1

〝NextNextNextNext BigBigBigBig QuestionQuestionQuestionQuestion〝－regarding 〝Big Question〝 by Alister McGath:

Crevice between Religion and Science－

Dr. David Carlson(Professor Emeritus, Cheongshim Graduate School of Theology, USA)

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction

The Divine Principle and Unification Thought take the issue of the relationship

between science and religion, especially their seeming “irreconcilability,” very seriously.

This is because science and religion were never meant to be “irreconcilable.” If they are

truly irreconcilable, then the future of the world will be very bleak. Divine Principle and

Unification Thought take the position that it is necessary for these two fields of human

endeavor to “unite” or to be integrated as one holistic worldview. What this means, what

this unity entails, and the implications which follow from it are the themes of this paper.

Among the topics I will address in what follows are: the significance of the two fields of

science and religion, and the impact of their dissonance on human society and human

culture; the problems we face with their relationship and their current interpretations; the

limitations of modern science; the ICUS and its emphasis on those values which can guide

the development of science; the cultural impact of art and values; the need for science to

ask new questions; the mystery of the laws of nature; the end of the “conflict narrative”

as a social construction; the status of Unification Thought as a much-needed

metanarrative; the epistemological importance of maps, stories and levels of reality; the

nature and significance of scientific evidence and the scientific method; and the ontological

great chain of being.

This might seem to be too broad an area to cover in one paper, but they are all actually

inter-related. In light of these various topics, the “next” big question I suggest in this

paper is this: is it amenable or even possible for some notion of God, as understood in

religion, to be a central and integral part of a genuine unity of science and religion? Or is it

necessary to exclude any notion of God in order to achieve this grand synthesis? I will

argue for the former, and in the course of my argument, I will draw attention to the current

and much-needed critique of the “ New Atheism. ” To begin our discussion of this

important issue of the relationship between science and religion, let us take into account

the significance of the two fields of science and religion.

2

TheTheTheThe SignificanceSignificanceSignificanceSignificance ofofofof thethethethe FieldsFieldsFieldsFields ofofofof ScienceScienceScienceScience andandandand ReligionReligionReligionReligion

Both Divine Principle and its philosophical expression, Unification Thought, are clear

about the importance, to human beings, of the fields of science and religion.

“Humanity through religion has followed the path of searching for internal

truth, and through science has followed the path of searching for external

truth. Religion and science, each in their own spheres, have been the

methods of searching for truth in order to conquer ignorance and attain

knowledge.” (1)

What is the importance of attaining knowledge? We seek knowledge in order to

achieve happiness. In light of the search for truth, religion and science both would seem to

be of great importance in the lives of contemporary human beings.

This is, indeed, the case. In order for human beings to attain full or complete

knowledge, religious and scientific, of the universe in which they live, and to live a full and

complete life, achieving happiness in life, they must possess a unitary view which includes

both scientific knowledge and religious (spiritual) knowledge. We are confronted with one

problem, however. As much as our knowledge has developed, science and religion, as they

are understood today, often seem to be incompatible with one another.

TheTheTheThe ProblemProblemProblemProblemWeWeWeWe FaceFaceFaceFace ininininAddressingAddressingAddressingAddressing ScienceScienceScienceScience andandandand ReligionReligionReligionReligion*

“Religion and science, setting out with the mission of dispelling the two

aspects of human ignorance, have seemed in the course of their

development to take positions that were contradictory and irreconcilable.”

(2)

“In the course of their development” and their taking “positions” are important

themes to be explored in considering the relationship between the two human endeavors.

The way in which science and religion have been, and are presently, developing is not

insignificant. Furthermore, they might end up taking positions which seem contradictory.

Later I shall introduce an insight with which one scholar explains away this seeming

discrepancy between the positions of science and religion. His insight I believe is an

accurate and important assessment, and may open the way to actually achieving an

ultimate unity. I will discuss this point shortly.

It is common knowledge that science and religion have many points of difference:

3

their perspectives, their referents, their methodologies, their criteria for truth, and so on.

Science has long held a commanding authority in its realm, with a certain degree of disdain

toward religion. “We have almost come to believe that ‘science’ can explain everything

and do nearly anything.” (3) Religion, on the other hand, of a much longer duration than

science, has often called scientific “discoveries” into question. One need only recall the

church’s attitude toward Galileo. More generally, for example:

“In step with the progress of science, the human intellect has become highly

sophisticated, requiring a scientific approach to understanding reality. The

traditional doctrines of religions, on the other hand, are largely devoid of

scientific explanations. That is to say, the current interpretations of

internal truth and external truth do not agree.” (4)

The present emphasis on things needing to be “scientific” calls into question the

“unscientific” situation in religion. In Unification Thought it is stated:

…traditional religious virtues have lost their power to persuade modern

people, who tend to think scientifically. When the teachings of traditional

religions either contradict science or are unrelated to science, they become

unacceptable to modern people, who tend to place absolute confidence in

science. (5)

This scientific “divide” creates a dilemma for religion, a dilemma which needs to be

resolved. It is true that science and religion “do not agree.” As mentioned, there are many

points of difference. The question is why this is the case, and how it came to be. The

reason for this has much to do with the phrase “current interpretations,” inasmuch as

these interpretations, as we shall see, have become problematic, especially in the light of

our ever-developing understanding. Furthermore,

“ Since not everyone feels an immediate need for religion, only a few

exceptional people attain spiritual knowledge rapidly. For the vast majority,

spiritual growth remains a slow process. We see this from the fact that even

today, with religions widespread throughout the world, people’s spiritual

level is often no better than that of people in ancient times.” (6)

“On the other hand, everyone is familiar with the findings of science, which

have greatly enhanced our knowledge of the physical world. Since science

deals with practical matters, everyone feels a strong need for it. Thus, the

increase in humankind’s knowledge of the physical world has generally been

widespread and rapid. Furthermore, while the objects of religious study are

4

in the intangible, transcendent world of cause, scientific research examines

tangible, material objects in the world of result. Hence, to this day religion

and science remain theoretically irreconcilable… .From this providential

perspective, it is evident that during the course of their development,

religion and science are often at variance, even in conflict.” (7)

To assist me in my discussion, I draw, in part, upon a recent book by Alister McGrath

entitled The Big Question: Why We Can’t Stop Talking About Science, Faith and God. I find

his title very timely and meaningful. It is true: we cannot stop talking about science, faith

and God.

I have discussions with my friends on nearly a weekly basis about these issues. I am

pleased to find this book very relevant to the discussion of the whole issue of science and

religion inasmuch as McGrath seems to me to be taking a substantial theoretical step

forward toward their (eventual) reconciliation. Much in the spirit of this paper, McGrath

asks the leading question: “Science does indeed limit itself to what can be observed. But

does this mean that there is nothing beyond the scientific world?”(8)

This is a very important question, which everyone, especially scholars, needs to take

seriously. I believe it can be answered. My immediate answer to his question: No, it does not

mean that there is nothing beyond the scientific world. In fact, there is much beyond the

scientific world. I will explain in more depth shortly.

