Changing Our Worldview for A Sustainable Future and
The Role of Dialogue
Azizan Baharuddin

IntroductionT

his topic deserves serious attention because humanity is in dangerof loosing its future due to unsustainability issues touching upon thesocio-economic, environmental and cultural (values) dimension of life.
The world’s attention was first drawn to the above matter since the1960’s with the discoveries and writings of the American Zoologist,
Rachel Carson, who published her Book Silent Spring1 in 1962. Silent
Spring first alerted the global community to the dangers of applying
science and technology without due regard to its unwanted/unexpected
aspects such as pollution and the changing of man’s values.2
After many studies have been carried out, it is agreed that one of the
proposals/fundamental ways to change the unsustainable condition of
the world towards sustainability is to change human consciousness. The
currently dominant man-centered worldview3 sees nature as a mere vast
‘supermarket’ with infinite resources, and it (nature) only has instru­
mental value. Morally the post Enlightenment over-rationalistic philoso­
phy posits that no real meaning of life exists giving rise to relativism
and nihilism. Today, however, post-modernistic relativism together withextreme capitalism have led to the realization that our scientific enter­
prise is in need of a life-centred outlook. As Rachel Carson had begun toprove, science, technology and development today require an alterna­tive
and a new worldview which will be the basis of values (beliefs based onevidence) for thinking and action that can lead to sustainability in the
aforementioned areas.4 One of the efforts that can lead to such a worldview is what we call/label as empiricising religion or spirituality andspiritualizing science, a project requiring the harmonizing of indige­nous
value systems with scientific thinking. Such an effort could be regarded
as the inevitable response to the Earth Charter’s message which reminds
us that:“We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when40changing our worldview

41

humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasinglyinterdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril andgreat promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midstof a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one
human family and one Earth community with a common destiny.
We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society
founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice,
and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, thepeoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to thegreater community of life, and to future generations.”

The best mechanism for us to declare our responsibility to each otherwould be through dialogues—incultural, interfaith and even interdis­
ciplinary dialogue, as for example between the natural and social-humansciences.
Dialogue is the meeting of hearts and minds in the form ofcooperative and positive interaction between people of different faith,
traditions, spiritual or humanistic beliefs, at the individual or institu­
tional level. Its aim is to derive a common ground in belief and strategy
for common action, through a concentration on similarities between
faiths, understanding of values and commitment to the common good.
Dialogue is communication between people of faith (who agree todisagree on certain issues such as their differences for example); it is theexperience of travelling together and working in projects that are ofmutual importance. To engage in dialogue also means to be able to takeoneself out of one’s own group; seeing oneself as others would see
oneself and seeing the future of humankind as a whole as exemplified
by the Islamic philosophy that Islam stands for rahmatanlilalamin—
blessing for the whole world.

Science and Religion/Humanising Science
Einstein5 once observed “without religion science is lame, without
science religion is blind”, and S. H. Nasr6 explained that the environ­mental crisis is reflective of the spiritual crisis faced by mankind. Afterseveral decades (1960’s–2000’s) such observations finally led to therealization that science and technology are critical effecters of environ­mental, social/cultural and economic dimensions of life. There is a needfor science and technology practitioners (thinkers, producers, users,
consumers, teachers, students, policy-makers) to be aware of their role,and responsibilities in ensuring sustainability for the future. Science and42changing our worldview

