Printer Friendly

Religion and science conversion possibility: towards the formulation of a systematic theodicy of African traditional religion and its reinterpretation of empirical cosmology.


Science and religion are often portrayed in the Western epistemology as two irreconcilable fields; the latter is anchored in dogmatism, while the former builds on a methodical rationality. Hence, no bridging solution seems to be possible "except by abandoning either the clear teaching of science or the clear teaching of religion" (Whitehead 1925: 182). But how does the situation appear when seen from an African epistemology?

In this regard, Mudiji Malamba Gilombe (1988: 88) affirms that: "One of the most prominent features of the Black-African humanism is that it bathes completely in sacredness." And seen in the context of scientific lore, this view implies the possibility of a meeting between science and religion with respect to an African worldview. In this article I show that the Kongo religion can be formulated in a way that allows for a meeting of science and religion in their approach to knowledge and in their conclusions about the movements and stabilities of bodies of the temporal universe at the astronomic and subatomic levels, thus confirming that the conflict between science and religion in the Western episteme is the result of an epistemological choice.

The Problematic

The notion of the divinity is central to the traditional African holistic perception of the universe. Emphasizing this holism, Mabika Nkata (2000: 9) affirms that for the African "the use of the term cosmos is a conceptual blunder because the African culture does not conceive a universe separated from God".

In this article, capitalizing on this centrality of the notion of the divinity, I postulate the hypothesis of the possibility of the unity of science and religion as far as African holistic epistemology is concerned. In other words: a rational formulation of an African traditional religion which should lead to the possibility of a formulation of its convergence with a scientific perception of the universe.

To prove this hypothesis I propose a three steps approach. First, the formulation of a rational systematic theodicy through the means of a cosmological argument; this will be the establishment of the "belief that God exists"; however this is not sufficient without the "belief in God"; because it lacks the realism and the praxis which are required by the African epistemology. Therefore I will demonstrate the convergence of my systematic theodicy with an African traditional religion, with an African "belief in God", to provide proof of the existence of a logical African theology. Second, I will demonstrate the convergence of this systematic theodicy with modern science in the perception of an expanding universe, which is the base of the big bang cosmology, to provide proof of the possible unity of scientific observations and Black African religion. And third, this approach having led me to a logical formulation of a traditional African religion and its convergence with modern cosmology, it will confirm that the conflict between science and religion in the Western thought is the result of an epistemological choice in which soul was gradually denied the central role in the search for truth, a role it played in the African epistemology.

A Facto-Deductive Approach to Scientific Truth

If religion and science have to meet, the most plausible option is that religious truth has to be formulated in a non-dogmatic way. It is obvious that no religious truth can be wholly formulated in an experimental way, inasmuch as the religious field is the field par excellence of the revelatory origin of truth; but science is not always about experimentation. Formal sciences, like Euclidean geometry, have a conceptual object while they use the hypothetic-deductive method to arrive at their conclusions. Thus the question is: can the religious truth be formulated in the mode of the formal sciences? Here also the answer is no, because having to deal with reality, religion claims a strong metaphysical realism; thus it cannot be cornered in the realm of ideas. Hence, the way may then seem to be blocked for any formulation of the religious truth in a way that can allow its logical and natural meeting with science.

The epistemological view alluded above is the classification of sciences into empirical and formal. The former having an empirical object and following the experimental method, while the later having a conceptual object and obeying to the hypothetic-deductive method (Sagaut 2008: 26). My purpose here is to formulate a religious truth that will start from an empirical observation and follow a deductive method; hence a third kind of scientific mode that I will call the facto-deductive approach. Once such a religious truth is formulated in this scientific way, I will show how it can meet with modern scientific observations. But since a religious truth must be practical, I will also demonstrate the praxis of this religious view by drawing its similarity with Kongo religion.

If theology is to be conceived in a non-dogmatic way, it must rely solely on logic and avoid advancing any argument by relying entirely on revelation for its validity, thus, only natural theology can allow such a feat.

From Aristotle to the modern scientists, Christian and Muslim theologians and philosophers have tried to use natural theology to establish the existence of a first cause of this universe; but they have always failed or refrained to go higher than this achievement. Their failure or reluctance to demonstrate more with natural theology can be understood in that such a move could jeopardize the validity of the sacred texts monopoly of the religious truth.

On a practical level, the philosophy of religion has always felt the need to use the cosmological argument in tandem with the design argument to gain efficiency, because the first establishes the existence of a first cause of the universe, while the second demonstrates its nature. I will not resort to this stratagem because the cosmological argument is the best way of establishing scientifically the existence and the nature of the first cause of the universe, and therefore, it is the most logical way to establish rationally a systematic religious truth.

Cosmological Argument: Empirical Base and Method

As said above, this cosmological argument starts from an observable fact and builds from this empirical base through the deductive use of the law of causality and the law of the impossibility of infinite regression from effect to cause. Thus, its starting point is the empirical existence of individualities and particular circumstances in our universe.

The individuality of each one of us is a provable observable fact without which daily existence is inconceivable. Today genetics has shown that even identical twins have individualities that are very distinct from each other (difference at the level of DNA). The existence of individualities entails the existence of particular circumstances, at least those that are related to these individualities, thus it is an empirical fact that our universe is made of individual entities and particular circumstances.

Hence, let's call A the aggregate of all entities in our world, [A.sub.1] is an aggregate of individual beings and particulars circumstances, therefore [A.sub.1] must be itself an individual entity. The possession of a particular individuality by [A.sub.1] necessitates an explanation; therefore the individuality of our universe is a contingency. Second, let's call [C.sub.1] the cause of [A.sub.1]; [C.sub.1] must be an individual entity, because it is identified with an individual universe, moreover [C.sub.1] must be a necessary being, otherwise its own individuality will need to be explained and an infinite regress of causation is impossible. And since [A.sub.1] is an individual universe, there are other universes A2, [A.sub.3], [A.sub.4] ... that exist at least potentially, and to be accounted for the cause of the exhaustive multiverse, [C.sub.1] must be the cause of all potential and manifest universes [A.sub.1] [A.sub.2], [A.sub.3], [A.sub.3] ... , or [C.sub.1] must be only one of the individual necessary causes.