AAAA UnityUnityUnityUnity ofofofof WorldviewWorldviewWorldviewWorldview isisisis Needed:Needed:Needed:Needed: thethethethe ViewpointsViewpointsViewpointsViewpoints ofofofof ScienceScienceScienceScience andandandand ReligionReligionReligionReligionNeedNeedNeedNeed totototo BeBeBeBe IntegratedIntegratedIntegratedIntegrated intointointointo OneOneOneOne GrandGrandGrandGrand UnityUnityUnityUnity*

Not only do the viewpoints of science and religion need to be integrated, they need to

be integrated into one “higher” grand unity, a comprehensive worldview which is able to

take into account every conceivable dimension of human thought, feeling and experience. If

there is something, on whatever human level, for which we cannot account, then the

“grand unity” which we seek has not actually been achieved.

If we take a closer look at the concrete reality of human life, as it is played out

through cultural expressions of religion, politics, and the economy, our dilemma becomes

even more acute. Religion, economy and politics are all influenced to some degree by both

science and religion. Divine Principle boldly asserts: “For the paths of religion, politics and

economy to converge and realize God’s ideal, a new expression of truth must emerge

which can completely integrate religion and science.”(9)

5

It might be argued as to what is meant by “God’s ideal,” but, for now, let me just

offer a working definition and say that God’s ideal is a world in which people can be happy,

characterized by the absence of conflict and war. Definitions aside, the point is we need a

new way of seeing things, which might be considered as a new expression of truth.

“ The three aspects of religion, politics and economy have progressed

separately through their own paths of development. How can they come

together at one point? … A fundamental cause of this separate

development was the divergence of religion and science, which are

endeavors to overcome humanity’s spiritual and physical ignorance.” (10)

Science and religion took separate paths largely because of their different

perspectives. If we consider the issue more closely, we can see that the unity of science

and religion is not just a theoretical or academic issue, but an issue connected with very

practical concerns, involving developments in politics and economics, relevant to their

integration.

Clearly, it is not just a matter of academic interest for science and religion to

“unite.” The need to do so is associated with the realization of God’s ideal, that is, the

realization of a completely new culture, a culture of true love. Unification Thought states,

with reference to its Theory of Art: “This theory is for the purpose of contributing to the

creation and establishment of a new culture in the world.”(11)

It is true that science and religion have had a long history of “conflict,” but it might

be just as true that now is the time at which the need for them to be integrated is felt most

intensely, since they are crucial to not just helping human beings live a better life, but for

them to realize the world which was envisioned by God at the beginning of the creation, a

world without war and conflict, not to mention poverty and a plethora of other social

problems.

Otherwise, we may end up destroying ourselves. To speak of “ God ” and the

“beginning of creation” might sound like a thoroughly religious approach, but there can be

little denial that science is needed to provide the practical means of solving all of today’s

problems, including pollution, crime, and weapons designed for war, problems which only

seem to be getting worse.

To solve such problems, science and religion need to address them in a combined

effort, or “ in full consonance,” with each other. Science can provide the technological

expertise, and religion can provide the values which can guide their development. This has

6

much to do with human morality, ethics, and art. Such a united effort in solving problems

would, indeed, be an impressive, and much needed, accomplishment for humanity.

“Eventually, the way of religion and the way of science should be integrated

and their problems resolved in one united undertaking; the two aspects of

truth, internal and external, should develop in full consonance.”(12)

For humankind to completely overcome the two aspects of ignorance and

fully realize the goodness which the original mind desires, at some point in

history there must emerge a new truth which can reconcile religion and

science and resolve their problems in an integrated undertaking. (13)

Thus, beyond sheer academic thought and work, we find the need for a completely

new worldview, here termed “new truth,” to guide us in our search, and with which to

address anew and with a fresh mind, the seeming conflict between science and religion. A

fresh new worldview is needed because there does not seem to exist at present any

worldview which is capable of achieving the lofty goal of the unity of science and religion.

There is another dimension to the issue as well. Before we can unite science and

religion, there is a need for the sciences to achieve some sense of unity. This is also the

case for the religions. They, too, need to achieve some sense of unity. On the side of

science, certainly, it would seem clear that unity is a much-desired achievement, but what

can serve to bring about such unity?

The I.C.U.S. conferences, initiated by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, were an important

step forward in this direction. During those conferences Rev. Moon, proclaimed the need

for a unity of the sciences, but a unity which was to be based upon absolute values. This

proposition based upon values opens the way for the consideration of religion. Yet, here

again, we are faced with the other side of the equation: the “problem” of the various

religions, and the need for religious unity.

Given that religions deal with values of “ultimate concern,” this would seem to be an

even more difficult issue. Is there any chance of achieving a unity of the religions? From

Christianity with its sense of God, to Buddhism with its non-theistic worldview, it would

seem to be nearly impossible. Again, Rev. Moon took the initiative in sponsoring the

Assembly of the World’s Religions, promoting absolutes values. Absolute values, in turn,

are connected with the notion of a “new truth” or “absolute truth.”

A unity of the religions does, indeed, seem to be an even more difficult issue than

that of a unity of the sciences. In our contemporary society, we are confronted with the

7

unmitigated horrors of radical Islamic jihad terrorism, which are being perpetrated by what I

would call the “Cain-type” branch of Islam (as opposed to the “Abel-type” branch. This

is a very important distinction to keep in mind.). The current situation is causing enormous

friction between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.

Another problem is the current race to “nuclearize” being engaged in by many

countries, including Iran and North Korea. One very important reason for the need for

science and religion to be integrated into one grand synthesis is that the future viability of

human culture virtually depends upon their integration.

There are forces at work in our world today which are seeking to destroy our

traditional cultures, and impose their own, one current example being the jihadic

interpretation of Shariah law. It is a stark realization to recall that, in 1958, Rev. Moon

asserted that “when communism falls, its spirit will go into the Arab world and oppose the

West once again.”

This is what we are seeing in radical Islamic jihad terrorism. Another threat is that of

a possible EMP attack. When science develops without the guidance of values (from religion)

technology can be used for destructive purposes. Our very culture is at stake.

As we shall see, the notion of “culture” is very important in Unification Thought.

Divine Principle asserts that religion is the foundation of culture, yet Unification Thought

goes further to assert that art is the essence of culture. Art is not just drawing and

sculpture. Art is very central to human life and the way in which people live and relate to

each other. In Unification Thought, Art and Ethics (family ethics) are intimately connected.