technology cannot run away from this responsibility because scienceand technology is part of culture of life. Science and technology practi­
tioners are members of the wider society, and they would/should be thebasic actors for the “Empiricisation of Spirituality and the Spiritualiza­tion of Science (ESSS)” Project.
For science and technology to play its role to the maximum, a shift inworldview and paradigm (holistic instead of mechanistic worldview orlife-centred instead of man-centred) needs to be the basis of Researchand Development (R&D), education, policy and the economic activities
related to science and technology.
Internationally, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cul­
tural Organisation (UNESCO) and other like-minded organizations havecommitted themselves to what is known as the ESTI (Ethics for/in
Science, Technologies and Innovation) program under the commission
For Ethics in Science, Technology and Innovation.7 Through ESTI theinternational community has decided to:1) acknowledge that ethics is to be rooted in philosophicalreflection;2) allow ethics to be embedded in science whilst not thwarting
freedom of inquiry;3) introduce ethics in education (especially science education) andstrengthen the ethical link between scientific advancement andthe cultural, legal and religious contexts of where it occurs.
Scientific support for ethics which eventually led to sustainability being
taken more seriously in the empirical context can also be seen in theemergence of “sustainability science” as a field of study which aims at
providing the concept of sustainability, stronger analytic and scientificunderpinning.8
A broad-based definition of Sustainability Science has been given by
Kieffer as:“The cultivation, integration, and application of knowledge about Earthsystems gained especially from the holistic and historical sciences (suchas geology, ecology, climatology, oceanography) coordinated withknowl­e dge about human interrelationships gained from the social
sciences and humanities, in order to evaluate, mitigate and minimize theconse­q uences, regionally and worldwide, of human impacts onplanetary systems and on societies across the globe and into the future—that is, in order that humans can be knowledgeable Earth stewards.”9changing our worldview

43

In the context of Higher Education, academics and those responsible forshaping the minds (worldviews, values, and aspirations) of future
leaders must ensure the balance between the bottom line and the life of
the mind and spirit (of the students) because if we are not careful, a
university can become undifferentiated from a business corporation
engaged in the delivery and exploitation of research and educational‘products’ including graduates.

In this connection we also have to review and redefine what we meanby progress and development. Both these concepts have to be realized ina holistic way taking care to fulfill the needs of man’s spiritual andphysical needs in a manner that is not injurious to nature (and thisincludes man’s physical and psychological make-up as well). This is animperative that has been highlighted now and recently (June 2012) in
the Rio + 20 Conference10 where it is now propagated that the humanhappiness index of development must take on board the humandimension.

Underlying Unsustainability
As we have mentioned, the man-centred worldview currently dominant
has its roots in the mechanistic-reductionistic approach to the study ofnature. This approach was historically supported by several factors suchas the misrepresentation of God by interpreters of Newton who saw God

44changing our worldview

as a clock-maker for example. As a clock would be wounded up when it
is constructed using a spring mechanism by the clock-maker, so too theuniverse ‘runs on its own’ after God had instituted it in His laws (laws ofgravity, motion, etc). This notion may be useful in imagining how God‘runs’ the world that He creates, to a certain degree but, it sidelines theprovidentiality of God in his creation and who provides guidelines
through His revelations to man whom He expects to be ethical in using
nature for his needs. Such a mechanistic outlook finally led to the viewthat nature is nothing more than a machine, as expressed by Laplace(1749–1827) who thought that since science can potentially tell us
everything that we need to know, God was deemed as no longer
important.11 This expectation was based on the Pre-Eisteinian and
Newtonian science which saw the character­stics of matter and motion to
be the same under all or any condition.
However, when the new relativistic paradigm arrived on the scene at
the end of the 19th Century and early in the 20th Century with
Einsteins’ revolutionary E = mc2 formula, a new space for under­standing
another dimension of reality was created. In this new post­-Einsteinianview of reality, even emotions are, or can be, understood/traced to beenergy forms that can change physical realities. With this also came therealization that religion and spirituality may have interpretations thathave been side-lined before. To put it in simple words, and as explainedby the famous English Mathematician—philoso­pher, Alfred North
Whitehead, today it is increasingly realized that the future of mankind
depends on the relationship between science and religion, between
knowledge and ethics.12

Change of Worldview
In the 20th century, physics has gone through several conceptual
revolutions that clearly revealed the limitations of the mechanistic
worldview and this led to an organic, ecological worldview of theworld to be favoured instead. Reality is fluid and is open to the influenceof human intention as explained by the new field of psychokinesis basedon the theory of intention/intentionality which is related to what iscalled the noetic sciences. Intention is a purposeful plan to perform anaction which leads to desired outcomes. Its about time that we realizethat the universe is not a machine with a multitude of separate objects,
that appears as a harmonious indivisible whole but it is actually a
network of dynamic relationships that include the human observerand his consciousness in an essential way, and this process should begin