[C.sub.1] is one of the individual necessary causes: a single individual necessary being [C.sub.1] can't exhaust all the possibilities of necessary infinity, because it can be accounted only for the causation of [A.sub.1], therefore there must be other necessary beings to account for the causation of the actual or potential universes [A.sub.2], [A.sub.3], [A.sub.4] ... and these other necessary entities must be different from [C.sub.1] according to my hypothesis. And continuing, we can call G an individual necessary being which includes the sum total of all the individualities of the necessary entities C, hence G is infinite in the quantity of individualities it includes, but also in the quality of its individuality, thus it is absolutely infinite; therefore G must be the ultimate cause of the universes Ai, A2, [A.sub.3], [A.sub.4] ... for two reasons, first for the need to account for the individuality of each [C.sub.1], and second via the impossibility of infinite regress which places 'G' as God, the Most-high. If otherwise C is the cause of all individual universes [A.sub.1], [A.sub.2], [A.sub.3] ... , then C is absolutely infinite, because if C is relatively infinite, which includes only one necessary individuality, there must be a cause to explain why it includes this very individuality and not another, hence C would be contingent. But this alternative is contrary to my hypothesis, thus C is absolutely infinite. Therefore, an absolutely infinite C must include an infinite number of necessary relative infinite individualities, and we know by hypothesis that C is the cause of all the individual universes A1, [A.sub.2], [A.sub.3]., C is therefore by hypothesis God, the Most-high, hence there can't be an essence in C that is merely potential that which will amount to C being contingent; and therefore all the different necessary individualities existent in C are actually essential. And it follows that each of the necessary relative individualities [C.sub.1], [C.sub.2], [C.sub.3] ... included in C is the respective cause of each actual or potential universes of [A.sub.1], [A.sub.2], [A.sub.3]. hence C is in reality G, the ultimate cause, God the Most-high.

The Nature of G

* G is absolutely infinite: if the ultimate cause G is not absolutely infinite then two situations will arise. First, G would be limited in the number of individualities He includes, then there must be a cause to account for His inclusion of a particular set of individualities in exclusion of another with infinite regress being impossible, this cause would be absolutely infinite. And second, G would be limited in the essence of its individuality, then there must be a cause outside of G to explain why G is allotted with a particular limited essence, and that cause must be infinite in its essence since an infinite regress is impossible. Therefore, since G is the ultimate cause of all existence, G must be absolutely infinite and eternal.

* G is synchronic with all necessary beings: G includes the aggregate of all necessary individualities and the necessary individual beings are the eternal manifest proof of the existence of G, without all the causes [C.sub.1], [C.sub.2], [C.sub.3] ... being present some essence of G would merely be potential. G can't exist without every C being present (I will show later that this doesn't entail a contingency of G), therefore G is synchronic with all necessary causes C.

* G is the source of all existence: being synchronic with the necessary realm of existence, and since an eternal God can't create (because creation implies a beginning and there can't be a beginning in the eternal realm), it follows that the ultimate cause G is not the creator, but the eternal source of the necessary realm.

* G is infinite intelligence: the assignment of individualities is an expression of intelligence, because it implies the act of avoiding confusion. Hence only an infinitely intelligent cause can assign infinite individualities to an infinite number of relatively infinite necessary beings, and thus avoid an infinite confusion.

* God is personal: since the individuality the Most-high assigns to every necessary being is comprised in His individuality, and the assignment of individualities being an act of intelligence, the Most-high knows all the individualities He assigns. Therefore, being conscious of all the individualities of necessary beings, the Most-high is conscious of His own individuality, and thus, the ultimate cause of existence being a self-conscious individuality, He is a personal being.

* G is the sum total of the eternal necessary realm: We know that God the Most-high is synchronic with all necessary beings, and that the Most-high can't exist without a complete manifest proof of His essence, otherwise some essence in Him would be merely potential, which will entail a contingency. But if the Most-high can't exist without all the necessary relative infinite beings being manifest, then it would follow that His existence is contingent on the necessary realm, but since the Most-high can't be contingent on something outside or within Himself, then the only alternative which logically follows is that the Most-high is the sum total of the necessary eternal realm of existence.

* God is indivisible; if God the Most-high were made of parts, there would be a necessity of the existence of an assembling cause of the absolutely infinite Being, but such an alternative is impossible since the Most-high is the ultimate cause of the universe. Therefore, though God is the sum total of the necessary realm, and though each necessary being is a distinct manifest individuality, the Most-high's individuality is an indivisible whole; and the Most-high is the sum total of the necessary realm taken indivisibly, thus, this indivisibility of God has some direct consequences:

** The dimensions of the necessary realm: being boundless, eternal, and infinite, the Most-high's manifestation and expression can't be localized, it can't be divided in sequences; neither can His substance be limited in its existence or in its operation. Therefore the divine experience is characterized by consciousness, universality, eternity and infinity; hence there is no space, no time, and no matter in the eternal realm.

** G is absolutely unchanging: the existence of an eternal realm of the universe is a necessity for the Most-high, because God can't be without a proof of His existence. But, since the eternal manifest universe is synchronic with the Most-high, there is no necessity of a change in God in order for this universe to be caused. On the other hand, being absolutely infinite, and being the sum total of the necessary realm, God can't be conceived apart from His manifestation, therefore His contingency to the existence of the eternal realm doesn't imply a dependence on a causal agent outside or within Himself, since He is impelled only by the eternal necessity of the proof of His own existence.

** On the other hand, the existence of a temporal realm of creation is not a necessity for the Most-high, and its causation by a relatively necessary being doesn't necessitate a change in the person of the Most-high. Therefore, my approach to natural theology ensures the existence of an absolutely immutable ultimate cause of this universe.

* God is Life: if the ultimate cause of existence, who is the sum total of the necessary realm, doesn't exist, then there is no existence to be necessarily expressed. But I show that the existence of the Most-high is a necessary fact because otherwise we can't account for the existence of the contingent realm of existence. Therefore the Mosthigh exists, and being the source of infinite necessary existence, He must be infinite Life.

* God is Love: the Most-high is the sum total of the necessary realm, thus He is inseparable from every necessary being; moreover the Most-high has an eternal bond in the manifestation of His essence in the necessary beings. Therefore expressing infinite love for an infinite number of necessary beings, the Most-high is infinite Love.

* God is Truth: the Most-high is inseparable from His Sons (the relatively infinite necessary beings) because He is the sum total of the necessary realm, therefore the Father is eternally loyal to the Son, this loyalty of the Father is not contingent on any act of the Son, the Father being absolutely immutable and without contingency, thus His loyalty is constant and eternal. Therefore expressing the nature of truth eternally to an infinite number of Sons, the Father must be infinite Truth.

The Nature of the Verb

We know that the Son is a manifestation of the individuality of the Father; therefore there is an imprint of the Father in every Son, the Verb, hence:

* The Verb is the manifestation of the all-ness of the Father: since the Verb, the imprint of the Father in the Son, expresses the nature of the Father in the relatively infinite necessary being, the Son, and since the Father is indivisible, the Verb expresses the all-ness of the Father in the Son.

* The double nature of the Verb: the Sons, taken collectively around any Son, are a single individuality, an individuality that is a necessary one, as an aggregate of necessary individualities. Therefore this individuality is comprised in the Father who includes all the possibilities of necessary individuality, which implies that every Son of God has an individuality of the Father expressed within him and around him. Hence, the Verb is the imprint of the Father within and around every Son of God.