We must consider further the elements of a philosophical theory of art.:

Culture refers to the totality of the various kinds of human activity,

including economy, education, religion, science, and art, among which the

most central is art. In other words, art is the essence of culture. And yet,

art today shows a tendency toward decadence on a global scale, whether in

democratic or Communist nations, or whether in more developed or in less

developed nations. Decadent art generates decadent culture. In such

circumstances, culture cannot but decline in the whole world. (14)

8

WhatWhatWhatWhat NewNewNewNew ViewpointViewpointViewpointViewpoint CanCanCanCan BringBringBringBring AboutAboutAboutAbout thethethethe UnityUnityUnityUnity ofofofof ScienceScienceScienceScience andandandandReligion?Religion?Religion?Religion?

In following the “scientific method,” one first formulates a “theory” and then tests

that theory through some means of experimentation. Insight, illumination, inspiration and

thinking “out of the box,” all can play a part in scientific advancement. In this sense, a

“new truth” is simply a new worldview, a new and fresh way of looking at the world and our

experience of the world. In religion also, a “new way of looking at things” can often serve

to bring people together in unity.

What is it that might be able to bring science and religion together in such an

idealized manner? Beyond simply asserting that a unity of science and religion is needed,

and that this unity depends on the appearance of a new perspective, a new viewpoint,

indeed, a “new truth,” I wish to argue that Unification Thought is the best candidate for

such a viewpoint, and that it can concretely pave the way for the integration of science and

religion.

Unification Thought is a fresh, new point of view. Significantly, it includes a coherent

notion of God, the Original Being, and yet it is a theory which can also be tested against our

experience of reality. This is one of the requirements of science and it is something which

the author of this paper heard reiterated by Dr. Sang Hun Lee on a number of occasions.

There is one necessary step in the process of the confluence of science and religion,

however, and that step is the “ expansion ” of science, and especially of its way of

“seeing” things. It will also require some changes in the attitudes which scientists hold

concerning the reality which they study. Historically, science has continually developed:

“Since the time of the Renaissance there has been a remarkable development in virtually

every aspect of human society. Indeed, the Renaissance “became the driving force for the

construction of the modern world.”(15)

In fact, following the Renaissance “ the two trends in ideology and the course of

economic development following the progress of science caused the later political division

of the world into two blocs: the democratic world and the communist world.”(16)

Here let me offer a few short comments on the role of science in social development,

inasmuch as we are at present looking forward to a “third Industrial Revolution,” which

“will flower by safely tapping the power of the atom; it will construct a pleasant living

environment for the ideal world.”(17)

9

We will be able to accomplish a great deal with enhanced scientific expertise and

ability.

Spiritual and material civilization, built upon religion and science…must be

brought into harmony. Only then can we resolve the fundamental problems

of human life and realize the world of God’s ideal. In the world Christ comes

to realize, science will be highly developed. It will be a society with the

highest level of civilization, one in which all civilizations…will be restored.

(18)

I have no desire to enter into any kind of extended “political” discussion in this

paper, but it is significant to note the importance of the development of science in

historical development. As science develops it undergoes change, it asks new questions, it

investigates new realms, and it seeks new evidence. It does so continuously. One cannot

imagine the “end” of scientific development. At some point we will most likely be able to

understand nearly everything about the entire physical universe. But there is more. The

problem, which I alluded to before, is that:

Until now, scientific research has not embraced the internal world of cause;

it has limited itself to the external world. It has not embraced the world of

essence, but has limited itself to the world of phenomena. However, science

today is entering a new phase. It is compelled to elevate its gaze from the

external and resultant world of phenomena to the internal and causal world

of essence. The scientific world has begun to recognize that science cannot

achieve its ultimate goals without a theoretical explanation of the causal,

spiritual world. (19)

This quest, a theoretical explanation of the causal, spiritual world, is a significant part

of the “next” big question dealt with in this paper. It is incumbent upon science to elevate

its gaze, to expand its perceptions to the point where it can investigate the causal world.

This paper argues that the worldview of Unification Thought is the most promising

candidate for such a theoretical explanation of the world of cause, one which is able to

present a logical, comprehensive, coherent viewpoint, and which most importantly does not

violate either of the two spheres of science and religion.

Unification Thought does not denigrate science, but advocates it. Unification Thought

can even guide science in the sense of showing the paths for future investigations and

offering ideas for experimental designs. Perhaps most importantly, it also offers a

10

framework of absolute values. Especially, science must take into account the increasing

amount of evidence which is coming forth from the religious realm.

Even beyond a sheer unity of science and religion, a new view of value is needed not

only to resonate with science, but to properly guide science, to lead it to new and relevant

realms of research, and to illuminate new paths for investigation, all for the sake of

bettering the lives of humanity, enhancing every culture. Unification Thought states:

This new view of value, first of all, must be able to embrace the fundamental

teachings of all religious and thought systems. It must also be able to

overcome materialism and atheism. Furthermore, it must be able to

embrace and even guide science…Unification Axiology seeks to present

such a view of value. (emphasis added) (20)

In order to reconcile science and religion, a fresh, new perspective is urgently needed.

As mentioned, existing ideologies/worldviews have not been sufficient. A new viewpoint

must emerge. The worldviews of both democracy and communism, for example, as were

just mentioned, are both limited. We need a new perspective which can embrace both and

bring them into unity.

This is why Unification Thought is referred to as “head-wing thought.” I doubt if

many people even understand the implications of such a label. Many of my friends are

antagonistic to “liberalism,” for example. But we can all learn from each other in a genuine

dialogue. We must embrace both the “ right ” and the “ left. ” This is not simply an

intellectual matter, and not just an issue of academic concern.

There is an urgent necessity for their unity. Our world at present is in the grips of

numerous conflicts and tensions. The threat of nuclear war is ever-present, and North

Korea, Iraq and Iran are all tinderboxes, as Rev. Moon sees it:

In the Middle East, one of the world’s tinderboxes, Jews, Christians and

Muslims have found the resources in my philosophy of peace to engage in a

new dimension of dialogue. In past decades my Unification Thought played a

decisive role in ending the Cold War. (21)

Since I have mentioned them repeatedly, and emphasized their importance, let me

explain further about the notions of “new truth,” and “new viewpoint.”

11

NewNewNewNew truth,truth,truth,truth, MoreMoreMoreMore CommonlyCommonlyCommonlyCommonly UnderstoodUnderstoodUnderstoodUnderstood asasasas aaaa NewNewNewNew Understanding,Understanding,Understanding,Understanding, orororor aaaaNewNewNewNew TheoryTheoryTheoryTheory

I have argued that a new point of view is needed for the unity of science and religion

to be realized.