changing our worldview

45with us changing our MCW to the LCW.
Significant effects of the mechanistic-reductionistic outlook included
the compartmentalisation of knowledge, the separation between scienceand religion as mentioned, which meant the peripherali­sation of values,
meanings, purposes as well as the importance of the demarcation of‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ that affect all areas of life through the currently
dominating man-centered worldview (MCW). T. Miller explains thisworldview as being the most dominant in industrial societies of today.13
Known also as the “planetary management world­view”, and prominent
in the last 100 years, this worldview among others sees man as the mostdominant species who can and should manage the planet for his benefit
alone. Other species have instrumental value only man being the mostimportant species who exists apart from nature instead of understand­ing that he is actually a part of nature. In terms of resources the MCW
believes that there will always be more and it is all for us. The MCW
also sees that all forms of economic growth is good and a healthy
environment depends on a healthy economy. A summary of the values/
principles of this worldview is given below:

Man-Centered Worldview (MCW)a) We are the planet’s most important species, we live apart fromand are in charge of nature.
b) There is always more (resources) and it’s all for us.
c) All forms of economic growth is good.
d) A healthy environment depends on a healthy economy.
e) Our success depends on how well we can understand, control
and manage the planet for our benefit.
f) Other species have instrumental value only.
g) As the most dominant species, man can and should manage
planet for his benefit alone.
The MCW is also known as, as already mentioned the ‘planetary
management worldview’ and it has been the most dominant in the last
70 years. Opposing this view is the ecologically informed world-view
called the Life-Centred (LCW). Some of its principles include thefollowing:

Life-Centered Worldview (LCW): Working with the Planeta) Nature exists for all of earth’s species.
b) There will not always be more and not all resources are for us.

46changing our worldviewc) Some forms of economic growth are beneficial, some harmful.
d) A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment.
e) Our success depends on learning to cooperate with one anotherand with the rest of nature.
f) Other species have a right to exist regardless of whether they
have/do not have commercial/instrumental value.
g) Man may be the most important species in terms of him having
reason, but he is also a moral-ethical being and his ethics should
be extended to other species as well.
The LCW is closer to reality and it is in harmony with many spirituallybased, empirically verifiable belief systems of many western as well as
non-western societies in the world.
From the above discussion, and from the list above what can beconcluded is that we need a change of worldview in the world, from anover materialistic, man-centered philosophy to a life-centered one. The
tenableness/reasonableness of the LCW can be justified through the fieldof ecology and environmental science.
This outlook has been illustrated by Miller in his efforts to put
forward the new ‘sustainable’ worldview in the last three decades.14 The
increasing success of this new worldview is shown perhaps by the factthat his book “Living in the Environment” has been through, 17 edi­tions, the latest being in 2012. From the religious perspective or theperspective of those whose indigenous philosopies such as the Islamic
and Buddhistic principles for living in harmony with the environment,
the LCW principles are already inherent in their sacred texts andteachings. However, the actual practices of their followers may not
match the environmental/sustainability ideals spoken by the sacred texts.
Why this is so is perhaps because of the lack of ‘context’ when thereligious principles are being taught. This is one of the importantarguments for empiricising religion or spirituality. Likewise, imbuing
scientific training with a sense of respect, awe, humility and responsi­
bility (ethics) towards nature would go a long way in spiritualiz­ing
science. Therefore, here we see the need for the spiritually motivated, tobe acquainted with the LCW and the scientific evidence that lie behind
the worldview. Indirectly, in so doing, we can persuade the religious
communities to become environmentally ‘aware’ and change theirhabits. Because it is scientifically based, the LCW should be seen as animportant topic for Interfaith Dialogue for example.

