witch accusation.
The study of the most of the cases reveal that the so called
‘land mafias’ lure the ‘ojhas’ or the chief of the community or
tribe with money and liquor, to tag the women who own property
and land, as witches. It is a fact that in extremely backward areas
these ‘ojhas’ are important public figures, who in the absence of
efficient government healthcare system, greatly influence public
health matters. Police in their investigations has found that ‘ojhas’
accepted a bribe to name a woman as witch.
The envy and jealousy due to higher incomes of some of

the families also trigger witch-hunting. There is a rapid change
or transition in the earning pattern due to some government jobs
made available to them, as some of them are found qualified for the
same. This might create disparity in the incomes of various family
units of a particular tribe. This trend brings about a change from
subsistence to accumulative economy. The subsistence economy is
characterised by relative stability whereas accumulative economy
is characterised by instability and growing inequality.
At the subsistence level, the consumption standards more or

less remained constant. Higher production or that which exceeded
their consumption level, was often used in festivities. This prac-
tice prevented accumulation of ‘produce’ in a few hands, and thus
income level is checked. But in contemporary accumulation econ-
omy, the disparities in incomes grew, leading to envy and hatred
amongst themselves which also contributed towards witch-hunting
and killings of women, sometimes along with other family mem-
bers.
Earlier the kin-group could bring in more land under culti-

vation as their households grew, but currently they find it difficult
to extend land under cultivation due to government efforts to take
over their land for some other purpose. As a result, the easy way is
December 2018 77
to tag a widow as a witch, grab her land, through a social sanction

and kill her. One cannot rule out such a possibility even in recent
times. The number of women murdered in the name of witch-hunt-
ing is only increasing despite the laws passed by respective state
governments banning witch-hunting.
Cultural Psychology and Practice of Witch-hunting

Tribal societies always believed in and practiced the tradi-
tion of ‘good spirits and bad spirits.’ Good spirits always brought
about healing, wellness and prosperity, whereas bad spirits brought
suffering and could cause natural disasters. In tribal communities it
is always the women who is endowed with the power to cure and
heal. The founding metaphors of this type of many religio-cultural
systems established a connection between women and her magi-
cal/ mystical powers.
The spiritual world of tribal people was/is very different from

those observed in established religions. Gender tensions may also
be taken as the principal cause of witch-hunting and killing wom-
en. According to the Santhal theory of the origins of witch-hunt-
ing, Khariya women were not allowed to participate in religious
rituals or festivities. The tribal people feared that the menstrual
blood attracted evil spirits. So, these women were left out of adi-
vasi rituals and religion on account of fear and suspicion of their
sexuality. According to their cosmology, illness occurs when there
is a deviation from natural or pre-ordained order of things.
There is a strong belief amongst the tribal people that those

women who gain certain power to cause harm to others gather at
night in the sacred grove, where it is otherwise forbidden for wom-
en to enter, usually on the night of new moon (amavasya night)
dancing and uttering unknown chants. The Norwegian missionary,
Bodding in the latter 18th century states: “I am inclined to think that
the practice of witchcraft by Santhal women is to a certain extent,
really secret worship, resorted to by women because they are not
78 Omega
permitted to take part directly and personally in ordinary public

worship.”4 Contemporary anthropologists also support these secret
worships, as they claim to have understood through their commu-
nications with people. This secret worship was treated as a nor-
mal kind of worship in an earlier period which was in the centre
stage earlier but pushed now into the margins. The Santhal and the
Mundas tribes have certain myths regarding these women-centred
religious practices which were relegated to the margins, that they
came to be denounced as negative. These interpretations rendered
the mythological secret worships as witchcrafts. Here, Sigmund
Freud’s theory throws some light on this secret worship. Humans
cannot control their natural feelings towards the Divine for emo-
tional security or for that matter any suppression of emotions re-
sults into a reaction. That this kind of secret worship by women is
a kind of reaction to restrictions placed on them in their tribal set
up was considered as a kind of normal worship initially, however,
when this worship was pushed into the margins, there arose sus-
picious interpretations, which are a source of witch-hunt practice.
In this regard Sister Ann observed that the role of local Mun-
das and Mankis become very crucial, as those Mundas who were
educated and sensitive, tried to intervene but the ignorant ones sid-
ed with the oppressors, paving the way for tortures and inhuman
sufferings and did not care to inform the police, though it was their
duty to do so.
Scholar Ajay Skaria, who explored the torture and murder of

women accused of being witches in British India, reports that the
historians and the anthropologists have observed that witchcraft
accusations increase in times of social stress.5 Jharkhand ranks 26th
out of 29 states in terms of literacy. It tops in the list of states prac-
tising witch-hunting, a barbaric social evil which paints a pathetic
picture of the state and the glory of tribal culture is lost under this
cloud.
December 2018 79
The Legal Perspective

Jharkhand introduced The Prevention of Witch-hunting
(Dyan Pratha Act) in 2001 but according to the people who work at
the grassroot level, the law is not effective because of several rea-
sons. Ajay Kumar Jaiswal, a social activist, working for 26 years
in the state fighting against witch-hunting, states that Jharkhand
has 32000 villages and every village has such a case. He says that
Rs. 2000 as the fine and hardly one year of punishment cannot
create an impact on criminal minds. According to him more se-
vere kind of punishment, is required. The Rajasthan Prevention
of Witch-hunting Act, 2015 provides for seven years of rigorous
punishment extending up to a life term and or rupees one lakh fine.
Despite laws many studies reveal that there is something se-

riously wrong regarding criminal justice system. For instance, in
one third of cases, the victims never approached the police or were
prevented from doing so by vested interests or relatives. Most of
the cases registered were closed because of shoddy investigation,
lack of evidence and witnesses or a compromise being worked out
between the victims and the perpetrators.
According to the report, the special laws on witch-hunting

on paper focus on preventive action and addressing harassment
where the motive is clearly linked to “witch” accusation. These
laws criminalise the acts of “identifying” and “exhibiting” any per-
son as a witch along with the mental and physical torture which
accompanies it. All the offences under the special laws are cognis-
able and non-bailable. They seek to prevent escalation of victimis-
ation through early intervention by the police.
However, very few reported cases are registered under the

new laws. The study examined 85 FIRs and found that only six
were registered solely on the basis of special laws. Notes the re-
port: “The data categorically shows that the mischief that the spe-
cial law was enacted to correct remains unaddressed, with no ac-
tion or prosecution against preliminary forms of harassment. In
80 Omega
fact, the data establishes that special laws are rarely, if ever, used
alone, and almost never at the preliminary stages to prevent esca-
lation of violence. Our data from police records show that almost
all cases are registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC), with one or more provisions of the special law, to establish
if it (witch-hunting) were the motive of the crime. The majority
of the provisions of the IPC invoked in the records are related to
beating, hurt, trespass, theft, murder, conspiracy, etc—with more
bailable rather than non-bailable offences being invoked.”6
Thus, the laws might have filled the vacuum but do not look
at the socio-economic situation that encourages the evil practice.
Since the motives of witch-hunting have changed, the appropriate
relevant laws also have to take into account the prevailing reality.
Since the perpetrators of the crime are not deterred by pun-

ishment and conviction, they know that they will not be brought
to book. The whole episode is looked as an incidence of vigilante
justice. Besides legal framework, many researchers have asserted
that proper education, health care facilities and good governance
regarding caring for human rights are some of the essentials re-
quired to bring about a social transformation in the mindsets of the
tribal people.
Analytical Understanding of Evil of Witch-hunting as a “Social