For modern, intellectual people to be enlightened in the truth, there must

appear another textbook of higher and richer content, with a more scientific

method of expression. We call this the new truth. This truth…must be able

to reconcile science and religion as one united undertaking in order to

overcome the internal and external aspects of people’s ignorance. (22)

The challenge we face is this: can this new worldview, Unification Thought, in fact

reconcile science and religion as one united undertaking? Before I go further, I must point

out that, beyond the sheer logic and intellectual force, which come to bear on this issue, we

must address the emotional and axiological needs and desires of the human being, what

McGrath describes as a sense of “wonder. ” The very opening sentence of his book

states” “Most of us know that heart-stopping feeling of awed wonder at the beauty and

majesty of nature.” (23)

These are hardly scientific terms! But, they are very important experiences for

human beings.

I saw the stars that night as I had never seen them before—brilliant, solemn

and still, in the midst of a dark and silent land. I simply cannot express in

words the overwhelming feeling of awe I experienced that night—a sense of

exaltation, amazement and wonder.”(24)

Though I loved science as a young man, I had a sense that it was not

complete. It helped us to understand how things worked. But what did they

“mean.” Science gave me a neat answer to the question of how I came to be

in this world. Yet it seemed unable to answer a deeper question “Why”

was I here? What was the point of life?(25)

Science is wonderful at raising questions. Some can be answered

immediately, some will be answerable in the future through technological

advances, and some will lie beyond its capacity to answer—“questions that

science cannot answer and that no conceivable advance of science would

empower it to answer.(26)

Given this notion that there are some questions which science will never be able to

12

answer, more force is given to the assertion that “there must come a perfect ideology

which can satisfy the desires of the original nature of all people.”(27)

Those desires are not intellectual curiosity, but emotional amazement at the world

around us. To come right to the point, I believe that this “ new truth ” or “ perfect

ideology” is Unification Thought. There are many ways in which this discussion might be

approached, but let me begin with a notion which scientists often reflect on, and that is the

current fascination, on the part of scientists themselves, with the laws of nature.

TheTheTheThe UtterUtterUtterUtterMysteryMysteryMysteryMystery ofofofof NatureNatureNatureNature’’’’ssss LawsLawsLawsLaws

Many scientists, upon reflection, confess that nature’s laws present them with a

fascinating mystery. They continue to ask questions about these laws: what these “laws”

actually are, and why these laws even exist “out there” in the objective world in the first

place. They seem especially fascinated by the question: why do these laws work the way

they do?

They express wonder at the incredible reality that nature’s laws do, in fact, work, and

that the human mind seems to be perfectly endowed with the ability or capacity to be

aware of, and to research and comprehend these laws. Antony Flew states, including a

quote from Stephen Hawking:

The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature, but

that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal and “ tied

together.” Einstein spoke of them as “reason incarnate.” The question we

should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion…many prominent

scientists of the modern era have regarded the laws of nature as thoughts

of the Mind of God…”Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is

just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the

equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”(28)

Interesting questions indeed! Flew goes on to say: “ Everyone who is seriously

engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the

existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our

modest powers must feel humble.”(29)

Flew quotes the statements of a number of scientists, including Paul Davies. Davies

states:

13

[S]cience can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological

worldview.” Nobody asks where the laws of physics come from, but “even

the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith the existence of a

lawlike order in nature that is at least in part incomprehensible to us…It is

“arrant nonsense” to suppose that the laws of physics are our laws and not

nature ’ s. Physicists will not believe that Newton ’ s inverse law of

gravitation is a cultural creation. He holds that the laws of physics “really

exist,” and scientists’ job is to uncover and not invent them. (30)

Flew quotes John Barrow and offers a quote from his Templeton address: “John

Barrow…observes that the unending complexity and exquisite structure of the universe

are governed by a few simple laws that are symmetrical and intelligible. In fact, “there are

mathematical equations, little squiggles on pieces of paper, that tell us how whole universes

behave.(31)” Flew comments that “the laws of nature pose a problem for atheists because

they are a voice of rationality heard through the mechanisms of matter.(32)”

Recently (2017), scholars have marveled over the fact that there seem to be three

realities which present themselves, all perfectly correlated:

1) there is the material universe,

2) there is a system of laws which, “ mysteriously ” enough, can be expressed

mathematically in such a manner as to fit perfectly to that universe (almost as if they were

designed to fit that way, or meant to fit that way), and

3) there is a human consciousness which (again) “mysteriously” enough, has the ability

to both comprehend those laws and that universe and to understand them perfectly. It

seems to be a perfect fit all the way around (almost as if it was all designed by a “Superior

Intelligence”).

Unification Thought addresses this issue very simply: nature’s laws are “out there”

in nature because they are an integral dimension of the Divine nature (God, the Creator or

Original Being), which Divine nature also includes mathematical reasoning, and so God has

endowed all of nature with these laws, through the action or process of the creation of the

universe.(33)

In accordance with the principles and laws of nature that He set up at the beginning

of time, God governs everything in the universe. The laws were “embedded” into the

universe at the very beginning of Creation. “As we marvel at the scientific laws concealed

in the natural world, we can deduce that God, its Creator, truly is the very origin of

science.”(34)

14

To repeat, laws were present in the mind of God from the very beginning. That fact

makes God the origin of science. That is why the laws of nature fit the material universe so

perfectly, and that is also why the human mind has the ability to comprehend those laws,

and many other facts about the universe in which we live.

We human beings are created in the “image of God” and we were intended, by our

Creator, to be able to comprehend such laws, and to research such laws with the aid of

mathematics, in order to understand the universe in which we exist, and to have a loving

dominion over the universe. This is the kind of scientific knowledge which will allow human

beings to understand their world, and to live happily in it.

UnificationUnificationUnificationUnification ThoughtThoughtThoughtThought isisisis CorroboratedCorroboratedCorroboratedCorroborated bybybyby OutsideOutsideOutsideOutside ScholarlyScholarlyScholarlyScholarly Research,Research,Research,Research, ororororIndependentIndependentIndependentIndependent StudiesStudiesStudiesStudies

It is all well and good that Unification Thought itself argues for the unity of religion

and science. It is an elegant worldview in theory. But an “in-house” argument, confined

exclusively to Unification Thought, will not necessarily be persuasive to a wider public who

is not familiar with Unification Thought. It might seem to them as just another religious

philosophy.

That is a fair criticism. Any religion or school of thought probably believes it is the

best. In this light, it is important to note that much the same argument, as is found in

Unification Thought, is being made by outside scholars as well, scholars who are not aware

of the ideas presented by Unification Thought, or concerned about their promotion.

Fortunately, there are scholars who have come to similar conclusions on their own,

based on their own independent study and research. I have mentioned some of these

scientists above, as quoted by Antony Flew. Since their arguments and philosophizing are

made solely on the basis of their objective observation and reflection as scientists, taking

into account all the evidence before them, the assertions of Unification Thought come to

be much more convincing.