changing our worldview

47

Implementations/Efforts towards Sustainability via a
Humanised Science
To begin with, we may ask the question of why science & technology
and ethics are said to be not expanding together. The popular public
perception seems to be that science and technology are either value freeor are at least value neutral, devoid of any distinctive attitudes save thescientific attitude. By definition, value means material or monetary
worth of something; desirability of things or what we hold clear. Thereis generally a confusion about facts and values because it is thought that
there is no relation between them.
Such a confusion also reflects disagreements regarding the nature oftruth and the pathways to knowledge especially the ‘religious path­ways’. In reality, the religious moral tradition is grounded in reason as
well as revelation, and great religious traditions possess a rich body ofwise reflection.15 The power of science must be used wisely, courageous­ly and humbly.16 The question is not about how fast we can run (to catch
up with technology) but do we want to, to begin with.17
To move towards sustainability, major shifts are required in terms ofour beliefs (values), culture, economy, relationships and attitude. These
shift/s will translate into fundamental change in policy priorities(including educational, science and technology research) production andconsumption pattern and lifestyles. Such a scenario could perhaps be
shown by the illustration, next page:The illustration shows how policy-makers, scientists and consumers
must work together whilst applying the paradigm (worldview) shifts thathave been talked about.18 Hopefully, this change would lead to sustain­
ability which requires as we have explained a multidisciplinary app­roach especially harmonizing the natural sciences, social sciences andhumanities. The notion of sustainability is sometimes reduced to ‘long
lasting,’ ‘endurance’ and/or ‘continuity.’ What is important is that endur­
ance is possible only if sustaining factors are in place. Such factors
include the:a) Physical—energy and resources are used in a sustainable
manner.
b) Economic systems—non-polluting, ensuring justice.
c) Social—legal, political conflicts and wars are avoided.
d) Cultural—ideas, values, ideologies (beliefs/worldviews) should
lead to stewardship towards the environment.
As we have discussed also in the last ten years, we can witness the
emergence of sustainability science which requires a holistic approach.

48

changing our worldview

Adapted from G.T. Miller (2000) chpt. On Ethics

In line with this development, we see currently the rise of trans­
disciplinarity which reflects holistic human development which iselaborated by a revived science of self-development which draws on
many disciplines for an integrated view of human development. One of
the earliest groups to work in this field was the Harvard Sustainability
Science Programme 20.19
An illustration in the Islamic context for encouraging ESTI as well asa change of worldviews among Muslim scientists is an Islamicframework elaborated by Ziauddin Sardar in his book The Touch of
Midas.20 Sardar builds his framework on the writings of al Ghazali(d.1111) the famous Muslim theologian who expoused the following
principles as the basis of Islamic ethics:— Tawhid (Unity)—scientific knowledge must be utilized intandem with ethics.
— Khilafah (Stewardship)—humans are stewards of the environ­ment.
— Ibadah (Service)—science and technology must be utilised, firstand foremost to serve humankind.
— Ilm (Knowledge)—knowledge is essential for human survival,
Muslims must master science and technology.
— Halal (Good, Praiseworth)—science and technology that is good
are halal.
— Haram (Not Good, Harmful)—science and technology that arechanging our worldview

49

harmful is haram.
Adl (Justice)—science and technology must not cause social
injustices.
— Zulm (Injustice, Tyranny)—a zulm science is one that cause
injustices.
— Dhiya (Wasteful)—science and technology must not encourage
wasting.
— Istislah (Public Interest)—science and technology development
must consider public interest.
Likewise, from the perspectives of other religions such as Buddhism and
Hinduism we can learn wisdom and guidelines vis-à-vis the use ofknowledge, especially in science and technology.21—

The Importance of Dialogue
Finally, as espoused by the Earth Charter, a pluralistic world requires
indigenous cultures to not only find/relive what is the best within theirtraditions but they need also to sit together to find common values thatcan be promoted for the sake of sustainability for all. They should be
inspired by thinkers such as Stephen Toulmin who says that for a varietyof reasons, the time has come to attempt the construction of a unified
world-view—one that relates to both the natural world and to nature’stranscendent ground.22 Thinking in a similar vein Alvin Toffler observedthat there is no doubt that the rapid process of globalization taking place
as a result of technology will not lend to sustainability if it is notaccompanied by a movement of global ethics at an equally rapid pace.23
Finally, dialogue needs quickly to be institutionalized as themechanism for promoting sustainability. Alongside interdisciplinary
dialogues under Sustainability Science, another important form of
dialogue that can enhance the critical needs for a LCW is interfaithdialogue.
Notes
Rachel Carson (1962), Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin, New York.
Robert E. McGinn (1990), Science, Technology and Society, Pearson, Portland.
3
See G. Tyler Miller Jr. and Scott Spoolman (2011), Living in the Environment:
Principles, Connections, and Solutions, Cengage Learning, Chapter 1.
4
See Fritjof Capra (1991), The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels
Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, Shambhala Pubs. Berkeley.
5
See for example, Max Jammer (2002), Einstein and Religion: Physics and
Theology, Princeton University Press.
6
S. H. Nasr is a famous Muslim writer (Geologist, Philosopher, Historian of Sci­
1
2