and Cultural Construct”
Contemporary scientific attitude and psychological treat-
ments of witch-hunting in all states where witch-hunting is con-
sidered as a part of their cultural heritage, rules out every attempt
to ‘moralise’ this evil. The West also practiced witch-hunting and
killing of witches or eliminating them. philosophers, anthropol-
ogists, social thinkers and others have made several attempts to
understand the origin and sustenance of evil. They have challenged
the grounds on the basis of which such evil practices are allowed
and continue to exist. Their critical reflections on the ‘construction’
December 2018 81
of evil and the way it is ‘moralised’ have inspired the society at

large to ‘de-construct’ and ‘demoralise’ evil, by challenging the
very premises on which this evil is ‘constructed’.
The Socratic tradition based on science, knowledge and em-

powerment holds the key to demoralise evil. Literacy, scientific
knowledge and redefining the concept of evil through innovative
interpretations contribute towards the much required social trans-
formation, particularly in indigenous communities. As observed
by Sr. Ann Moyalan: “Based on this experience I think that what-
ever may be the issue, applying the scientific tools with an under-
standing of the cultural and religious mind-set of the people, along
with active participation by the people, can bring about systematic
changes in the society, particularly with regard to popular under-
standing of and attitude towards the menace of witch-hunt.”7
Philosopher F. Nietzsche had expressed his anguish through

the concept of ‘slavish morality’, the divide that we have between
‘good’ and ‘bad’ and stressed the need to go beyond this divide.
According to Nietzsche, all normative systems, including religious
institutions, which perform something like the role we associate
with “morality” share certain structural characteristics, even as the
meaning and value of these normative systems varies consider-
ably over time. He argued that Christianity was a religion for weak
people who do not want to face the problem of making their own
morality. This may be termed as true for other religions also. As we
observe we can make a choice of our own morality. However it is
not done as it may be painful. The other alternative then is simply
to accept the choices of other people. But it results into leading a
life that the other people expect you to live, in a way becoming
blind to what reality is and it is a failure to live as a free human
agent. Genuine autonomy, Nietzsche maintained, could only mean
freedom from all external constraints on one’s behaviour. In this
(natural and admirable) state of existence, each individual human
being would live a life without the artificial limits of moral obli-
82 Omega
gation. For Nietzsche, we need to go beyond the concept of ‘good’

and ‘bad’.
As Nietzsche observed, the psychological treatment of the

evil torture, killing and all inhuman harassment meted out to wom-
en in the name of witchcraft and witch-hunting, demoralises it by
considering it as an act done not on the basis of demonic forces
or not even out of a commitment to doing evil for evil’s sake, but
out of a form of ignorance. This wrongdoing results neither out of
malevolence nor unbridled self-love but because the person con-
fusedly regards what brings him pleasure as the good. The action
of the agent is treated as a result of psychological disorder where
he/she is deprived of any responsibility and also of the very prop-
erty that defines evil that is the freedom to choose otherwise. In
this situation to act on the basis of psychic disturbance is antithet-
ical to freedom and choice. Evil thus conceptualised, as related to
medical disorder, helps in vitiating any basis for moralising it in its
various expressions.
In similar vein, Karl Marx, the radical social thinker, treated

religion as ‘opium’ of the people. Being an atheist like Sigmund
Freud, he challenged the religious set ups, which according to him
is the foundation of all evil in society. Although Marx founded his
theory on Hegelian insights, he maintained that it is the humanity
that produces the ‘Idea’ and not the ‘Idea’ that produces humanity.
Thus, Marx’s attempt is one of the strongest to demoralise evil
which paved the way for a materialist worldview.
Measures to Control Witch-hunting and Killing

The culmination of any movement is achieving the goal for
which the movement was started. Despite many such anti-witch-
hunt movements, the practice has not come to an end. It is because
the solution does not lie alone in making laws and implementing
them. The variety of causes leading to witch-hunting are beyond
the reach of laws. Therefore, various suggestions were made by the
December 2018 83
group led by Sr. Ann Moyalan to the government to arrest the ram-
pant killing of women under the pretext of blind superstitions and
witchcraft practices. Measures such as governmental provisions
for formal and non-formal education in Jharkhand, making basic
health facilities available to the needy people, ensuring people’s
participation in the developmental plans through their participa-
tion in ‘gramsabhas’ and panchayat meetings, accepting tradition-
al leadership and allowing tribal people to reclaim their land and
forests, helping the village women to organize themselves, and
drawing up creative plans to boost their self-confidence and eco-
nomic independence, setting up special cell at the district level,
both in police stations and in courts, are some of the practical steps
to address this menace.
Concluding Remarks
All the studies on witch-hunting and killings unanimously
find that superstitions are so deep-rooted that they easily prompt
villagers to murder women as witches. Laws have been enacted
banning witch-hunting, but they are technical in their applications
and turn a blind eye to the cultural psychology, tribal theology and
gender issues. Although these are root causes, illiteracy, poverty
and very poor medical services make the problem more serious
as a social evil. In this struggle against such evil practices, a num-
ber of movements are started by various agencies and overall this
struggle is going on for a long period. Social transformation aims
at changing the attitudes and mindsets of these people. Changing
attitudes needs exposure of the frauds and training these minds in
critical thinking about superstitions.
Education and medical care in these tribal areas is an urgent

necessity and can contribute a lot towards ending this practice of
witch-hunting. The educated people within the community have to
take charge of and start a community-led action, aimed at educat-
ing people and changing their attitudes and beliefs. They should be
made to realize the need to change their foundational beliefs which
84 Omega
go against the very human right to live. Since outside interven-

tion is frowned upon in rural communities and development prac-
titioners find it challenging to win the support of people, the local
bodies such as Zilla Mahila Samiti, Panchayati Raj Institutions,
Civil Society Organizations and Community Based Organizations
have to work collaboratively. Such kind of team work can orga-
nize mass awareness campaigns to bust the existing myths around
witchcraft and witch-hunting. Along with proper guidelines for im-
plementation of anti-witch-hunting rules, efforts should be made to
rehabilitate the victims of this evil practice. Such efforts will con-
tribute towards ending this practice in due course of time and keep
up the human dignity. Evils like this are not inscrutable, however
we need a discourse to expose the ethical framework shared by the
communities where we find various expressions of evil, as it has
haunted our civilisations for a long time.
References
1. Ann Moyalan, “Science, Religion and Social Transformation: The Strug-
gle against the Evil Practice of Witch-hunt in Jharkhand,” Omega – Indian
Journal of Science and Religion, 6:2006.
2. India Today- https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/over-2000-
women-killed-in-india-for-practicing-black-magic-in-14-
years-15280-2016-06-20.
3. Mohammad Tarique Iqbal, ‘Witch-hunting: A Case of Gender Violence
in the Garb of Vigilantism in India,’ International Journal of Advanced
Research in Management and Social sciences, 14:11 (2015)
4. D. Nathan, G. Kelkar, S. Satija (2015): ‘Witches through Changing Con-
texts: Women Remain the Target’, working papers_ id:7186,eSocial Sci-
ences, p.3.
5. Ajay Skaria (1997): ‘Witchcraft and gratuitous violence in Colonial West-
ern India,’ Past and Present 155: 1997.
6. http://www.indialegallive.com/special-story/witch-hunting-diabolic-per-
secution-27416
7. Ann Moyalan, 2006.
December 2018 85
Omega
ISSN 0976 - 0601
XVII (2018)2, 86-99
The Future of Evolution in Sri Aurobindo

and Teilhard De Chardin:
A Comparative Study
- Sandeep Jagtap*
Abstract: This paper compares the similarities and differences in

Teilhard’s and Aurobindo’s interpretation of the theory of evolution in
terms of the possible future of evolution. Further, the similarities and
differences that they both have in perceiving the three features of Future
Evolution, namely, Collectivism, the individual Core, and Transcendence
are also discussed.
Keywords: Teilhard, Aurobindo, Future evolution.
1.1 Introduction
The emergence and wide acknowledgement of the “Evo-
lution theory” of Darwin has brought a new perspective to look
at the entire Cosmology. Both, Aurobindo, from the Indian side
and Teilhard de Chardin from the Western side, have made excel-
lent attempts to interpret the theory of evolution and give it a new
meaning. Here in this paper I intend to compare the similarities
and differences in Teilhard’s and Aurobindo’s interpretation of the
theory of evolution. I have confined myself to the two questions,
* Sandeep Jagtap secured his Masters in Philosophy of Science from Jnana Deepa
Vidyapeeth, Pune.
86 Omega
The Future of Evolution in Sri Aurobindo and Teilhard De Chardin: A Comparative Study
first; do they both think that there is Future evolution possible?