It is encouraging that such arguments have been forthcoming. There is a God (Antony

Flew, a philosopher) and The Big Question (Alister McGrath, a scientist) are two recent

books which address the issue of science and religion in some depth, both bringing forth

new insight and fresh considerations. The notable fact for this paper is that both authors

are completely resonant with the philosophical ideas which are laid out so systematically in

Unification Thought.

15

AAAA ParticularParticularParticularParticular ScholarlyScholarlyScholarlyScholarly Viewpoint,Viewpoint,Viewpoint,Viewpoint, andandandand thethethethe EndEndEndEnd ofofofof thethethethe ConflictConflictConflictConflict NarrativeNarrativeNarrativeNarrative(between(between(between(between ReligionReligionReligionReligion andandandand Science)Science)Science)Science)

As noted previously, science needs to broaden its horizons, or elevate its perspective,

in order to take into account the causal world, and not just the resultant world. A large

number of scientists seem to desire such a viewpoint, and their reflections seem to be

moving in that direction. This is a very promising development in science.

It can be noted that a number of scientists who remain within the “purely scientific”

viewpoint are realizing more and more that science has its limitations. George Greenstein,

author of The Symbiotic Universe, makes the following comments:

[I]n some strange and at present mysterious fashion, our universe is

fundamentally a universe of life—a universe that takes life seriously, if you

will. Only when enough people begin to take the idea seriously will further

evidence leap forward as if spontaneously…

If that idea turns out to be correct, it is no exaggeration to say that a major

revolution of thought is in the offing….What is new and incomprehensible

here is that in some extraordinary way … the laws of physics conform

themselves to life…the thought insistently arises that some supernatural

agency—or rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly,

without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the

existence of a Supreme Being? ...I believe that the discoveries of science

are not capable of proving God’s existence—not now, not ever. (35)

It is significant to note that Greenstein is a physicist, and yet his statement rings true.

However, note also that while it is true that the discoveries of science, at their present

stage of research, are not capable of proving God’s existence, as scientists discover more

and more, and as the theories of science develop, the evidence may, indeed, point to or lead

to a worldview that must include a notion God, if our human experience is to be fully

accounted for.

The question remains: can science do so? Well, science can do so, if the scientists who

do the science can do so. Alister McGrath is one such scientist. Educated at Oxford in

quantum mechanics, his scientific credentials are seemingly impeccable. And yet, McGrath

begins his book by noting the “wonder” he experienced when looking up at the stars at

night. This “feeling” prompted him, in time, to elevate or expand his scientific enquiry to a

new dimension, a new way of looking at things, whereby he could account for such an

16

experience. I think we can safely say that some scientists can do so, whereas others

cannot. The difference lies in their differing philosophical persuasions. Let us consider this

further, as we take a look at the New Atheism.

TheTheTheThe ““““ConflictConflictConflictConflict”””” NarrativeNarrativeNarrativeNarrative NeedsNeedsNeedsNeeds totototo BeBeBeBe ReplacedReplacedReplacedReplaced

It is notable that some of those in the scholarly world, who are currently addressing

this problem of religion and science, are actually making considerable headway in bringing

about the resolution of their differences. McGrath is one such scholar. He is the author of

The Big Question: Why We Can’t Stop Talking About Science, Faith and God. Allow me to

add a personal note here.

Once in a while, there comes along a book which seems to be a direct response to my

own current reflections and questioning, serving as a very timely answer to many of the

questions I have on my mind. “The Big Question” is one of those books that seem as

though written in direct response to my questions and concerns.

In his very engaging book, The Big Question, McGrath raises a number of important

issues and discusses them with impressive logic and insight, but still leaves some uncertain

territory. Unification Thought can, I believe, bring fresh insight even to these uncertainties.

Let us begin with the notion of the conflict between the realms of science and religion, the

conflict noted at the start of this essay.

McGrath begins by pointing out that the “science versus religion” narrative is itself,

“stale, outdated and largely discredited.(36)” It is a “social construction.” This says a lot

since we know how much people are influenced by the sociology of science. “If he (the

‘scientist’) says so, it must be true!”

And yet, the ways in which people, even scientists, think, with all their biases,

prejudices and mistakes mixture in, may tend to influence the claimed “objectivity” of

science. McGrath is critical of this “social construction, ” that is, the notion that it is

“science versus religion,” since such a construction has actually served to hinder the

formation of a “map” of reality which can allow us to form a more complete picture of the

reality around us.

This notion of conflict has worked to hinder the progress of bringing science and

religion together. It might almost be said that such a conflict narrative may have hindered

the development of science itself, all religious questions aside. Although asserting that “no

single narrative is adequate to organize and correlate on its own the complexities of human

17

existence and experience, ” the “ great narratives of humanity, ” which he calls

“metanarratives,” can “capture our imaginations and give us a conceptual framework that

helps us make sense of things.”(37)

Given this context Unification Thought would certainly qualify as being a

“metanarrative. ” One might conceivably wonder what McGrath might think about the

perspective offered in Unification Thought (were he to study it).

The science versus religion “narrative” is taken under consideration in Unification

Thought, inasmuch as science and religion are humankind’s efforts to search for external

truth and internal truth, respectively. After the “ fall ” of human beings, these spheres

separated and have remained “seemingly irreconcilable” ever since.

Once these two aspects of truth are once again integrated, however, it can be

expected that the science verses religion narrative can easily be re-phrased as the

“ compatibility of science and religion ” narrative. These are two very different

“narratives,” and their implications could not be more different. Let us consider which of

these two narratives is more convincing, especially taking into consideration the

“sociology of knowledge.”

AAAA MetanarrativeMetanarrativeMetanarrativeMetanarrative whichwhichwhichwhich IncludesIncludesIncludesIncludes thethethethe Long-SoughtLong-SoughtLong-SoughtLong-Sought ““““CompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibility ofofofofScienceScienceScienceScience andandandand ReligionReligionReligionReligion”””” (and(and(and(and NotNotNotNot TheirTheirTheirTheir Conflict)Conflict)Conflict)Conflict)

McGrath effectively undermines the “conflict” narrative as being a false narrative,

socially constructed, which has actually hindered humankind’s search for greater meaning.

Atheist scientists, such as Richard Dawkins and Ralph Hitchens, are (correctly) critiqued as

to their atheistic motives, and with the atheism out of the picture, the way is opened for the

possibility for a new integration of science and religion.

McGrath speaks in terms of ways of understanding which are familiar to most people:

maps, stories, and levels of reality. All of us live our lives based on our “maps” of reality,

and the “stories” by which we live.