* The Verb is an expression of infinite love: as the expression of the all-ness of the Father in and around every Son, the Verb manifests all the goodness of the Father in and around every Son and for the benefit of the Son, therefore the Verb is the manifestation of the infinite love of the Father for the Son.

* The Verb is the expression of a genuine love: since the Father is infinite Truth, His love is expressed through the Verb must be genuine.

* The Verb is inseparable with the Son: since the Father is not contingent on anything outside or within Himself, His love for the Son is constant and eternal, therefore the Verb is eternally inseparable from the Son.

* The Verb is unique: since the Verb is the manifestation of the all-ness of the Father in every Son of God, and since the Father is a single individuality, the Verb is unique and is the common element in every Son that makes of every Son the likeness of God.

* The Verb is a particular Son: God is the only absolutely infinite being, therefore the Verb is relatively infinite and hence the Verb is a unique and ideal Son in every Son. The particular nature of the Verb makes him a unique Son of the Father.

* The Verb manifests the grace of the Father: since the Father is contingent neither on something within, nor on something outside Himself, His love for the Son is constant and independent of the acts of the Son, but also independent of the use the Son makes of his freewill, and therefore, the manifestation of the infinite love of the Father in the Son is an act of grace.

* The Verb is also a power: since the Verb manifests the infinite love of the Father in and around the Son, and since this manifestation is what makes the Son resemble to the Father, the Verb is a power.

The Nature of the Son

The Son and the wholeness of the Father: the Most-high is indivisible, thus no part of the ultimate cause is conceivable, therefore the Verb manifests the all-ness of the Father. However the whole of the Most-high can't be manifested by a single Son, otherwise the Most-high would be manifestly finite. In other words, every Son expresses all the essence of the Most-high in an individual way, but no Son or a single aggregate of Sons can express all the essence of the Most-high in all ways.

The Son is endowed with freewill: since the love the Father has for the Son is genuine (not forced on the Son), therefore, the Son is free to turn away from the goodness of the Father. However, the Father is inseparable from the Son as the Father's love for the Son is eternal and is not contingent on anything within or outside the Most-high, hence, in reality, nothing can separate the Father from the Son. And furthermore, since the Most-high is indivisible and is the sum total of the necessary realm, the Father, the Son, and the Verb are inseparable in essence, existence, and in operation; therefore the Father can't act without the Son, and the Son can't act without the Father. And consequently, the Father eternally acts in the Son through the power of the Verb, and the Son acts for the Father through the Verb; the Father, the Son and the Verb form an inseparable trinity.

The Nature of Temporal Universe A1

Considering the possibilities of a distinct existence along with the infinite necessary realm, there are four possible alternatives to be considered for the existence of a contingent universe Ai, thus:

* [A.sub.1] doesn't exist, a hypothesis that should be discarded since the very purpose of this cosmological argument is to prove the existence of the cause of [A.sub.1], and therefore, the existence of [A.sub.1] is a priori fact.

* A exists outside the eternal necessary realm: being absolutely infinite the Most-high includes all the possibilities of individuality, and thus, there can't be a real individual existence outside of Him.

* A exists within the eternal necessary realm: an alternative that implies that time is part of eternity, space is part of universality, and matter is a part of infinity, but this is impossible.

* Consequently, [A.sub.1] exists simply along the eternal necessary realm: since [A.sub.1] exists neither within nor without the eternal necessary realm, the only remaining alternative is that [A.sub.1] exists along the necessary eternal realm. But here it is shown that the God Most-high exhausts all the possibilities of infinity and His essential nature is equal to His manifest nature, the necessary universe of the Most-high therefore includes all the possibilities of individual existence. It fallows that since [A.sub.1] is an individual existence, [A.sub.1] is only [C.sub.1]'s vision of the necessary world of the Most-high, thus every contingent world is only a perspective of the necessary realm, an implication of natural theology that has some direct consequences:

** First, [A.sub.1] is a limited perspective: that can't be otherwise since all the possibilities of infinity are exhausted in the necessary universe of the Most-high.

** Second, [A.sub.1] is a temporal perspective: since the Most-high exhausts all the possibilities of infinity, it logically follows that He exhausts all the possibilities of eternity, because eternity is only the infinity of existence, an existence without beginning and end, thus, each world [A.sub.1] must be a temporal perspective.

** Third, [A.sub.1] involves an illusory limitation: each world [A.sub.1] of the multiverse is only a limited perspective of the infinite necessary universe of the Most-high where all the possibilities of infinity are exhausted, therefore each world Ai must be temporal and illusory in its limitation of a reality necessarily infinite.

** And last, [A.sub.1] exist within a temporal consciousness: the existence of a temporal limited perspective in an eternal consciousness violates the principle of harmony: reality cannot be conceived as being at the same time temporal and eternal, finite and infinite, universal and localized. Therefore [A.sub.1] exists in the temporal consciousness of the necessary being C, but since C is a necessary eternal being, this temporal consciousness must be illusory. Moreover, the illusory nature is attached to the limitation of the perspective, not to the good on which the perspective tries to put the limitation, because the essence of this good is God.

Approach to Cosmology

The explanation of the freewill: being absolutely infinite the Most-high has only one vision, the inward. But each Son of God has the outward vision with which he contemplates the manifestation of the Most-high, the eternal necessary universe (thus expressing his love toward the Father), and the "inward" vision which allows the possibility of turning away from the glory of the Most-high in the free exercise of one's will.

However, the bad exercise of the freewill involves a temporal illusion: the Father being infinite Truth, any truth must be comprised in the knowledge of Him; thus by turning away from the manifest proof of infinite Truth, the Son falls in an illusory consciousness and spiritual darkness. Nevertheless, this temporal illusory hiatus doesn't even appear in the consciousness of the Mosthigh because it is outside the realm of Truth, it is a self-deception, but infinite Truth can't be self-deceived.

The bad exercise of the freewill doesn't disturb the celestial harmony: The bad exercise of freewill by the Son of God doesn't disturb the harmony of the eternal necessary realm because the Most-high is not contingent on the acts of His manifestations. One more justification for this consequence is that time, matter and space, the illusory frame in which the self-deception appears, are not part of eternal divine consciousness of the Most-high, therefore the deception can't appear to the Most-high.

The bad exercise of the freewill is a self-deprivation: the Son of God is the only person to be deceived by the illusion involved in his bad exercise of the freewill since being infinite Truth, the Most-high can't be deceived; therefore, the bad exercise of the freewill by the Son of God is only a self-deprivation of the glory of his Father. However, the Son is responsible for his bad exercise of the freewill since the Father's unchanging love is not contingent on the Son, and since the illusion doesn't appear in His consciousness. The Son of God is the only responsible factor of the bad exercise of his freewill, thus his sinful self-deception necessarily and inevitably induces the illusion of suffering which is manifested as the frightening spiritual darkness in which he finds himself engulfed, because by turning away from infinite Truth, he turns away from infinite light.