And secondly, taking into consideration the three salient features
of the Future Evolution, namely, Collectivism, the individual Core
and Transcendence, I shall discuss the similarities and differences
that they both have in perceiving these three features of evolution.
Here I am not dealing with the Eschatologism, as it is a big topic
in itself. I shall limit myself only with the salient features of the
future evolution. The main objective and the aim of my paper is
to find out on what grounds these two stalwarts meet with one an-
other and differ from each other as far as the future of evolution is
concerned. The method that I have employed is a comparative and
reflective investigation into the features of the future of evolution.
1.2. Is there any Future for Evolution?

According to Teilhard the ‘present’ inaugurates a new type
of mode of evolutionary process. For henceforth evolution also
questions itself: whether it has any future at all.1 According to Teil-
hard “Man is nothing else than evolution becomes conscious of
itself”.2 The human marks a turning point of the evolution. He is
a culmination of it and no more a spectator. This self-knowledge
leads to self-direction. It is here that the question about the future
of evolution stems from. We all are concerned about the suitable
outcome for evolution. There is uncertainty playing a vital role in
it. According to Teilhard what makes the world in which we live
specifically modern is our discovery in it and around it of evo-
lution. Therefore we can rightly imply that what disconcerts the
modern world at its very roots is not being sure, and not seeing
how it ever could be sure, that there is an outcome - a suitable
outcome - to that evolution.3 It is under this aspect of anxiety and
curiosity that we want to introduce the parallel with Aurobindo.
While Teilhard bases his solution on a scientific interpretation of
evolution, Aurobindo takes his stand primarily on spiritual experi-
ence. Aurobindo justifies the future of evolution by the principle of
involution of the Absolute. There it is on their interpretation of the
evolution as a guarantee for the future that Aurobindo and Teilhard
December 2018 87
Sandeep Jagtap
differ from one another. Thus, we can conclude that both Teilhard
and Aurobindo view that there is future for evolution. They also
believe that the road towards the consummation of evolution in
“some ‘absolute’ ” is open. This is the meeting point of both.
1.3 Comparing the Common Features of the Future Evolution

Between Teilhard and Aurobindo there exist three common
features of the future evolution, namely, Collectivism, the Individ-
ual Core and Transcendence. Here I intend to draw out the sim-
ilarities and differences that they both have with one another in
conceiving these three features of evolution.
1.3.1. Collectivism
While Teilhard conceives of the collective as reality almost a
substance in its own right, comparable to that of that of individual
entities, Aurobindo thinks of the collective in terms of a common
nature.4 It is a very significant distinction as it is based on differ-
ently conceived notion of the relation between the individual and
collective. Teilhard gives priority to the collective whereas Aurob-
indo to the individual. According to Teilhard the collective realities
are not reducible to the component element and there is “more in
the society than the individual”. It should not be understood that
Teilhard reduces the individual to a mere function of the whole.
On the contrary he asserts that the future humanity will develop
primarily in the collective line and the individual will be dependent
on the collective for his self-realization. The advance of all togeth-
er is open in collective and all can join it. The collective destiny of
humanity conditions that of the individuals.
Aurobindo inverts Teilhard’s proportion of theoretical rela-

tion of individual-society, particularly in the realization of future
humanity. He gives primary importance to the integral transfor-
mation of nature and secondary importance to the social engage-
ment. Therefore undoubtedly we can say that Aurobindo rejects
the isolated liberation of some few.5 Speaking from his personal
88 Omega
conviction, he says that the realization of the supermind in the in-

dividual is of utmost importance before one could engage oneself
in bringing salvation to his or her fellow-men and women.
Teilhard envisages the mankind of the future as “a harmo-

nized collectivity”, “a single thinking envelope”, “a single vast
grain of thought”.6 He continues to say that the plurality of in-
dividual reflections grouping themselves together and reinforcing
one another in the act of a single unanimous reflection gives rise
to the Supreme Unity. Thus, the individual reflection is dependent
on the unification of the collective. When it comes to Aurobindo,
he says something opposite of this that the necessity for the growth
of the individual and his discovery of himself is a condition for the
discovery of the cosmic Self and Consciousness.”7
In other words, we can conclude that Aurobindo underlines

the primary role of the individual in the constitution of future hu-
manity. He lays a heavy stress on individual discovering the spirit.
According to him the gnostic community can be born only from
the association of gnostic individuals, it does not engender them.
But Teilhard opines completely different than this. According to
him, “the gates of the future, the entry into the super-human …will
open to an advance of all together.”8 For Teilhard, super-humanity
is mastered by a common conquest; with Aurobindo it is entered
into by a vanguard, which throws open its gates to the mass be-
hind.9
Down the corridors of time, the law of the higher complex-

ity paving the way for higher consciousness and a confluence of
thought, resulting in a collective super-consciousness has been
dominating the evolution. Therefore Teilhard sees a value oper-
ative in the building of future humanity such as social structures,
cultural exchange, economic cooperation or common scientific
research-projects. This serves as ‘hominised version’ of natural,
physical or organic factors of complexification. Contrary is the
view of Aurobindo, for whom all these factors are very inadequate
December 2018 89
Sandeep Jagtap
to elaborate the future. He puts it clearly that the future depends

entirely on individual conscious progress. He sees a total dispro-
portion between the ‘physical collectivity’ and the ‘gnostic divine
way of collective living’.10 To apply the ‘mental’ means of social
structures to the great task of building the gnostic community is
simply, in Aurobindo’s view, to put the cart before the horse. How-
ever a point to note here is this that both of them agree on the point
of the conscious nature of perfect humanity.
As far as Aurobindo’s collective isolationism is concerned,

the gnostic community leads an ‘autonomous existence’ as a ‘sep-
arate community’, living in ‘seclusion’ for danger of ‘contamina-
tion’. This is not at all acceptable in Teilhardian perspective of evo-
lution, which empathically speaks of an ‘advance of all together’.
One also notices a lot of similarities in the expressions that

both of them use in describing future humanity. What is a ‘unan-
imous reflection’ to Teilhard is a ‘conscious animism’ for Aurob-
indo. ‘Harmony… as a spontaneous expression of the unity’ and
a ‘harmonized collectivity’ mean the same to both of them. Teil-
hard’s “single closed system in which each element sees, feels, de-
sires and suffers for itself the same thing as all the others” evokes
Aurobindo’s “conscious communicating … with consciousness,
thought with thought, vision with vision, sense with sense, life
with life, body-awareness with body-awareness.”11 From these
similarities in expression we can decipher that they both must be
resting themselves on more or less on an identical vision. This is
the point to note here.
1.3.2. The Individual Core