McGrath speaks not only of “maps, ” but also “ levels of reality ” and

“stories,” all of which bring home the fact that “ science and faith can

provide us with different yet potentially complementary accounts of human

identity. And we need both if we are to flourish as human beings and lead

meaningful and fulfilled lives… each is part of a bigger picture, and we

impoverish our vision of life if we exclude either—or both.(38)

18

“Reality is so complicated that we need a series of maps to describe it. No single map

is good enough.(39)” This is the kind of attitudinal change which is necessary for scientists

to experience. Science must not, cannot be dogmatic. There is one reality, and science and

religion are seeing the same reality, but they see it through different lenses.

“The ‘conflict narrative’ is essentially a social “construction, invented to

serve the needs and agendas of certain social groups. It is not a timeless

truth we have to accept. It is an historical contingency that can be changed.

We can choose how we see things.”(40)

I find this to be a very promising way of thinking. McGrath offers, in his book, an

“ alternative approach ” which “ allows for an enriched narrative of life which weaves

together facts, values, meaning and purpose.”(41)

When one speaks of facts, values, meaning and purpose, one is speaking a language

very suitable to Unification Thought. In its Theory of Axiology, Unification Thought directly

addresses the questions of fact and value, as well as meaning and purpose. These are

discussed not as isolated thoughts, but as they are seen in the seamless context of a

metanarrative, a metanarrative that includes a notion of a Supreme Being. Value and

meaning were aspects of the experience McGrath had early in his life, and which were

quoted at the beginning of this essay.

McGrath notes that “The ‘conflict’ narrative is a classic example of a way of

thinking that gained traction for cultural, not intellectual, reasons and is sustained by those

with vested interests in ensuring its continued dominance.”(42)

One might almost say that this conflict narrative is a deliberately misleading narrative,

deliberately promulgated to confuse the issue, and certainly designed to confuse and/or

mislead people. Two individuals who take such a stance McGrath identifies as being Richard

Dawkins and Ralph Hitchens.

Those scientists with vested interests include those who promote the “ New

Atheism.(43)” Not every scientist is a true scientist. Scientists need to follow where the

evidence leads them. If one advocates the New Atheism, one is from the start biased

against any kind of spiritual or supernatural dimension being included in the science versus

religion narrative. This is because they likely do not accept even the possibility that there is

a God, or Superior Intelligence, or Designer.

19

But, it seems as if their bias is a losing battle. It does not measure up to the evidence,

which is very important when considering the attainment of knowledge for human beings.

We will consider the notion of evidence shortly. “The ‘warfare’ narrative is falling to

pieces of its own accord, breaking apart under the strain of massive scholarly evidence of

its shortcomings.(44)” “Science is intrinsically neither for nor against religion, any more

than it is for or against politics.(45)”

On the other hand, some scientists are evidently very much against religion and all

that it entails. Let us look more carefully at the true nature of science, according to

McGrath.

Science is about setting rules for exploring reality, not limiting reality to

what can be explored in this way. It does not for one moment mean that

science is committed to some kind of philosophical materialism. Some

materialists argue that the explanatory successes of science imply an

underlying ontological materialism. Yet this is simply one of several ways of

interpreting this approach, and there are others with widespread support

within the scientific community, (46)

As noted previously, science attends to tangible dimensions of this world, and not the

causal world. But this is its methodology. It is not unethical or wrong, it is simply the reality

of the way that science does it ’ s work: “ Science neither denies nor opposes the

supernatural, but ignores the supernatural for methodological reasons.” (Scott) “Science

is a non-theistic, not an anti-theistic, way of engaging reality.”(47)

Methodologically, “science neither denies nor opposes the supernatural,” it simply

ignores it because it is a non-theistic way of engaging reality. This, to me, is a neutral

stance, and a point at which Unification Thought can profitably enter the dialogue and pave

the way to the integration or unification of religion and science. “It is now clear that the

boundaries of ‘science’ and ‘ religion’ are increasingly recognized to be shaped by

historical contingencies.

Their respective territories can be mapped in multiple manners, and are open to

multiple interpretations.(48)” “The ‘warfare of science and religion’ narrative has had its

day. We need to draw a line under this and explore better ways of understanding their

relationship.(49)” I applaud such sentiments. McGrath’s views are very much in accord

with the position of Unification Thought. One of those better ways of understanding the

relationship between science and religion is the philosophical viewpoint of Unification

Thought itself. Antony Flew speaks about those scientists who carry out scientific research,

20

without so much philosophical reflection on the result of their findings.

He argues that it is the role of the philosopher to do such reflection, and to ask

ultimate questions, about the results of scientific research. One better way of

understanding the relationship between science and religion is that expressed in Divine

Principle, and philosophically elaborated to considerable extent in Unification Thought.

Significantly, McGrath goes on to add:

Science and religion are two of the greatest cultural forces in today’s world.

When rightly framed, a mutual conversation can be enriching and elevating

…And that conversation needs to happen. Religion is back in public life and

public debate. Despite all the predictions from armchair philosophers and

media pundits, God has not gone away, nor has interest in the realm of the

‘spiritual’. If anything, it is now the New Atheism that sounds stale and

weary. (50)

McGrath speaks of a new way of “seeing,” and says “both scientific theories and

theological doctrines can be viewed as invitations to see things in a certain way, to imagine

the world in a different manner.(51) ” John Hick, a philosopher of religion, is another

philosopher who promotes the idea of different ways of “ seeing ” in his concepts of

“seeing-as” or “experiencing-as.”(52)

Unification Thought, which “begins with God,” (the opening line of Essentials of

Unification Thought) is certainly a new way of seeing things, and opens the door to

“ imagining the world in a different manner. ” Unification Thought is a worldview which

starts with an intellectual concept of God and develops all its ideas from that viewpoint.

Emotion,Emotion,Emotion,Emotion, andandandand aaaa SenseSenseSenseSense ofofofof AweAweAweAwe andandandand Wonder,Wonder,Wonder,Wonder, andandandand Amazement,Amazement,Amazement,Amazement, areareareare MakingMakingMakingMakingtheirtheirtheirtheirWayWayWayWay Back,Back,Back,Back, EvenEvenEvenEven intointointointo ScienceScienceScienceScience

To achieve the fullest and most real or accurate picture of the place of human beings

in the universe, there is an unavoidable element of passion and emotion involved. People

are fundamentally emotional beings. I quoted, at the start of this essay, some of McGrath’

s “ feelings” as he looked at the stars. Now, as a scientist, he is concerned to find a

metanarrative which is able to account both for his quantum mechanics (science), and for

the sense of awe which he experienced (religion), and which he cannot forget.

