![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.jackhaas.net\/astronomy-NASA-hubble-space-picture-heaven-merope2.jpg\")
<\/a>Ward returns to process philosophy as an approach to theological thought that avoids the notion of a God external to the universe intervening in its otherwise closed system. Yet one option that Ward does not consider is that, just as the notion of emergent properties is so important in avoiding reductionism, might it not be appropriate to envisage God in such terms, not as a supernatural substance or entity that pre-exists the universe, but as the \u201csoul\u201d of the universe? Just as many find it necessary to reinterpret the meaning of such language as \u201csoul\u201d and \u201cmind\u201d as emergent from physical organisms but nonetheless emphatically real<\/em>, might it not be helpful to envisage God in similar terms<\/a>, not as outside the universe or in the space between its physical components, but as emerging from the relationship among and between the universe\u2019s complexities? What holds Ward back is his sense that one needs an initial mind to provide the matrix for the universe\u2019s regularities (p.259). Ultimately, I find such metaphors helpful as well, and since none of this language is literal description, there is no need for me to quarrel between the two sets of symbols, although Ward, having acknowledged that we do not know what the most fundamental nature of physical reality is, seems determined to go beyond the evidence in asserting that \u201cOntological primacy must be given to consciousness and its contents\u201d (p.259). Consciousnesses remains something of a mystery, but this need not lead us to deny the possibility of its explanation in terms of emergent properties.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.immediart.com\/catalog\/images\/bigger_images\/SPL_R_R104101-Amateur_astronomy-SPL.jpg\")
<\/a>Ward acknowledges that he can only offer \u201can inconclusive conclusion\u201d (p.269). But he does make some very important points on the final pages of his book. First, \u201cThe major philosophers of most world faiths\u2026stress the unknowability of the Diving Essence, as the infinite reality underlying all the appearances of finite worlds. This is not some modern revisionist idea of God. It is the classical idea, which is as far from any anthropomorphic conception as you could get\u201d (p.269). Second, he emphasizes that an individual\u2019s personal religious experience cannot be independently verified by another person, and thus, while arguments from personal experience will not necessarily be considered convincing, this is not a matter that science can settle (p.270). Finally, science cannot test for intention, purpose, and meaning, and neither are such things incompatible with science. Ultimately, Ward \u201cends\u201d in an open-ended fashion, stating that the question of whether the world cries out to be explained entirely in materialistic terms, or points beyond itself to a Primordial Consciousness as source and ground of all things, \u201cremains the biggest question of all\u201d (p.271).<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-2720445391082211719?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"