The Father doesn't deprive the Son of the Verb: the Most-high is not contingent on the behaviors of the Son of God, and the illusory hiatus doesn't appear in the consciousness of the Most-high, therefore the Son is never deprived of the Verb by the Father. Thus, there is always a hope of salvation for the Son. Hope is present for every Son to be free of his sin and its consequences by turning to the Verb to experience universal salvation.

The model of creations implied by natural theology implies: when a Son of God turns away from the glory of the Father, he falls into deep frightening and tormenting spiritual darkness which is the consequence of his sinful disobedience, but he is never deprived of the Verb. As the Son repents (due to the regenerating activity of the Verb around him) and begins again to yearn for the glory of God, the Verb in him begins to illumine his benighted human consciousness, and thus, this breaking in of spiritual light in the human consciousness of the Son (due to successive outer and inner operations of the Verb) leads ultimately to a new creation. And therefore, creation is the end result of the progressive awakening of a Son of God from his temporal "sleep" that culminates at the highest plane into the decree of the divine grace ("let there be light") with an appearance into the human consciousness of the remembrance of the glory of God of which the Son was conscious when he was fully awake to the magnificent eternal necessary realm.

Clearly then, a subsequent creation is the working of the grace of Most-high through which the Son of God having progressively awakened to the presence of the Verb in him and around him now works for the salvation of his fellow beings who are still in the darkness so he can help them work their way to the eternal glory. And additionally, creation is by the Verb because engulfed in spiritual darkness the son of man can't illumine his temporal consciousness and being in the darkness he can't remember anything of the eternal necessary realm. Thus, the Son creates through the illuminating activity of the Verb around and within him, and this is justified also because according to trinity; the Son can't act without the Father and the Verb.

Consequently, creation is ultimately by the Father: since according to trinity, the Son can't act without the Father, that creation is ultimately by the Father implies that the good that appears in the limited temporal perspective of the Son of God has its essence and its existence in the eternal necessary realm of the Most-high, although the Father is not conscious of any limitation. And moreover, creation is not ex-nihilo, since the eternal necessary realm pre-exists the awakening of the Son of God and creation is only the unfolding of the remembrance of the eternal necessary realm of existence in temporal consciousness.

Space Transcended by God and the Nature of Matter

Since the only real realm is the infinite necessary realm, and the temporal realm is only a perceptive of the eternal realm, space is only the mental setting in which humankind seems to experience time and matter in order to gradually outgrow them. And since God transcends all space, He fills any space, this implies that God can't be confined in a given space, therefore, He is manifested in any space because He is the only substance of the multiverse, and if God didn't fill all spaces, it would be impossible for people to even dream of good.

And since the temporal realm is only a perspective of the eternal necessary realm, matter is not really a substance, but instead a belief in the limitation of the spiritual substance in the temporal consciousness of the Son of God, however, the illusory nature of matter doesn't imply the illusory nature of good, but, the illusory nature of the limitation impressed upon it.

The Similarity of Natural Theology and Kongo Religion

Many studies have been made on the African traditional religions, especially the Kongo religion, the Bukongo. These studies have been the work of Africanists missionaries (Leo Bittremieux, Joseph van Wing, Karl Laman, etc.) as well as scientists working in the field of social science like anthropologist John Janzen (1982). The works of these authors offer an indirect view of this African religion which does not offer a correct perception of its theology.

The main cause of the failure of the Africanists to offer a correct view of the Bukongo (the Kongo religion) is the reluctance of the Kongo people to open to the White man the truth of the teachings of their traditional initiatory schools; thus these researchers were relying on an incomplete or distorted ethnography. This assessment is supported by the fact that for the four White researchers mentioned above, the activity of the Kongo initiatory schools were centered on dances and obscenities, or at least included them viscously (van Wing 1938: 197; Janzen 1982: 118, 134; Bittremieux 1948: 98, 207), while to Kongo researcher Fukiau (1969: 146), the Kongo initiates of the Lemba (the Kongo civil initiatory academy) said that what they were taught in the forest is similar to the teaching of the Christian church. Hence, the cosmological argument in this article works to exhibit the following points of similarity with the Bukongo:

* The existence of a supreme God out of the reach of material consciousness: Van Wing (1956: 305) said that for the Bakongo (the Kongo people) Nzambi Ampungu is unique and totally separated from the material realm though in perfect mastery of everything. Hence, Bittremieux (1936: 133) rejects any connotation of animism or polytheism in the notion of Nzambi Ampungu, stating that "Nzambi cannot have an equal, He is not even, I would say, the 'primus inter pares' or the term of an animist evolution, a polytheist one, or another, but the One, the Inaccessible, the Great Chief, who from his empyrean dominates everything."

* The personal nature of the Most-high: in an attempt to express this conviction the Bakongo affirm that "Nzambi i muntu ampil'ankaka". Tempels (1945: 37), found, among the Baluba of Katanga (DRC), the same concept of the personal nature of God voiced in the expression: " Vidye i muntu mukatampe". The literal meaning of these two expressions is: "God is different kind of muntu." The term muntu is often translated by "man", but this is a wrong translation since man is a bodily being, while the muntu is an individual and socializing consciousness. Thus, a Kongo proverb puts it this way: "Bole bantu, bukaka n'songo": two individuals are bantu (plural of muntu), solitude is a sickness. And since Nzambi Ampungu is not corporeal, the Bakongo never represented Him materially (van Wing 1959: 305).

* The existence of the Verb as the expression of the completeness of God in and around the son of man is manifested in the concept of Kimahungu, a doctrine central to the Kongo religion. It is seen in the Kinkimba (the western martial initiatory academy of the Kongo Kingdom) as the concept of Tafu-maluangu (Bittremieux, 1936: 152, 177), Fukiau (1969: 115) says that for the Bakongo, the Kimahungu is the nature of Mahungu, it is the perfection of man which represents the completeness of being (male and female).

Hence, a Lemba song says:

   Kubele bantu;
   Kubele bakulu;
   He Mahungue !
   Nge bahungila !
   Badianga. (Fukiau, 1969: 43)

   In the world of the living;
   In the world of the ancestors;
   Eh! Mahungu, e!
   They gather around you!
   "Those who eat".

The last verse "those who eat" implies that the initiates who are in the beyond are alive. This song sums up the mystery of the Kongo initiatory school and shows that the Kimahungu is within the disciple, as he is a Mahungu, and is around him because he is surrounded by the Mahungu (the enlightened ancestors) who are alive in the beyond.