A total worldview must be able to account for both. Science is an “objective” field

of study, and the scientific method has traditionally made effort to exclude any input from

21

the researcher, that is, any subjective input, in the belief that such input will inevitably taint

the objective results of the research. That has, up to now, been an axiomatic stance. “In

the quest for the age-long and intrinsic values, such as goodness, beauty, and truth, the

sciences have been concerned mainly with the quest for objective truth.”(53)

But that is certainly not the entire story. In his book, Life and Mind in the Cosmos,

George Greenstein, a physicist, notes that in his research the “fine-tuning” exhibited by

the universe almost seems to point to a Designer Who is behind the universe. He asserts

that, as a physicist, he is methodologically not allowed to bring in the “God concept,” but

still he notes that everything he finds in his research seems to point to that conclusion. It

would be interesting to see what Greenstein ’ s reaction would be were he to study

Unification Thought.

EvidenceEvidenceEvidenceEvidence isisisis ImportantImportantImportantImportant inininin ScienceScienceScienceScience

I have left the discussion of scientific evidence until the end of this essay. Last, but

certainly not least, evidence is what stands to be the deciding factor. Science is concerned

about the evidence. It is based on the evidence. One of the (new) sources of “evidence”

which scientists must begin to take into account is the emotion and feeling of the scientist.

One of the key features of science and the scientific method are their reliance on

evidence. If a theory is supported by the evidence, the veracity of the theory is

strengthened. If a theory is not supported by the evidence, the need arises to modify, or

even change, the theory. This need to modify or change the theory opens our way on the

path to the goal of the unity of religion and science.

This requirement vis-à-vis evidence raises some important questions as to the

nature of knowledge, and the relation between theory, evidence and proof. How can we be

certain that what we “know” is actually “ true” or not? McGrath notes the slippery

understanding of evidence, and cautions us against the notion of “compelling evidence.”

He asserts that the notion of compelling evidence “suggests that evidence is a purely

objective matter and fails to recognize its complicated subjective aspects.”

Unification Thought is in full concurrence with him on this. “A theory was to be

judged against the evidence of observation…and science is on a journey and has not yet

reached its final destination.” In short, theories are highly subject to change, as we gather

more evidence, and as we interpret the evidence in search of the “ big picture ” or

“theory” that “makes the most sense” of our “mass of observations.”(54)

22

McGrath refers to three major points “ of critical importance to any proper

understanding of scientific theorizing.” First, there is the debate about “which theory is

best. ” Next, there is the awareness that “ theories are provisional. ” Finally, “ most

theories have to cope with anomalies.” He notes that “most readers will see that there

are important parallels with religious faith at every point.”

As to the third point, one anomaly he sees is that of the “existence of suffering.(55)”

This is an anomaly which Unification Thought easily deals with, in its clear and logical (albeit

painful) understanding of the meaning and purpose of suffering.

Another issue is the nature of the “criteria” ones uses to determine “that one

given theory is the best.” McGrath notes that “we believe that certain theories are true,

and have good reasons for thinking so-but cannot prove that they are true.” For example,

in defense of Christianity, McGrath notes that “the plausibility of Christianity does not

depend upon a single argument or affirmation but is rooted in an interlocking network of

ideas and themes.”(56)

Antony Flew makes basically the same assertion, with regard to science (and the

sciences): “My concern was not with this or that fact of chemistry or genetics, but with

the fundamental question of what it means for something to be alive and how this relates to

the body of chemical and genetic facts viewed as a whole.”(57)

Thus, religion and philosophy “can aid the sciences by attempting to integrate the

facts and the laws of the various sciences into one consistent whole, and by examining the

assumptions or postulates underlying the various sciences.”(58)

McGrath points out that “ Individual observations of nature do not ‘ prove ’

Christianity to be true; rather Christianity validates itself by its ability to make sense of

these observations. ‘The phenomenon does not prove religion, but religion explains the

phenomenon.” He quotes Chesterton when he says “a good theory—whether scientific or

religious — is to be judged by the amount of illumination it offers and its capacity to

accommodate what we see in the world around us and experience within us.”(59)

Thus, the “best theory” will be the one which explains most clearly the totality of

human experience. If that is an important criterion, then Unification Thought stands ready

to be tested, since it is able to accomplish such an explanation.

McGrath notes that CS Lewis “came to rediscover Christianity, mainly because of

his realization that it made imaginative and rational sense, offering a coherent account of

23

the patterns of history, the subjective experience of individuals and the successes of the

natural sciences.” He asks the important question: “what if there was something beyond

the scope of human reason?”(60)

Unification Thought responds to his question by stating that there is something,

something quite significant, beyond the scope of human reason. That something is God and

the spirit world. “The ability to illuminate reality is an important measure of the reliability of

a theory and an indicator of its truth.”(61)

If Unification Thought is able to “illuminate reality” then it can be considered as a

“true” theory. In fact, this claim, which itself is in accord with scientific methodology, is

made in the system of Unification Thought. The reader is challenged to test the theory

against their experience.

It is in ontology…that we can ascertain whether or not the attributes of

God explained in the theory of the Original Image are actually manifested in

all things and, if so, how they are manifested. If it can be shown that the

attributes of God are universally manifested in all things, then the

truthfulness of the theory of the Original Image becomes ascertained…I will

attempt to show that the achievements of the natural sciences have become

the very bases upon which the theories concerning God can be

validated.(62)

One more recent book I would like to mention is written by a neurosurgeon. The book

is entitled Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife (63), and it is

written by Eben Alexander, a medical doctor. He suffered an injury and went into a coma.

During the time he was in a coma, he had experiences the nature of which he later realized

he could not have had unless there existed something beyond the physical brain of the

human being. His coma-related experience, which he could not deny, led him to believe in

the reality of God.

Thus, philosophers, scientists, doctors, and even neurosurgeons are coming to

expand their vision to include elements of the unseen, including the reality of God. What we

need now is a metanarrative able to take account of all our experiences.

UnificationUnificationUnificationUnification ThoughtThoughtThoughtThought

I have been referring to Unification Thought throughout this paper. Let me now turn

to address some of the relevant concepts directly, and offer my own argument for the

24

integration of the fields of science and religion. This integration is expressed in the concept

of the connected body, and can best be illustrated in a diagram.

The hierarchic structure of the universe, as created, is shown in this diagram, and it

illustrates the paradigm for uniting all the sciences. The basic paradigm is the four position

foundation. Each level of existence is intimately interconnected with both the next lower

and the next higher levels of existence.

That which unites all the sciences together is the fact that the purpose of any level

of being is not sufficient unto itself, but is directed to the fulfillment of the higher levels.

That is an hypothesis that scientists could work with in their labs. They could design

experiments and try and test the theory. At the very least it is pointing them in the proper

direction. There is a foundational paradigm which should also help guide them in their

investigations, and that is the notion of the Original Image.