Teilhard opposes individuality to personality. For him the
former is divisive and latter is unitive. Their respective terminol-
ogy becomes frankly confusing when it comes to the word ‘indi-
vidual.’12 In Teilhard’s case individual is a negative term, with
Aurobindo it is positive; the Teilhardian equivalent for the latter
is ‘person’.
90 Omega
Teilhard views personal as the higher value. He adds that the

progress of evolution is towards consciousness, which constitutes
the person; future evolution therefore must lead to the hyper-per-
sonal. Therefore for him a world presumed to be heading towards
the Impersonal becomes both unthinkable and unlivable. Thus we
can infer that the personal and impersonal then are the positive
and negative terms of an antithesis. For Aurobindo personality and
impersonality are not opposite principles. He doesn’t hesitate to
invert these two terms. For him, the Person is Being supporting
what is thus impersonal. He easily associates the personal with the
individual inasmuch as it is limited. In the Life Divine, Aurobindo
writes that “In his formless unlimited self, his real being, the true
Person or Purusha, he is not that, but contains in himself bound-
less and universal possibilities.” 13 Teilhard writes that “It looks as
though we have lost both respect for the person and understanding
of his true nature…. Personality is seen as a specifically corpus-
cular and ephemeral property; a prison from which we must try to
escape.”14 From this we can infer that Teilhard had a restrictive or
depreciatory meaning of the word person.
Both of them in fact use the parallel expressions; Teilhard

speaks of the “personal universe” and Aurobindo of the “universal
individual.” They both insist on preserving the individual in terms
of evolution. What is the most striking fact over here is this that
both put similar conditions to his survival.15 According to Aurobin-
do the individual can survive only by universalizing himself, which
involves the suppression of his limitations. This is in keeping with
the condition that Teilhard makes. For him inasmuch as it implies
not only distinction but also separation from others, individuality
must decrease in the same measure as personality increases.
For Aurobindo it is the individual who is the indispensable

locus of conscious growth in the universe. Teilhard doesn’t con-
tract this for he conceives man as the ‘arrow of evolution’ and its
‘leading shoot’, he may well put certain restrictions to this exclu-
sive importance of individual consciousness. Aurobindo’s evolu-
December 2018 91
Sandeep Jagtap
tion is the work of the involved Absolute, which has the counter-
part in Teilhard’s Omega. Now let us discuss the complementary
role of other centres of consciousness which are easily notable in
Teilhard and absent in Aurobindo.
Teilhard says that the element becomes personal when it uni-

versalizes itself. The element only universalizes itself properly in
becoming super-personal. From this we can infer that man, while
transcending himself by reaching out to the others than himself,
will possess his self ever more fully as he gives himself to the
other.16 This paradox rests on the principle ‘union differentiate’
or inverting ‘differentiation unifies.’ On the contrary Aurobindo
speaks of “uniting consciousness” communicating inwardly with
consciousness; intimacy of consciousness communicating inward-
ly and directly with consciousness. This unity leads to unicity and
as a result “in the changed way of being which this consciousness
would bring about in them, they will feel themselves to be embod-
iment of a single self”. 17
Now this leads us to ask a very pertinent question about the

place of love in Aurobindo’s ultimate stage of evolution. As far
Teilhard is concerned, love is the form of interpersonal relation.18
For him, “to love is to discover and complete one’s self in some-
one other than oneself”. This is in keeping with his principle of
differentiation through unification. He defends the possibility of
universal love and finds its justification in the personal character of
the Absolute. According to him, firstly love realizes a greater dis-
tinctness of the persons and unites them more closely together, and
secondly, love is the energy which will bring about universal unity.
Like Teilhard, for Aurobindo, love is a communion of the

persons. “Love in its nature is the desire to give oneself to oth-
ers and receive others in exchange; it is commerce between be-
ing and being”19 Occasionally Aurobindo describes mutual union
as fusion in love.20 Here ‘fusion’ doesn’t imply a blurring of the
individuality. Like Teilhard, Aurobindo also stresses the paradox-
92 Omega
ical nature of love, in which individuality is not only preserved,

it is heightened by love. Aurobindo’s agreement with Teilhard is
almost literal when he says that, to love is both “to possess and be
possessed because without being possessed one does not possess
oneself utterly.21
Both have analyzed the phenomenon of love in an identical

way. But their disagreement is as to its ultimate value. According
to Teilhard, we must look forward to the higher type of love, it
is borne to us on the rising tide of planetisation. This love lies at
the horizon of the future. For Aurobindo, on the contrary, love is
essentially to be transcended. Love marks an advance on the phys-
ical stage of life; it is linked with mind, and therefore a transitory
mode of unification. Aurobindo further says that love is incapable
of surmounting the perverting action of nescience; its universal-
izing influence finds itself foiled by the fundamental principle of
limitation.22 Love then must yield precedence to the more powerful
faculty of universal consciousness.23
Aurobindo doesn’t eliminate lover from the term evolution.

It finds its perfection in the gnostic being, since it overcomes mul-
tiplicity by identity, yet respects diversity within identity, without
which love would be impossible. What Aurobindo rejects is not
so much inferior forms of love as rather love as property of life.
According to him love doesn’t supersede but life.24
Aurobindo doesn’t accept love as an ultimate value. For

him love is meaningless without the centres of love being distinct
from each other. For Aurobindo, distinction seems to imply op-
position, consequently self-assertion or self-sacrifice. This is not
acceptable to his ideal of perfect unity. Since all are seen and felt as
the oneself, there would be no question of selfishness or altruism,
of oneself and others. The only alternative to opposition seems to
him to be identity. Distinction doesn’t engender mutual repulsion
for Teilhard. It is endowed with the force of mutual attraction. An
intensified affinity is to overcome growing dispersion; only, by
December 2018 93
Sandeep Jagtap
bridging the gap love does not blur the distinction. Quite the con-
trary: it diversifies even further as it unites more closely. 25
Teilhard views diversification as the condition of unification.

Without eliminating diversity Aurobindo envisages unity as culmi-
nating in unicity. The collective gnostic life is ruled by the three-
fold law of ‘unity, mutuality and harmony.’ Unity is the basis of
the gnostic consciousness, mutuality the natural result of its direct
awareness of oneness in diversity. Unicity does not exclude entire-
ly all differentiation. Reluctantly Aurobindo does not use ‘love’ as
a synonym of this ‘mutuality’ which forms the characteristic of his
gnostic community. Love is very prominent in gnostic life.
Teilhard’s vision of differentiating union in terms of evolu-

tion necessitates love as the only ‘energy’ capable of achieving
“the feat reputed to be contradictory of ‘personalizing’ by total-
izing.’ Aurobindo rather feels the need of transcending love, the
distinctness which it implies being contrary to his ideal of absolute
unity. Love, however, could not have been ignored at this ultimate
stage, for integralisation is the motto of this philosophy.
1.3.3. Transcendence
To draw a parallel between Aurobindo and Teilhard on Tran-
scendence we need to examine their respective attitudes on panthe-
ism. The question we discuss here is – is their respective concept
of the final phase of evolution pantheistic in outlook? Teilhard
borrows the word ‘pantheism’ in the etymological meaning of the
word but carefully distinguishes it from the doctrine it ordinarily
serves to designate. In order to insist on Transcendence, Teilhard
denies that the term evolution would be “born from the fusion and
confusion of the elemental centres it assembles”. Teilhard’s pan-
theism means God is in all, but not that God is all.26 Instead of this
pantheism of identity Teilhard proposes ‘pantheism’ of unity: the
distinction between the individual and God is the guarantee for the
distinction between the individuals mutually, as well as the princi-
ple of their unity, all converging in God.
94 Omega
In the same manner, Teilhard adopts the term ‘monism, but

only etymologically. Here it is opposed to pluralism. Pluralism
conceives the future in terms of isolation. Monism corresponds to
a future of convergence. Drawing together of all is the condition of
each one’s individual fulfillment. In this sense monism here refers
to the ultimate principle only indirectly. Thus, Teilhard’s ‘panthe-
ism’ or ‘monism’ is a pluralism, which realizes a union of its differ-
ent elements on the principle of ‘differentiating union.’ 27
According to Aurobindo pantheism should leave room for