* And another example is the demiurgic creation of the universe and the monotheistic nature of the Bukongo: in his famous sermon in the forest of Mbanza-Nsanda (DRC), Simon Kimbangu revealed clearly the hierarchical monotheism of this religion as including:

** Nzambi Ampungu: the source of all existence.

** Mbumba Lowa the demiurgic creator of our universe.

** Mpina Nza, the governor, the God who rules the multiverse.

(Bandzouzi, 20O2: 91-93)

The demiurgic creation of the universe is also explained by the character of Nzambi Ampungu depicted above, since He is not concerned with earthly matters. To these similarities must be added the celestial origin of sons of men and their return to heaven which is featured in Kongo cosmology symbolized by the spiral. The spiral shows that humankind came from heaven and travels back to heaven through cycles of life. And correspondingly, the word zingu, a Kikongo (the language of the Kongo people) word for life, means the spire. Hence, when a Mukongo dies, a zingu is finished and the kimoya (the consciousness of living) is taken to begin another zingu among the departed. And furthermore:

* According to Fukiau (1969: 111) the word mahungu comes from the verb hunga which alludes to the spiraling action of the wind; during which some elements embarked by the wind ascend while others escape and descend.

* The proverb: "Nzambi walamba luku tongo beto bantu", (God prepared the fufu and we men are His condiment), which is the answer the Bakongo give to the question about the creation of humankind and the universe, includes the concept of the spiral which describes the ascending and descending action of the fufu being maneuvered by the spatula in the hands of a woman.

* The kulunsi (the cross) which comes from "kulu kia nsi", the cosmogony (Fukiau, 1969: 11), is a symbolic form of the circle of life, which depicts life in this plane and in the beyond, while the circle is a plan vision of the spiral alluding to the eternity of life.

The inseparability of son of man and the Verb: to express this inseparability the Bakongo call their right parts, the male, and the left parts, the female. Thus each man is forever complete he is a Mahungu, though, without an initiation, he may not be conscious of this fact, and the presence in him of the Kimahungu.

The trinity as the unity of the Father, the Son and the Verb: trinity is mentioned by Batshikama (1971: 179-182) as a foundational principle for the formation and the ruling of the Kongo Kingdom. But in a highly religious tradition, everything has its explanation in the divine. Hence a parallelism can be established between the descriptions of Batshikama and the hierarchy alluded to by the prophet Simon Kimbangu in his prayer at Mbanza-Nsanda (Bandzouzi, 2000: 92), namely:

* Nsaku, the first son of Nzinga Nkuwu, the originator ancestor of the Kongo ethnics, is said to be the receptacle of divine revelation coming from Nzambi Ampungu.

* Mpanzu, the second son is credited with creative power: the power of Mbumba Lowa, the Son of God who is the demiurgic creator of our universe.

* Nzinga the daughter was given the attribute of ruling the Kingdom of Kongo, which corresponds to Npina Nza, the God governor of the universe, the Verb in the celestial level.

Seen in the temporal realm, the trinity is the unity of the Father (Mbumba Lowa), the Verb, (the Kimahungu), and the Son (Mahungu or man in the image of God).

Salvation through the grace, the Verb and the sanctification: this doctrine in the Kongo religion is given in the exegesis of the song of the initiation of Lemba given above, where the candidate to the initiation is shown to be a Mahungu prior to induction in the universe of the initiates; this is also illustrated by the fact that every Kongo man calls the right side of his body male and the left female; thus every human being is a potential Mahungu. At the end of the initiation the new initiate is given a statute of the Mahungu to remind him of the necessity to keep on the work of sanctification to be effectively a Mahungu (Fukiau, 1969: 51).

All these elements show that my cosmological argument is a non-dogmatic formulation of the essentials of the Kongo religion, and illustrates in another way the point sustained by Placid Tempels (1948) that the Bantu conception of being is founded on a logical base, and founded on the concept of being-force. Placid called these basic concepts of the religion of the people of Katanga of the Democratic Republic of Congo: Bantu philosophy.

Kongo Religion and Christianity

A question can arise in considering the affirmation I make about the Bukongo, the Kongo religion. Doesn't my view forces some Christian beliefs on this African religion? To answer this question I must first point that I didn't start from any Christian presupposition in the formulation of my cosmological argument. I arrived to my conclusions as a natural consequence of the deduction from my empirical premises. Therefore, about the similarities that the reader can pinpoint between the descriptions I make of the Kongo religion and the teachings of Christianity let me stress the following:

* That some similarities existed between the life of the Kongo people and the Hebrews' became obvious to inquisitive missionaries such as G. W. Carpenter (1952: 76) who wrote: "Congo tribal life is closely akin to that of the ancient Hebrews, and much that is far removed from our [Western] experience is clear and natural to the Congolese." Carpenter didn't give details about the nature of these similarities, but he also pointed out that: "More than one missionary has remarked that he understood the Old Testament far better after a term in Congo than ever before." This last affirmation shows that the similarities had something to do with the religious teachings. And this can help one understand what Fukiau (1969: 146) reports from an initiate of Lemba, one of the Kongo traditional initiatory academies, in this terms: "a lady of Nzala who was "Mumbanda-lemba" told me "It's astonishing to see that what I have been taught at Lemba about God is seen also in the church." And according to Fukiau, these similarities account for the quick reception of Christianity by the Kongo people.

As I said above, the reluctance of the Kongo initiates to tell the truth about their initiatory schools to the White ethnologists resulted in a wide misrepresentation of the Bukongo which makes it difficult for many people to realize the similarities that exist between the Kongo traditional religion and Christianity.

In my personal encounter with an initiate of Kimpasi, the sacerdotal southern Kongo initiatory academy, the existence of these similarities was revealed, and this is illustrated by the fact that Kimpa Vita, an initiate of Kimpasi, thought that the exposition of Christianity in a Kongo way was possible. Thus she was teaching a "Christianity" in which the "African [was] no more considered as an object submitted to the manipulations coming from outside." (Nseka, 1992: 40).And another example of the similarity between the teachings of the Kimpasi and those of Christianity is the formulation of the Golden Rule. The Kimpasi says: "Tonda nkueno bu utondanga nitu aku." (Love your neighbor as you love your body), while the Christian Bible, in Mathew 19: 19, has it as: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

It must be also stressed that, despite these similarities, both religions do not always interpret the same doctrinal elements in the same way. For example via monotheism, while the monotheism of scholastic Christianity teaches that the Most-high is the creator of the universe, the Bukongo stresses the demiurgic view of the creator, thus its monotheism is hierarchical. The remark of Bittremieux cited above shows that for the Besikongo, Nzambi Ampungu was unique in His nature. It should be noticed that though Bittremieux clearly affirms that the Bakongo are neither animist, nor polytheist, he never arrives to the conclusion that they are monotheistic; this is because the monotheism of the Kongo religion is not in line with the Christian view.