50

changing our worldviewence), Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man (1968).
7
COMEST (The World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge andTechnology) www.unesco.org/new/en/social-ang-human sciences/.../comest/
8
Ibid.
9
Kieffer, S. W. Barton, P., Palmer, A. R., Reitan, P.H. & Zen, E. (2003), Mega-scale
events: Natural disasters and human behavior, Geol. Soc. America, Abstracts with
programs: 432.
10
Heywood, S. and Oria, R (eds) (2012), An Introduction to Sustainable Human
Development (p. 25) http://rio plus20education.info/…
11
P. S. Laplace (1902), A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities, A reprint of thisbook was done by J. Wiley, New York in 2010. Laplace said “We may regard the present
state of the universe as the effect of the past and the cause of the future. An intellectwhich at any given moment knew all of the forces that animate nature and mutual
positions of the beings that compose it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit thedata to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest
bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom; for such an intellect nothing could
be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.”
12
See J. H. Brooke (1991, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives,
Cambridge University Press, Chapter 1.
13
See G. Tyler Miller Jr. and Scott Spoolman (2011), Living The Environment:
Principles, Connections, and Solutions, Cengage Learning.
14
See G. Tyler Miller Jr. and Scott Spoolman (2011), Living The Environment:
Principles, Connections, and Solutions, Cengage Learning, Chapter 1.
15
Jonathan W. Mills (2007), Ethically Challenged: Big Questions for Science,
Meigunyah Press
16
Margaret Somerville, Professor of Law, Faculty of Medicine, Founding Director ofCenter for Medicine, Ethics and Law, McGill University, Montreal.
17
Daniel Bell (2001), The Future of Technology, Pelanduk Publications Malaysia
Sdn Bhd.
18
Illustration adapted from G. Tyler Miller Jr. and Scott Spoolman (2011), Living The
Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions, Cengage Learning, Chapter 1.
19
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/sustsci
20
Z. Sardar (1984), The Touch of Midas, Manchester University Press.
21
See for example, John McKenzie (2012), Hindu Ethics, A Historical and Critical
Essay, Oxford University Press.
22
S. Toulmin (1982), The Return to Cosmology: Post-Modern Science and the
Theology of Nature, Berkeley, University of California Press.
23
Alvin Toffler (1980), The Third Wave, Bantam Books, New York.
References
1. Rachel Carson (1962), Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin, New York.
2. Robert E. McGinn (1990), Science, Technology and Society, Pearson, Portland.
3. G. Tyler Miller Jr. and Scott Spoolman (2011), Living in the Environment:
Principles, Connections, and Solutions, Cengage Learning.
4. Fritjof Capra (1991), The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels
Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. Shambhala Publications
Berkeley.

changing our worldview

51

5. Max Jammer (2002), Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology, Princeton
University Press.
6. S. H. Nasr, Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man (1968).
7. COMEST (The World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge andTechnology) www.unesco.org/new/en/social-ang-human sciences/.../comest/
8. Kieffer, S. W. Barton, P., Palmer, A. R., Reitan, P. H. & Zen, E. (2003), Mega-scale
events: Natural disasters and human behavior, Geol. Soc. America, Abstracts
with programs: 432.
9. Heywood, S. and Oria, R (eds) (2012), An Introduction to Sustainable Human
Development http://rio plus20education.info/…
10. P. S. Laplace (1902), A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities, A reprint of thisbook was done by J. Wiley, New York in 2010.
11. J. H. Brooke (1991), Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives,
Cambridge University Press.
12. Jonathan W. Mills (2007), Ethically Challenged: Big Questions for Science,
Meigunyah Press.
13. Daniel Bell (2001), The Future of Technology, Pelanduk Publications Malaysia
Sdn. Bhd.
14. Z. Sardar (1984), The Touch of Midas, Manchester University Press.
15. John McKenzie (2012), Hindu Ethics, A Historical and Critical Essay, Oxford
University Press.
16. S. Toulmin (1982), The Return to Cosmology: Post-Modern Science and the
Theology of Nature, Berkeley, University of California Press.
17. Alvin Toffler (1980), The Third Wave, Bantam Books, New York.