Abstract

This dissertation examines the process ontology created by Alfred North Whitehead and his subsequent interpreters in terms of how it relates science and religion. Ian Barbour's four ways of relating science and religion are outlined. Process philosophy is shown to exemplify Barbour's "systematic synthesis" approach, which seeks to unify science and religion within a comprehensive conceptual scheme. ;To establish a historical basis upon which to examine the effects of the systematic synthesis approach on religion, the development of Newtonian physics is studied. The use of classical physics to undergird religion is shown to have ultimately had the unintended effect of undermining religion. ;The development of the new physics is then outlined. Whitehead's thorough familiarity with this scientific paradigm is demonstrated. The impact of the new physics on Whitehead's metaphysics is examined. Features of process theology that are derived from the process ontology's basis in modern physics are surveyed. ;Conflicts between the new physics and process thought are explored. Responses process thinkers have made to these conflicts are surveyed. The importance process thinkers confer to the effort of maintaining harmony between their system and science is demonstrated. The danger science's progressive nature poses to the effort of maintaining such a synthesis is also considered. ;This dissertation concludes that both present and potential conflicts with science pose a serious threat to the viability of the process ontology. It is suggested that process thinkers recognize the changeable nature of science, and accordingly refuse to make the science of any era legislative for their ontology. The "dialogue" approach, which encourages science and religion to inform one another by examining the indirect interactions between the two fields, is recommended as a model for relating science and the process ontology. Taking this approach would free process thinkers from vulnerability to future scientific progress, and abandon Whitehead's mistaken effort to support religion by synthesizing it with a specific scientific theory. ;Whitehead's works are the primary sources for this dissertation. Frequent references are also made to the writings of Charles Hartshorne. The extensive body of secondary literature that has developed in response to these writings is also used