Second, the Verb, while scholastic Christianity confuses the notion of the Christ with the man Jesus, the Bukongo makes a distinction between the Kimahungu and man; the Kimahungu is the divine nature that allows the son of man to be a son of God, a likeness of God having dominion over all the earth, a perfect being, a Mahungu (Fukiau 1969: 113).

Third, while the cross of Christianity is reminiscent of the suffering of Jesus on the mount of Golgotha, the cross of the Bukongo, the kulunsi, is a symbol of the immortality and eternity of life; thus, an abridged representation of the spiral, the central symbol of Kongo religion. And next, the trinity of the Bukongo is the unity of God, the Verb and man in the image of God, in their substance, action and life; this trinity does not induce the scholastic notion of God as being at the same time the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Hence, overall, it is thus wrong to speculate that my formulation of the Bukongo is a copy of the doctrines of the Christian faith, but perhaps a convergence of the elements of both religions should be explained in the possible existence of a common cradle which can possibly be the civilization of ancient Egypt.

When Religion Meets Science

The leading question of this article is about the possibility of a meeting of science and religion. Hence, Western epistemology by presupposing matter as the substance of reality has naturally evolved gradually, from Plato through the atomists to the empiricists, toward the elimination of the notion of the freedom of the soul, which implies its centrality in the notion of the acquisition of knowledge. This centrality characterized the preceding Egyptian and Babylonian epistemology; thus the materialistic move of the Western epistemology finally resulted in the consecration of the separation of science and religion.

And contrary to the Western culture, African epistemology, like the ancient Egyptian one, starting from the presupposition that reality is spiritual, imprints the natural centrality of the role of God, and of soul in the acquisition of knowledge.

Thus, I argue that this centrality implies the possibility of the scientific formulation of religious truth; and having made this formulation, I will try to demonstrate its convergence with modern science observations of the movements and stabilities of bodies of the temporal universe at the astronomic and subatomic levels.

The Scientific Formulation of A Religious Truth

My formulation of natural theology forms a body of methodical, coherent and logical knowledge, and thus, my cosmological argument, starts from an empirical basis like the empirical sciences and uses the hypothetic-deductive approach of formal sciences and it is based on a facto-deductive scientific approach of a truth; therefore my cosmological argument is a valid expansion of knowledge through deductive reasoning, although this is contrary to the normal perception of deductive reasoning as not expanding knowledge (Ladyman 2002: 20). Since the premises of my deduction are true, it follows that the conclusions are true, and thus, my cosmological argument is scientific in its form, and sound in its content.

It is also plausible that my natural theology is a non-dogmatic formulation of a religious truth that departs from the modern Western paradigm of scholastic theology which has been formatted in such a way that religion is always seen by the modern scientists as dogmatic and mythological knowledge (which implies the impossibility of any natural systematic scientific formulation of the religious truth), and as cited by Sztanyo (1996: 9) "religious knowledge is beyond the limits of man's rational faculties and understanding.... ".

Furthermore, my formulation of the cosmological argument is one more proof that the Black African holistic epistemological paradigm offers the possibility for a natural meeting of science and religion, and that this unity was probably the natural mark of the ancient African initiatory schools, as well as the mystery schools of ancient Egypt. And also, my cosmological argument allows for a meeting of religion and modern science in the understanding of the universe; since it arrives at the same conclusions as the modern empirical sciences about the gravitation and expansion of our temporal universe.

Gravitation and Expansion of the Universe

Our material universe is only a perspective of its creator on reality, which in fact is spiritual, non-localized, immutable and eternal. And as I explained above, the space-time frame is an illusory frame which tries to put limitation on reality in a temporal plane, and thus, contrary to the Western paradigm, matter is not the substance of reality, but the illusory limitation of Spirit, the true substance of being, and thus the universe is material in appearance and spiritual in its reality.

It is also explicit through my cosmological argument that the creator is moving toward reality after having strayed away from it voluntary through divine love (for the initial creation) to help humanity, or after a bad use of the freewill for subsequent creations. This move is impelled by the inward and outward constant activity of the Verb, a power whose constancy is justified because the Verb is qualitatively equal to the Father (though the Father, being absolutely infinite, is quantitatively greater than the Verb), thus the Verb is an immutable heavenly reality.

Thus, as expressed in the language of the physicists, being impelled into movement by a constant power, the creator is in an accelerated motion toward reality, which implies that the space-time frame (in other terms the creator's illusory sense of the limitation of reality) in which the physical perspective on reality seems to appear is accelerating toward its annihilation and reduction to a possibility of being in a celestial plane. And considering that reality is non-localized, the acceleration of the creator is isotropic and homogeneous; hence the acceleration of the absolute space-time is also isotropic and homogeneous. Yet, while the creator's sense of limitation (the absolute space-time) accelerates to its nothingness, his perspective on reality (the relative space-time) accelerates toward heavenly dimensions, and thus, the creator of the universe accelerates toward reality as the temporal universe accelerates towards celestial realities and this is a necessary process. And indeed, the temporal universe depends on the absolute space-time and is in a tensor-like relationship between both space-times which explains the process of expansion and gravitation.

The Explanation of the Gravitation

Let's take two elementary surfaces [S.sub.1] and [S.sub.2] belonging to the absolute space-time, so that each is situated at the opposite of the other; separated by the axis AB. Hence, as the absolute space-time accelerates toward its nothingness, the elementary surfaces that comprise it accelerate towards their nothingness to imply that [S.sub.1] and [S.sub.2] accelerates toward zero, and thus, the question is: what is the action of the point A on the point B under the influence of these accelerations and vice versa?

Second, we know that the surface [S.sub.1] can be represented by a vector Si whose origin is situated at the point A such as [S.sub.1] is a vector product.


With the angle [delta] being the counter clockwise, formed by the vectors [??] and [??], the isotropic nature of the acceleration of the vector [S.sub.1] implies that the vector accelerates toward zero in all its dimensions which leads to the followings implications:


The acceleration of the vector [??] toward zero has no incidence on the axis AB, since its leads to the dwindling of the surface [S.sub.1] parallel to AB. But under the influence of the acceleration of vector [??] toward its nothingness, point A produces a centripetal acceleration ([a.sub.2]) at the point B;while through the acceleration of the angle [delta] toward zero it produces a normal acceleration ([a.sub.2]) in the same direction as for [delta].