Transcendence. Even if it is incomplete as a doctrine, it is how-
ever not to be rejected. “The pantheistic view of the identity of
the Divine and the Universe is a truth, for all this that is the Brah-
man; but it stops short of the whole truth when it misses and omits
the supra-cosmic Reality.” Transcendental Reality expresses itself
through both the individual existence and the Cosmos. It would
be absolutely wrong to confine the Absolute to its cosmic and in-
dividual manifestations. For both depend upon and exist by the
transcendental Divine Being. Identical with the Transcendent, the
individual and the universe do not thereby exhaust the fullness of
its Reality. The transcendent is that state of consciousness which
bridges the paradox of individual-universal. Therefore neither the
affirmation of the universal at the detriment of the individual, nor
the affirmation of the individual at the detriment of the universal
can be satisfactory. Both are simultaneously to be held in the Real-
ity which transcends their opposition.
Both Aurobindo and Teilhard affirm the transcendent char-

acter of evolution, but in a quite different sense.28 For Teilhard,
the Omega Point is the final term which impels the evolutionary
movement from the start. For Aurobindo, Saccidānanda accounts
for subsequent evolution by its previous involution. For Teilhard,
evolution is a discovery which does not generate its term but for
Aurobindo it is a rediscovery of itself by the original term. Omega
transcends evolution in a double sense. It is neither generated by
it, nor does it generate itself through it. Its transcendence is one of
December 2018 95
Sandeep Jagtap
unconditional distinction. The difference with Aurobindo is this: if

Saccidānanda cannot really be said to be generated by evolution,
since it pre-exists to it, it literally re-generates itself through evo-
lution out of involution. In this sense, Saccidānanda transcends
evolution, but not without being immersed in it. 29
Teilhard’s Omega point is a metaphysical notion as he

equates it with the ‘Prime Mover’ of the Aristotelian tradition. For
Aurobindo, it is a spiritual philosophy. Thus transcendence means
a very different thing in both. With Teilhard man finds himself
transcended by Omega; with Aurobindo man transcends himself
in reaching supramental consciousness.30 Therefore with Teilhard
there is a basic dualism of God and man. With Aurobindo the in-
dividual identifies himself as transcendence, as he also transcends
himself.
God-Omega in Teilhard ontologically transcends man where-

as in Aurobindo man consciously transcends himself in becoming
divine. There is the conscious union of men with God as their
centre in Teilhard. For Aurobindo, individual consciousness stands
at the centre of a union which embraces all reality. For Teilhard,
distinction is the basis of union; and for Aurobindo separation is
overcome by identity. Thus, a complete opposition between the
two cannot be drawn.
1.4. Some Reflections

Having studied Teilhard and Aurobindo with regard to their
conception of the future of evolution, I have come to realize that
both of these stalwarts have something unique to offer to the world.
Aurobindo propagates a law of ‘spiritual evolution’ and Teilhard
advocates a ‘scientific theory of evolution’. For both of them there
is future for evolution. This shows that somewhere both of them
have a very positive outlook regarding evolution. It won’t be an
exaggeration to say that from the Indian side, Aurobindo’s attempt
to bring about “the real Monism, the true Advaita” through the
theory of evolution and involution, is of a unique kind and there
96 Omega
is no parallel to this genius in Indian tradition. When it comes to

Teilhard de Chardin, of course his attempt to make Christianity
compatible with evolution is something praiseworthy. To a large
extent both of them have succeeded in their respective endeavors.
There are lots of similarities that they share with one another and
also at many points they differ from one another. Their similarities
don’t water down their uniqueness and their differences do not put
them in enmity with one another. I am rather wonderstruck by the
manner they have substantiated their positions.
They both possess beauty of their own. They both have dif-
ferent contexts but the same aspiration. By bringing God into evo-
lution they both have made a great impact on the world of science.
They have given a proper direction to the evolution and put it into
the hands of God. Removing God from evolution and making man
the centre of evolution would be a dangerous thing to do. Most of
the atheistic scientists have been doing that. Thus, we run the risk
of directionless evolution. And the directionless evolution cannot
be said to be evolution. It could get us back to regression than
progress as far the future of evolution is concerned. It’s only by
putting God, at the beginning and the endpoint of the evolution that
we can baptize the evolution. This prevents the evolution to go into
ungodly ways.
As far the salient features of the Future Evolution are con-

cerned what both of them have in common are the three character-
istics, namely, collectivism, the individual core and transcendence.
They both vary in conceiving these three characteristics. We have
already dealt with them, while we were elaborately explaining and
comparing them with Teilhard and Aurobindo. What is enlighten-
ing here is the philosophical development of these three features
that both of them conceive differently. In short they stand for the
common quest of the human beings to know their future and a fu-
ture that is with God. This gives rise to the Eschatologism, but that
is not our concern over here.
December 2018 97
Sandeep Jagtap
I am full of praises for Aurobindo for such a marvelous job of

spiritualizing the evolution. In my opinion, arguably as far the sci-
entific nature of evolution is concerned Teilhard stands far superior
to Aurobindo. The beauty of Teilhard is that he is very dynamic in
his perspective. In Aurobindo, the involution of the Absolute in hu-
man leading it towards itself again, somehow gives the impression
of predestination. There is not much a room for human freedom.
Perhaps this must have sprung up from the cyclic worldview of his
philosophy. Whereas when we come to Teilhard, his understand-
ing of the human person itself is very dynamic. According to him,
though the evolution has a teleological nature, the human labour,
scientific research and reflections have been given a room in it.
The problem of evil is scientifically explained as the byproduct of
the evolution. Whereas when we go to Aurobindo we will have to
take the help of religious notions. This is only one example, many
other human phenomena could be scientifically explained by Teil-
hard’s theory and it sounds reasonable also but with Aurobindo,
everything is given the religious flavor. Though he takes human
psychology into consideration yet he loses the grasp of science.
1. Jan Feys, The Philosophy of Evolution in Sri Aurobindo and Teilhard de
Chardin (Calcutta: Firma, K.L. Mukhopadhyay, 1973), p.189.
2. Teilhard de Chardin, the Phenomenon of Man (New York: Harper
and Row, 1959), p. 221.
3. Feys, p.194.
4. Ibid., p. 207.
5. Feys, p.207
6. Teilhard de Chardin de, p. 251.
7. Aurobindo, The Life Divine (Calcutta: Arya Publishing House,
1940), p. 673.
8. Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, p. 244.
9. Feys, p. 209.
98 Omega
10. Ibid.
11. Feys, p.211.
12. Ibid., p.217.
13. Aurobindo, The Life Divine, p. 882.
14. Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, p. 258.
15. Feys, p. 218.
16. Ibid., p. 219.
18. Feys, p. 219.
19. Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pp. 188-189.
20. Feys, p. 220.
22. Feys, p. 221.
23. Ibid., p. 222.
24. Feys, p. 222.
25. Ibid., p. 223.
26. Feys., p. 229.
27. Ibid., p. 230.
28. Ibid., p. 231.
29. Ibid., p. 232.
30. Ibid., p. 234.
December 2018 99
Omega
ISSN 0976 - 0601
XVII (2018)2, 100-112
Space and Time Paradigm Shift and its

Philosophical Implications
- Sathya Balan*
Abstract: The paper aims at showing how the emergence of the new
notions of space and time have revolutionized our worldviews affecting
our approach to certain dimensions of life such as Truth, Religion and
Ethics. The first part of the paper deals with the evolution of the basic
concepts ‘space and time’ from modern to contemporary sciences. The
second part discusses the philosophical implications in the light of
contemporary breakthroughs.
Keywords: Space, Time, Relativity Theory, Quantum Mechanics.
Contemporary sciences, especially the ground-breaking

discoveries of Quantum Mechanics and Einsteinian Theories of
Relativity, illustrate the height of human achievement; however,
they also reveal human limitations in terms of accuracy and human
comprehension itself. Such discoveries force us to believe in the
unimaginable, urging us to transcend the common sense limits of
human rationality and imagination. The reality of nature unrav-
elled by these two branches of contemporary science evokes in us
wonder at the mystery of nature.
* Sathya Balan obtained his Masters in Philosophy from Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth,
Pune.
100 Omega
Space and Time Paradigm Shift and its Philosophical Implications
The different levels of physical realities exposed by these

recent sciences escape our common sense as we are used to seeing
reality ‘in a particular way,’ i.e., in a framework given by Newto-
nian Cosmology; our minds are accustomed to seeing the reality
of nature in that particular way. But newer explorations made by
quantum and relativity science have challenged that framework of
understanding by giving us a new way of perceiving the depth of
reality of nature and enabling us to appropriate a newer cosmol-
ogy. Henceforth, our worldview (Weltanschauung) will never be
the same. This newer way of seeing physical reality has important
philosophical implications in other aspects of our life. It has influ-
enced our worldview in terms of our human quest for Knowledge
and Truth, Religious beliefs, Ethics, etc.
The aim of this work is to show how the significant discov-

eries of Contemporary Sciences, Relativity and Quantum Mechan-
ics, have revolutionized our worldviews affecting our approach to
certain dimensions of our life such as Truth, Religion and Ethics.
The first part of this work deals with the evolution of the basic con-
cepts ‘space and time’ from modern to contemporary sciences; the
second part discusses their philosophical implications.
1 Evolution of the Concepts ‘Space and Time’

“Space and time constitute the bedrock of physical reality.”1
But as we analyse the nature of reality from a Nano-scale to our
world of experience and then to the macro world, newer under-
standings of these two concepts emerge. Space and time were al-
ways the main players; concepts like matter, motion and gravity
were the minor players as they performed their roles in the back-
ground of the concepts of space and time.
Newer scientific discoveries relating to the basic concepts

created a scientific revolution, or, as Thomas Kuhn designates them,
‘paradigm shifts’ in the history of science. The most important and
fascinating ‘paradigm shift’ was the revolution from Newtonian
physics to Contemporary physics (Relativity and Quantum). The
December 2018 101
Sathya Balan
area of study is the same, space and time, but the understanding of
these concepts is radically transformed by the contemporary sci-
ences. Strictly speaking, the way each theory looked at these basic
concepts determined their results.
This part introduces the nature, characteristics and conse-

quences of space and time in Newtonian, then Relativistic and
Quantum Mechanics. The emphasis here is not so much on the
scientific details rather to highlight the paradigm shift from New-
tonian space and time to the positions of contemporary physics.
1.1 Newtonian Space and Time

The basic concepts, such as space, time, mass and motion
were introduced by Aristotle. But for him, space and time were just
concepts of the human mind. They did not have any physical ex-
istence and they did not affect physical reality. Time is the ‘before
and after’ of something and space is the three dimensional aspect
common to all bodies. For Aristotle, physical reality was unchang-
ing; gravitational force was not discovered in his time. It was Sir
Isaac Newton who started scientific investigation in Physics on the
nature of space and time.2 His famous book, Principia Mathemat-
ica (1687), revolutionised our understanding of these concepts re-
sulting in a paradigm shift in our worldview.
Two important characteristics were identified with Newto-

nian space and time. Firstly, unlike Aristotle’s view, they are real
and exist independent of each other and they are infinite. On ana-
lysing further we realise that, “Though space and time are distinct
realities, there are many similarities between them. Just as space
is the container of matter, so time is the container of all motion.
Whereas the basic relation in space is side-by-sidedness, the basic
relation in time is succession.”3 Another important characteristic
of Newtonian space and time is that of homogeneity, i.e., both the
concepts are unaffected in the Universe and they have the same
nature and quality everywhere and always, no matter whatever
happens in the universe.4 This homogeneity of space and time,
102 Omega
which is a passive backdrop, gives the key to understanding other

concepts of simultaneity, mass and motion.
Newton considered simultaneity as a property which is ab-

solute; that is to say the same-ness of here and now is absolute
everywhere and every time in the Universe. And another property
common to Newtonian space and time is that of motion which is
absolute. And the agent of motion is gravity. Further, his interpre-
tation of motion with his famous universal law of Gravitational
Force and his famous laws of Mechanics explained the rules of
motion of material bodies, but all in the passive backdrop of space
and time. Moreover, with regard to the motion of bodies, Newto-
nian mechanics emphasised accuracy and exactness: “The motion
of every body in the Universe is completely determined. Given the
initial conditions of a body and laws of motion, its future states of
motion in space and time can be accurately determined. That is to
say, its position and velocity can be completely calculated. Thus a
rigid system of cause and effect rules over the Universe.”5
It is very important to note that Newtonian mechanics looked

all perfect to our senses and reasoning. It had satisfactory explana-
tions to all our questions and problems about our reality. It worked
so well that the Newtonian mechanics resulted in a cosmology
through which we saw the world as a perfect machine. This kind
of Newtonian cosmology however has serious philosophical im-
plications on certain aspects of our life. These are discussed in the
second part of this work.
1.2 Space and Time in Contemporary Physics

The Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory emerged from
Newtonian mechanics. In the Relativity theory, Newtonian space
and time - which are absolute, infinite and passive - become rela-
tive, finite and dynamic. This is a fascinating paradigm shift in the
history of science. Further, it is stated, “The special Theory of rela-
tivity makes space and time relative to each other, and the general
theory renders space-time relative to mass/energy.”6
December 2018 103
Sathya Balan
The two postulates of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR)

have a completely different outlook towards space and time; they
make them relative to each other. Moreover, space and time are not
to be considered as two independent entities, as in the Newtonian
framework, but they unite as one entity designated ‘spacetime’ -
space is inseparable from time. This is not a mental concept, but
as real as physical objects. That is to say, the spacetime continuum
would remain as a backdrop even if all mass were to be removed
from the universe.
A consequence of this spacetime continuum is that the con-

cept of simultaneity ceases to exist; it is replaced by ‘the relativity
of simultaneity’. It shows that man cannot assume that his subjec-
tive sense of ‘now’ applies to all parts of the universe. For Ein-
stein points out, “every reference body (or coordinate system) has
its own particular time; unless we are told the reference body to
which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a state-
ment of the time of the event.”7 This new notion of understanding,
unravelled by the STR, broke away from Newton’s fundamental
principles.
In the General Theory of Relativity (GTR), Einstein radical-

ly transforms the concept of gravitation. It is no more a force as
Newton thought it to be. It is the warping or curvature of spacetime
in the presence of matter. Hence, gravitation becomes a geometri-
cal property as matter curves the geometry of spacetime: “Matter
tells space to curve, and space tells matter how to move.”8
With the advent Quantum Mechanics, a new era of Science

emerged; a new paradigm shift was heralded. This new scientific
revolution discovered two important realities of nature that chal-
lenged the Newtonian worldview: firstly, the dual nature of light
and secondly, the uncertainty principle. Newtonian space and time
are radically questioned by the Quantum space and time. The me-
chanically fixed and rigid framework of the world is not the way
nature appears to behave at the Nano level. Newtonian cosmology
104 Omega
has to surrender itself to the unfolding of nature at the Nano level

of reality: “Many feel that Newton’s undiscovered ocean of truth is
not found in the distant galaxies but in the subatomic regions. The
exploration of the microworld uncovered a new and fascinating
dimension of the physical universe.” 9
The famous discovery in 1900 by Max Planck signalled the

advent of Quantum Mechanics. His blackbody radiation proved
that radiant energy is emitted, not in a continuous pattern like
waves, but in packets (quanta). From that historical discovery, the
ultimate nature of material reality was investigated. The outcome
of the investigation radically revolutionised our former worldview
that material realities have dualities of nature: “And we can, if
we choose to imagine ourselves living in a universe of waves, a
universe of particles, or as one facetious scientist has phrased it,
universe of ‘wavicles’.”10 The indeterminate or indefinite nature of
material reality (wavicle) has serious philosophical implications.
The Principle of Uncertainty has confronted some of the rig-

id rules of the Newtonian universe of space and time. Heisenberg
stated that it is, in principle, impossible to determine exactly and
simultaneously both the position and momentum of a system. That
is, the more exactly the position of a particle is determined, the
less known is its velocity and momentum and vice versa. That we
cannot make precise measurements heralds a new age of science
which ‘demolishes two pillars of the old Science, causality and de-
terminism.’11 Newtonian mechanics and the resulting cosmology
were rewritten with the Quantum era. A newer understanding of
space and time emerged with this most successful theory of con-
temporary science.
1.3 Some Reflections on Contemporary Scientific Discoveries