TheTheTheThe OriginalOriginalOriginalOriginal ImageImageImageImage ofofofof thethethethe OriginalOriginalOriginalOriginal BeingBeingBeingBeing isisisis thethethethe ParadigmParadigmParadigmParadigm DesignDesignDesignDesign forforforfor allallallallExistingExistingExistingExisting BeingsBeingsBeingsBeings inininin thethethethe UniverseUniverseUniverseUniverse

The reason behind such an orderly interconnection throughout all levels of existence

in the universe is that all beings, without exception, take after the Original Image of the

Original Being (God). The Original Image presents us with two structures, inner and outer,

and this pattern is replicated by all existing beings, as just pointed out. These two

structures, and their implications, bear further study, especially by scientists.

Furthermore, all levels of existence are intimately interconnected for a reason. Each

has the purpose of supporting/fulfilling both the lower level of existence and

supporting/preparing for the upper level of existence. These purposes are, of course,

elaborated in the concept of dual purposes, purpose for the individual and purpose for the

whole.

Thus, it can be said that there is a single, unified purpose pervading the entire

universe. Because of this all-encompassing purpose, science, along with mathematics, can

be used effectively in research. The same laws of nature pervade the entire universe. They

are a mathematical expression of the working out of these dual purposes.

As seen in the previous diagram, the laws of the universe originate in the Inner Hyung

Sang of the Original Image (see diagram). Thus, again, God (as expressed in the concept of

the Original Image), exists as the standard and as the origin of the structures and laws of

existence throughout the entire universe. In the diagram, one can observe, theoretically,

25

that all the sciences, as well as the religious experience of the human being are

interconnected in one comprehensive, all-embracing system.

One will find here physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, astronomy,

astrophysics, cosmology, etc. Each level of reality is intimately connected with the levels

above and below, and the purpose of every level is to support that higher level.

McGrath asserts that “no single way of thinking is adequate to explain, on its own,

the meaning of our universe.” He claims that “no single metanarrative is adequate to

organize and correlate on its own the complexities of human existence and experience.”

(64)

I tend to disagree. If one takes Unification Thought as a “metanarrative” then it is

clear that Unification Thought does have the potential to accomplish just this, and

challenges the reader to test the theory (true scientific methodology) against their reality

to see if the evidence justifies its claims. Unification Thought uniformly addresses all realms

of human experience, from nuclear physics to the sense of awe we feel when looking at the

stars. In its view of the dual purposes of all existing beings, it is shown, theoretically, how all

the sciences can be integrated into one system.

This is the true unity of the sciences. Going further, the multi-faceted experience of

the human being, including their religious/spiritual/supernatural experiences, is integrated

with the other parts of the system. Unification Thought may be the very worldview which

many philosophers and religious people, and scientists, have been searching for.

It offers the grand vision, the big picture, the metanarrative, the ultimate story, the

best theory, the most comprehensive map. It is not afraid to address ultimate questions and

boldly presents a “total picture of reality.(65)” Significantly, it includes a coherent theory

of God.

The “ human quest for meaning, ” the search for “ identity, value, purpose and

agency(66)” are fulfilled in Unification Thought. Its viability in nurturing, with an idea of God,

the developing relationship between science and religion is the “next” big question. The

invitation is left open to you: test the theory and see for yourself that it does address every

human need.

26

Footnotes:Footnotes:Footnotes:Footnotes:1. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, Exposition of the Divine Principle, (New

York: HSA-UWC, 1996), 3.

2. Ibid., 6.

3. Titus, Harold M., Living Issues in Philosophy, (New York: American Book Company, 1953), 108.

4. HSA-UWC, Exposition, 6.5. Unification Thought Institute, Essentials of Unification Thought, (Japan: Unification Thought

Institute, 1992), 132.

6. HSA, Exposition, 333-34.7. Ibid., 334.

8. McGrath, Alister, The Big Question: Why We Can’t Stop Talking About Science, Faith and God,(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2015), from the cover flap.

9. HSA, Exposition, 343.10. Ibid.

11. Unification Thought Institute, Essentials, 224. (emphasis mine)12. HSA, Exposition, 3.13. Ibid., 6-7.

14. Unification Thought Institute, Essentials, 223.15. HSA, Exposition, 352.16. Ibid., 364.

17. Ibid., 365.

18. Ibid., 406.

19. Ibid., 3-4.

20. Unification Thought Institute, Essentials, 132.21. Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, Messages of Peace, Korea: Family Federationfor World Peace and Unification, 23.

22. HSA, Exposition, 104-05.23. McGrath, Big Question, 1.24. Ibid.

25. Ibid., 3.

26. Ibid.

27. HSA, Exposition, 376.28. Flew, There Is A God, 96.29. Ibid., 102.

30. Ibid., 107.

31. Ibid., 108-9.

32. Ibid., 111.

27

33. Unification Thought Institute, Essentials, 23-4.34. HSA, Exposition, 10.35. Greenstein, George, The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos, (New York: William

Morrow and Company, Inc.), 27.

36. McGrath, Big Question, 16.37. Ibid., 46.

38. Ibid., 47.

39. Ibid., 42.

40. Ibid., 17.

41. Ibid., 17.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid., 15.

44. Ibid., 18.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid., 19.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid., 20.

49. Ibid.

50. Ibid., 21-22.

51. Ibid., 22.

52. Hick, John, God and the Universe of Faiths, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1973), 37-52.

53. Titus, Living Issues, 107.54. McGrath, Big Question, 51f.55. Ibid., 57-59 passim.

56. Ibid., 67-69.

57. Flew, There Is A God, 90.58. Titus, Living Issues, 303.59. McGrath, Big Question, 69-70.60. Ibid., 70-73.

61. Ibid., 74.

62. Unification Thought Institute, Essentials, 41.63. Alexander, Eben, Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife (New York: Simon

& Schuster Paperbacks,

2012).

64. McGrath, Big Question, 46.65. Ibid., 45.

66. Ibid., 41-42.

28

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences Cited:Cited:Cited:Cited:Alexander, Eben. Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife. New York: Simon &

Schuster Paperbacks, 2012.

Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, Messages of Peace, Korea: Family Federation forWorld Peace and Unification, 2007.

Flew, Antony. There Is A God. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007.

Greenstein, George. The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos. New York: William

Morrow and Company, Inc., 1988.

Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity. Exposition of the Divine Principle.New York: HSA-UWC, 1996.

Hick, John. God and the Universe of Faiths. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1973.

McGrath, Alister. The Big Question: Why We Can’t Stop Talking About Science, Faith and God. NewYork: St. Martin’s Press, 2015.

Titus, Harold M. Living Issues in Philosophy. New York: American Book Company, 1953.

Unification Thought Institute. Essentials of Unification Thought: The Head-Wing Thought. Japan:Unification Thought Institute, 1992.

Unification Thought Institute. New Essentials of Unification Thought. Japan: Unification Thought

Institute, 2005.