Continuing, the isotropic acceleration of the vector [S.sub.2] toward its nothingness leads to the following relations:


However, we know that the vector [S.sub.2] has the same magnitude as [S.sub.1] but set in the opposite direction, and thus, the actions at point B, under the acceleration of [S.sub.2] toward its nothingness are the same as the actions of the point A but in the opposite direction, therefore B produces on A a centripetal acceleration ([b.sub.2]) and a normal acceleration ([b.sub.1]).

Under the isotropic acceleration of the surfaces [S.sub.1] and [S.sub.2] toward their nothingness the system AB undergoes a rotation due to the couple ([a.sub.1],[b.sub.2]) and a gravitation expressed by [a.sub.2] and [b.sub.2], since the actions of A and B are reciprocal ([a.sub.2] = [b.sub.2]).Thus, whatsoever the position of the vector [S.sub.1] there will always be an opposite vector [S.sub.2] and the action of acceleration of both vectors toward zero will always be the same which means that the result is independent of the choice of the position of these vectors.

As I stated above, the concept of dynamic space-times dictates that the events of any temporal universe are situated at the intersection of absolute space-time and relative space-time. And while the first space-time accelerates toward its nothingness, the second accelerates toward the infinite, both in aisotropic and homogeneous process.

Therefore, logic dictates that the acceleration of the relative space-time is infinitesimal in comparison to the acceleration of the absolute space-time because (1) the absolute space-time depends of on the consciousness of the creator; (2) the more one ascend on the planes of temporal universe, the more he approaches reality; (3) and thus, our sense of limited perspective on reality, the limitation of our the relative space-time, is higher than the creator's.

Let's suppose two elementary surfaces [Z.sub.1] and [Z.sub.2] belonging to the relative space-time and separated by the axis AB, such as: [??] = ([S.sub.1] + [S.sub.2])| ([Z.sub.1] + [Z.sub.2]).

And since the acceleration of the relative space-time is isotropic, we have the following relations:


Here, it follows from reasoning that under the influence of the acceleration of the relative space-time, point A produces on point B a normal acceleration and a centrifugal acceleration and vice versa as these accelerations are infinitesimal in comparison to the dynamics produced by absolute space-time, thus, the only important result here is the centrifugal accelerations which account for the expansion of the temporal universe.

The question now is: how does the dynamic of absolute space-time explain the rotation of empyrean bodies? Let's suppose at this point that A and B are two celestial bodies in our temporal universe and take section [A.sub.1] of the celestial body A, such as [??] = ([S.sub.1] + [S.sub.2]) [absolute value of ([Z.sub.2] + [Z.sub.2])] A. And thus, the question is: what is the action of point N on point M under the acceleration of the absolute surfaces [S.sub.1] and [S.sub.2] and the relative elementary surfaces [Z.sub.1] and [Z.sub.2] and vice versa?

By following the same reasoning as for the gravitation and expansion of the system AB shown above and knowing that the acceleration of the relative space-time is infinitesimal in comparison to the acceleration of the absolute space-time, we can conclude that:

* section A1 undergoes two centripetal accelerations that by integration will be spread all over the surface of A that will translate into forces of adhesion and cohesion

* section A1 undergoes two infinitesimal centrifugal accelerations that by integration will spread all over the body A

* two tangential accelerations are exerted on the section A1, whose direction and magnitude depend on the acceleration of the absolute space-time toward its nothingness, however, the magnitude of these normal accelerations depend also on the geometric repartition of the masse of section A1,, and these accelerations integrated account for the rotation of body A.

* hence, if of the celestial bodies A and B one is heavier than the other; this last will be in translation around the first which will be the center of the system

Consequently, my cosmological model provides a valid and demonstrable explanation of the dynamics of universe at the astronomical and molecular level context, and thus, my creationistic explanation of the expansion and gravitation of the universe as a dynamic of space-times in a Euclidean geometry is a relevant creationistic big-bang model of the temporal universe.

Subatomic Cosmology

In this exploration, let us now turn to the question of what are the implications of the dynamic model of the space-times at the subatomic level, hence, how can one interpret the particle-wave duality in accordance to the dynamic of space-times? To answer, let us suppose that a particle K is going from the location 1 to the location 2 in a rectilinear trajectory. Thus, in the absence of any interfering force (cohesion, adhesion, resistance to friction, etc.), the particle will be under the direct influence of the acceleration of the absolute space-time toward its nothingness.

And we know from what have been said above on about the rotation of the section Ai that particle K will be in rotation around itself while in translation from location 1 to the location 2. Thus:

Now let's add in the vicinity of particle K, particle Q which is also in translation from the location 1 to the location 2. According to what has been demonstrated for the system AB above, the two particles K and Q will form a rotating system in translation from the point 1 to the point 2. Thus the translation of the particles K and Q will now be a double helix in a move toward point 2, and therefore, the two particles undergo an entanglement. And thus, this implies that the behavior of the quanta of light in the experiment of Young will be verified, but the interpretation will be different. The light going through a single vertical slot will display a light fading away horizontally from the slot, while the light going through the two slots will display a pattern of interference due to the entanglement produced by the action of the acceleration of the absolute space-time to the nothingness; thus it follows that according to the dynamic model of the space-times, the subatomic bodies are true particles in undulating trajectories due to their entanglement.

About the Structure of the Atom

It follows also from the conclusion drawn for the rotation of the system AB above that there is an initial state where the electrons move around the nucleus independently of their energetic charges, a movement due to the influence of the acceleration of the absolute space-time toward its nothingness.

The existence of this initial state explains the stability of the atoms, because at the end of any interaction with their vicinities, the electrons go back to their initial states which are independent of their charges, thus the interaction with the external world can modify the movement of the electron around the nucleus, but they can't modify the initial state of the electrons unless they change permanently their mass.

Likewise the light emitted by an electron through reflection doesn't have the same frequency as an orbital one, because the orbital frequency initially depends only on the acceleration of the absolute space-time toward its nothingness; thus the frequency of the light is only a superimposed state. Moreover, the existence of this initial state explains why the electron can't fall on the nucleus despite their rotation around it, this rotation does not depend on the energy carried by the electrons, thus the electron doesn't need to expend energy in order to move around the nucleus; all it needs is to possess a mass.


The conflict between science and religion in the Western paradigm is the result of an epistemological choice which departed from a paradigm marked by the freedom of the soul. The Black African epistemology, where the freedom of the soul is central, allows for the possibility of the meeting of science and religion. Hence, the religious truth of the Bukongo, the Kongo religion, can be formulated in a way that agrees with the empirical sciences and with the methodologies of the formal sciences; and this formulation results in the concept of dynamic space-times.

Through the concept of the acceleration of the absolute and the relative space-times, this approach arrives, at the macroscopic level, to the explanation of the gravitation and the expansion of the systems of the temporal universe as well as the movement of the bodies of the empyrean; their rotation, their translation and the formation of the systems of the empyrean. On the subatomic level, this model explains in a different way the wave-particle duality; it shows the subatomic bodies to be true particles in undulating movements. This approach explains also in a simple manner the stability of the atoms.