Space and time are concepts that are ordinary to everyday
life. But down the centuries, scientific revolutions have taken place
thanks to seeing/interpreting the real nature of these basic concepts
December 2018 105

Sathya Balan
of nature. From virtual concepts of the human mind (Aristotle) to

the absolute passive backdrop of the Universe (Newton) to the rel-
ative and dynamic spacetime continuum – the journey scales some
of the peak moments in the history of science.
In his quest for studying reality, man is somehow content

when apparent explanations were given to satisfy his mind; almost
as if all explanations were made for the convenience of man’s un-
derstanding! Once it satisfied his mind, those explanations, still
based only on some scientific data, got him settled. We tend to
see reality in this framework of convenient explanations. But as
always, there were greater minds that sensed some inconvenienc-
es in accepting those explanations; in the midst of convenient ex-
planations in which they lived, they also sensed (either by ratio-
nal thinking or some intuition) some revelations of nature which
would disturb them to question those ‘convenient’ explanations.
When nature pops up such peculiar characteristics, ordinary and
normal minds may not sense it, or even if they sense it, they would
take it for granted or fix it to those given, convenient explanations.
But great minds, like Einstein, get absorbed by that pecu-

liarity and strive hard to unravel the mystery. Nature also reveals
itself to such ingenious minds who constantly strive to ascertain its
true reality. The result of this effort was the discovery that space
and time are not separate, as it appears to our senses, but are inti-
mately and inseparably connected to form a four-dimensional re-
ality which came to be known as the spacetime continuum: “The
material world as defined above constitutes the whole world of
appearance, but not the whole world of reality.”12 Like the Coper-
nican Revolution which shattered the scientific world, this space-
time continuum has propelled us into a new vision of our world.
The advent of the Quantum Age has thrilled us beyond mea-

sure. The dual nature of light and the uncertainty principle has left
us awe-struck. Even the great Einstein, has said in disbelief about
some of the discoveries of quantum physics: “I cannot believe that
106 Omega
God plays dice with the world.” In the history of Cosmological

studies, it is noted that the originators of science were the pre-So-
cratics. Their starting point was that universe is rational (orderly,
law-governed, predictable, etc.). But the way the quantum world
shows up its ‘cosmic dance’, the rationality of man comes to terms
with the completely different rationality of the cosmos at the nano
level. Quantum physics questions even our common understand-
ing of rationality. We realise that the rationality of the universe
does not fit the ‘sense-imprisoned’13 rationality of human beings:
“Sir Arthur Eddington once observed that any true law of nature is
likely to seem irrational to rational man; hence Planck’s quantum
principle, he thought, is one of the few real natural laws science
has revealed.”14
2 Philosophical Implications of the Contemporary

Breakthroughs in Physics
When scientific discoveries rewrite some of the well-estab-
lished theories, they affect our worldviews. As much as they expose
and unravel the reality of nature, the more profound becomes our
philosophical quest for understanding human life. Man does not
just study nature as an abstract reality or as something exterior to
him. As he is part and parcel of cosmology, scientific revolutions
and the ‘paradigm shifts’ do influence some aspects of human life
such as questions on Truth, God, and Ethics. There could be more
dimensions in our human life but I take these three areas which, in
my opinion, act as pillars on which society stands. This part deals
with certain implications from these three dimensions.
2.1 Epistemological implications

In the light of scientific discoveries based on the uncertain-
ty principle and spacetime continuum, could we say that what I
see with my senses alone is true as established by the Newtonian
common sense world? We are not able to fully sense the spacetime
continuum which permeates each of us. I do not see this spacetime
continuum, but I bear the effect of this ‘as I have matter’ though I
December 2018 107
Sathya Balan
do not see it with my eyes. That is to say, reality is so rich and vast
that I do not see fully what is out there. The indeterminate nature
of material reality and the spacetime continuum clearly point out
the human limitation that we are not able to observe reality as it is
in its fullest sense.
If man is considered as a meaning-making animal, then his

limitation to study the nature of physical reality tells us something
important: can we boast that human beings are the most superior
beings in the universe and only we can grasp the absolute Truth
reality? Our attitude towards seeking Truth (epistemological en-
deavour) needs to be restated in the light of recent scientific dis-
coveries. As meaning-making beings, the contemporary sciences
teach us to be humble in front of the complex reality of nature and
approach the knowledge-making endeavour with humility; in oth-
er words we need to learn to appropriate Truth as a humble child
would. Great minds have shown us that Nature reveals more to its
humble student than to a person with a know-it-all attitude.
2.2 Some Religious Implications

Religious beliefs constitute an important dimension in our
life and further, religious cosmology affects our worldview. How-
ever, such religious cosmology cannot completely overlook scien-
tific cosmology. The dialogue between religion and science could
be promising as their ‘fusion of horizons’ would enrich us.
Firstly, the recent scientific discoveries take us closer to the

Creator (God) more than ever. On studying these scientific the-
ories, we become aware of three kinds of realities in nature: the
macro world, the micro world and the world of our sense experi-
ence. In each realm, the concepts - space, time, mass, motion and
simultaneity – are different and their physical laws acting upon
the material reality are different. It is indeed complex that the ma-
terial reality shifts our understanding from indeterminate to de-
terministic, then to relativistic when we take a bird’s eye view of
the cosmos. We are, indeed, awestruck when we contemplate the
108 Omega
reality of nature unravelled by science at each level (micro-ordi-

nary- macro); so mysterious and unimaginable is this reality that
we cannot but search for that Creative force which has set it up.
That creative force is the Creator, the Almighty, who has fine-tuned
the universe at each level in its own unique way. We could argue
that the more advanced the scientific discoveries, the more com-
pelling it is to seek God, the Creator. It is my opinion that even
atheists also somehow make a remark for or against God on seeing
the reality of nature exposed by contemporary sciences.
The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience
is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science.
He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder
and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is
impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest
wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can
comprehend only in their most primitive forms – this knowledge,
this feeling is at the centre of true religiousness.15
Secondly, the cosmology of contemporary sciences draws us

closer to God, than Newtonian Cosmology. Each scientific revo-
lution reshapes the kind/nature of God we hold on to. Newtonian
Cosmology looked at the world like a clock. As scientific cosmol-
ogy influences our idea of God as well, people would have most
probably felt that God is the perfect know-it-all who efficiently
controls the dynamics of the universe as Newtonian mechanics
would have made us envisage. Yes, it is true; but that cannot be the
complete nature of God. On the contrary, the cosmology of Rela-
tivity and Quantum Theories would give us a new vision of God,
i.e., increasingly complex but harmonious. Because there are vast
complexities in physical reality but yet there is harmony at each
level. The complex and yet harmonious nature of reality strikes a
chord in human beings. I am of the opinion that complexity and
harmony are certain qualities that humans experience in their life;
hence, physical reality, more complex and yet harmonious, would
strike a chord in humans more than the ‘mechanical God’ of the
Newtonian universe.
December 2018 109

Sathya Balan
2.3 Some Ethical Implications

One of the important philosophical implications, for me, in
the realm of Ethics is to give due respect and prominence to the
material reality. Man has somehow for a long time taken himself to
be the centre of the universe and his ethical considerations centre
only around him. The principal reason for this is that he possess-
es a reasoning capacity and therefore he subjugates the material
reality and other beings as merely existing for his benefit or con-
venience. But the contemporary sciences question his reasoning
capacity as they show up the nature of physical reality beyond the
scope of his understanding and reason. Introspectively, man has
to ask himself whether his ‘reasoning’ capacity alone is the mea-
sure of his superiority. Maybe, it is time for man to become aware
of his anthropocentric attitude and replace it with a cosmocentric
worldview. Many ecological and environmental crises arise due
to man’s understanding that the universe is anthropocentric, as if
the universe cannot exist without humans. Just as the concepts of
space and time have become inseparably one reality, as a space-
time continuum, our worldview needs a change from anthropo-
centric to cosmocentric: “It’s a way of viewing universal life and
nature as more than just a backdrop to our lives, but as an integral
part of who we are.”16
Further, along the same line of reflection, our approach and

attitude to material reality and technological advancement needs
further ethical considerations. Somehow, Newtonian Mechanics
and its resulting cosmology have left us with an attitude of domi-
nation. We are part and parcel of physical and material reality and
all are very much interconnected. Though we cannot outdo nature,
our attitude of domination will bring about the downfall of humans
themselves. In the encyclical Laudato Si, Pope Francis clearly in-
dicates this blind pursuit of domination and its adverse effects on
us. He appeals to us to “move towards an ‘ecological conversion’
in which we can listen to the ‘cry of the earth and the cry of the
poor’ (49).”17
110 Omega
Conclusion
‘Nature is the best teacher’ says an old dictum; but science
reinforces this view emphatically by unravelling the mysteries of
nature so effectively. The beauty of the contemporary sciences is
that they did not create new concepts, but they revolutionised our
worldview of the basic concepts (space and time) of our ordinary
experiences and their ‘cosmic dance’ at each level of physical re-
ality. What is still promising and fascinating is that more than 95%
of the universe still remains unexplored. Science has so far studied
only 5% of matter; what is revealed is just the tip of the iceberg
and the still unexplored oceanic universe (68% of dark energy and
27% of dark matter)18 awaits us as a dormant force. When science
continues to march ahead on its mission into the unexplored uni-
verse, the discoveries would still continue to profoundly enrich the
different aspects of our human life.

1. Joseph Mathew, Games Sciences Play: Space and Time in Physics and
Cosmology, OMEGA, XVI (2017) 2, p. 41.
2. Joseph Mathew, ‘Before’ or ‘Beyond’ the Big Bang: The ‘Super-Space-
time’?, OMEGA, XI (2012) 1, p. 143.
3. Ibid.
4. Joseph Mathew, OMEGA, XVI (2017)2, p. 44.
5. Joseph Mathew, OMEGA, XI (2012)1, p. 144.
6. Joseph Mathew, OMEGA, XVI (2017)2, p. 48.
7. Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr Einstein (London: Victor Gollancz
Ltd., 1949), p. 45.
8. Ibid., p. 49.
9. Samuel Richmond Saxena, “Christian Perspective on Atheism and Sci-
ence in the Postmodern World,” OMEGA, XVI (2017) 2, p. 25.
10. Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr Einstein, p. 25.
11. Ibid., p. 28.
December 2018 111

Sathya Balan
12. Sir James Jeans, Physics and Philosophy (Cambridge: The University
Press, 1946), p. 193.
13. A term used by Lincoln Barnett, p. 17.
14. Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr Einstein, p. 19.
15. Ibid., p. 95.
16. https://cosmocentric.wordpress.com/, accessed on 03/09/2018.
17. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-james-martin-sj/10-most-important-
messages-from-laudato-si_b_7612392.html, accessed on 03/09/2018.
18. Job Kozhamthadam, “The Discovery of Gravitational Waves and the Fu-
ture of Religion and Society,” OMEGA, XVI (2017) 1, p. 79.
112 Omega

Omega Vol 17 No 2 December 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Omega Vol 17 No 2 December 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OMEGA

INDIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Published Jointly with

Claims on Fuzzy Logic: A Critique from System Philosophy 23

The ‘Biggest Fixes’ in the Universe: Cosmological Constant

Rewriting the Blueprint of Life:Ethical and Theological

Gender Violence Embedded in Cultural Psychology and

The Future of Evolution in Sri Aurobindo and

Space and Time Paradigm Shift and its Philosophical

The first two papers of this issue of Omega dwells on the

Though not directly related to mathematics, the following

Kamaladevi Kunkolienker looks at the gender violence em-

To return to Gödel, he had stated that his “belief is theistic,

The Internalization of Truth in

Abstract: The paper briefly introduces a few elements of Model Theory

* Carlos E. Vasco is Professor (Emeritus) in mathematics at the National University of

Theories are taken as linguistically articulated strings of dis-

This model-theory opposition involves a very restricted way

The same happens with the word ‘theory’, which is usually

as well unconscious—or at least taken-for-granted—interpretation

Model-Theoretic Proof Scheme—MTPS

Today’s fencing obviously derives from military training and

Preparing or training for a VFM preferably would start with

Then, the VFM would start as a language game of multiple

The match proceeds by rounds of reciprocal critique of the

The MTPS is more a semiotic game of making explicit the

An illustrative example of appealing to the mental models in

Then, the interpretation of point as a tiny round spot or as

A Very Controversial Hidden Assumption

beliefs and assumptions about formally spelled-out laws, axioms

The pious believer of a religion or the official representative

Let us advance a step further into the hidden assumption

Nevertheless, semiotic theories after Peirce, Model Theory

In spite of more than one hundred years of critical exegesis

Nevertheless, religious personalities are not alone in hold-

an axiomatized theory much earlier, right after Non-Euclidean ge-

Some critical physicists began to abandon their certainty af-

Minimal Requirements from Model Theory

A model M is a system that is used by a noetic-semiotic agent

A formal language L consists of a system L = (Sub, Dyn,

All terms t of T are generated by a set GT of single-literal and

All formulas F of F are either basic or atomic formulas or

If t and t’ are terms of the substrate C of L and (_)&(_) is a

If t and t’ are terms of the substrate C of L and (_)R(_) is a

A theory in L T(L) is a sub-system of WFF’s of a language L

Nootroth Conjecture: The meta-theoretic predicates “(_)_is_

The Nootroth conjecture is, of course, not taken as True, but

Corollary: There are no true public theories out there. But

Not all is lost, though. Truth is not a broken vase toppled

In Model Theory, which I learned from—and still follow—

In this paper, we will technically call |—F not a ‘position’

Following Peirce’ theory of signs, extended by Carlo Federi-

An assertive-declarative positive WFF F of a public theory T

Corollary: A monadic or unary predicate (_)P or P(_) that is

Word pairs like ‘subject’, ‘object’ or ‘subject’, ‘predicate’

Let us reinterpret Peirce’s immediate Interpretamen as a par-

A Chomskian-atomic pro-position |—[S(L; N)]P(t) is True-

(i) I am the predicating subject as currently active noetic-se-

(ii) the private mental Representamen corresponding to |—

(iii) in which I can successfully test that tM is a component of

(iv) in which I can successfully test that monadic predicate

M|==[S(L; N)]PM(tM) iff [S(L; N)]PM(tM) holds in M.

The game is to refrain from proclaiming the truth of [S]P(t)