Thus, an African holistic theory of knowledge, especially with regard to methods, validity, and scope affirms the centrality of the notion of God in understanding the world, and this naturally implies the possibility of a unity of a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions (science), and an organized collection of beliefs of cultural systems, and worldviews (religion) as a practical and demonstrable truth.


Demonstration of Newton's law

Let's suppose two celestial bodies A and B such as the distance [bar.AB] = r. We need to demonstrate the implication of Newton's law of gravitation ([??] = -G/[r.sup.2]) by using the theory of gravitation exposed in this article. For the sake of this demonstration, I will suppose that the body A is by far greater than B; this implies that the body B circles around A. We know that according to my theory the gravitation depends on the acceleration of the vector AB toward its nothingness.

The coordinate system ([X.sub.1],A,[X.sub.2]) corresponds to the absolute space-time, while ([Y.sub.1],A,[Y.sub.2]) alludes to the relative space-time. The matrix of the transformation from the ancient base ([X.sub.1], A, [X.sub.2]) to the new ([Y.sub.1], A, [Y.sub.2]) is:

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] because ([X.sub.1], A, [X.sub.2]) is accelerating toward its nothingness.

The inverse matrix is:


Thus [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] but we can also write this relation in another way: [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. This implies that at the time t = 0 both vectors are equal because, because according to my cosmological argument, the temporal universe starts with an apparent age; and as time elapses the vector [r.sup.j] accelerates toward zero.

We know that [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is a constant vector, because the expansion of the relative space-time is considered as negligible; while [r.sup.j] is a function of t (the time in the ([Y.sub.1], A,[Y.sub.2]) system of coordinates). Thus I can derivate [r.sup.j] and find its acceleration.


Thus by derivation [r.sup.j]/[d.sup.2]t = -r.g

This leads to the conclusion: a = -rg.

I have arrived at an awkward result which is contrary to the implication of Newton's law of gravitation: [??] = -G/[r.sup.2]. Though the result is not correct, I can use the calculation heuristically to reach the right conclusion.

According to this gravitational theory, the isotropic acceleration of the absolute space-time toward its nothingness results in the rotation of the body B around the heavier body A; thus seen in the relative space-time, there is a volume V which corresponds to the circle traced by the body B; though this volume can be a cone or a sphere, I will considerate it as a cylinder.

So far, I have treated the acceleration a as depending on an isolated vector [??]; while in reality it depends on the acceleration toward its nothingness of the cylinder generated by the translation of B; therefore the vector [??] should be treated as a component of V.

We know that V = [pi].h.[r.sup.2], but the value of h can be fixed at will, as the volume of V doesn't really matter, the necessary and sufficient condition is that V [not equal to] 0 . The volume V is a mixed product of 3 vectors, thus by dividing successively [??] by [??] and by [??] we have:


We know that [(V/[pi].h.r).sup.i] is a function of t in the absolute space-time according to (1). Therefore we have (V/[pi].h.r) = [bar.(V/[pi].h.r)] (1 - [1/2] .g.[t.sup.2]), thus by derivation :


Moreover the volume V, as said above, could be a cylinder, a cone or a sphere, thus the common formula for the three is V = [pi].k.[r.sup.3] For the cylinder h = k.r ; thus (2) implies :

a = - Vg/k.[pi] x 1/[r.sup.2] (3)

We can set V/k as a constant (because what matter is that V [not equal to] 0) thus the quantity Vg/k.[pi] is a non-k variable, therefore Vg/k.[pi] = G ; thus by substitution in (3) we finally have a = G/[r.sup.2] which is the proof complete of the implication of Newton's law of gravitation as the result of the acceleration of the absolute space-time to its nothingness.


Banona Nseka, "l'Action de Kimpa Vita comme une prise de conscience de la dignite de l'homme Mukongo", in Les Mouvements de resistance Kongo a l'Evangelisation du 16e siecle a nos jours, Mayidi 1992.

Bandzouzi, A., le Kimbanguisme, Pairs, 2002.

Batshikama ba Mampuya ma Ndwala, R., Voici les Jagas, Kinshasa, 1971.

Bert Thompson & Wayne Jackson, the Case for the existence of God (Montgomery: Apologetic press, 1996)

Bittremieux, L., la Societe secrete des Bakhimba auMayombe, Bruxelles, 1936.

Carpenter, G. W., .Highway for God in Congo, Leopoldville, 1952.

Einstein, A., Special and general theory of relativity, (, 2010)

Fukiau, A., le Mukongo et le monde qui l'entourait, Kinshasa, 1969.

Janzen, J. M. Lemba, 1650-1930, Garland, New York, 1982.

Kimpianga Mahaniah, Vie et epoque de Mbuta Mahaniah, Kinshasa : CVA, 1983.

Ladyman, J., Understanding philosophy of science, London : Routledge, 2002.

Losee, J., An historical introduction to the philosophy of science, New York: Oxford University Press, 4th edition, 2001.

Mabika Nkata, J., la Mystification fondamentale, Lubumbashi : Presse Universitaire, 2002.

Matukanga, "Ambiguite de la neoculture chretienne Kongo", in500 ans d'evangelisaiotn et de rencontres des cultures en pays Kongo, Kisantu, 1991.

Mbiti, J., Religions etphilosophie africaines, Yaounde : Cle, 1972.

Millar, D., Reconstructing epistemologies of African sciences,

Mudiku Malamba Gilombe, " Atheisme, hyperreligiosite et liberation integrale en Afrique ", in Philosophie africainepaix-justice-travail, Kinshasa : Faculte theologique de Kinshasa, 1988.

Sagaut, P., Introduction a lapensee scientifique moderne,

Sentwali Bakari, R., Epistemology from an Afrocentric perspective, University of Northern Colorado,

Sztanyo, D., Faith and reason, Montgomery : Apologetics Press, 1996.

Tempels, P., la Philosophie bantoue, Elisabethville : Lovania, 1945.

Van Wing, Etudes Bakongo, 2nd edition, Leopodville, 1956.

Whitehead, A. N., Science and the modern world, New York, 1925.

Kiatezua Lubanzadio Luyaluka, Ph.D. (Hon.)

Institut des Sciences Animiques

Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo
COPYRIGHT 2014 Journal of Pan African Studies
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Luyaluka, Kiatezua Lubanzadio
Publication:Journal of Pan African Studies
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:6ZAIR
Date:Dec 1, 2014
Previous Article:Arqueologia Afro-argentina: un caso de miopia racista en el mundo academico al inicio del siglo veinte.
Next Article:A review of Black Theater Is Black Life: An Oral History of Chicago Theater and Dance, 1970-2010.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters