^{page 37 note 1} See John Baillie's account of Bohr's (unpublished) 1949 Gifford Lectures in The Sense of the Presence of God (London: Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 217Google Scholar; cf. Pollard, W. G., Chance and Providence (London: Faber, 1958), pp. 139, 151.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 2} Coulson, C. A., Christianity in an Age of Science (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), pp. 20–33Google Scholar, Science and Christian Belief (London: Oxford University Press, 1955, Fontana Books, 1958), pp. 86–107Google Scholar, and ‘The Similarity of Science and Religion’, in Barbour, I. G., ed., Science and Religion (London: SCM Press, 1968), pp. 72–5.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 3} Mackay, D. M., ‘Man as Observer-Predictor’, in Westmann, H., ed., Man and His Relationships (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1955), pp. 27f.Google Scholar, and ‘Complementarity II’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplement 32 (1958), pp. 120f.Google Scholar See also Globus, G. G., ‘Unexpected symmetries in the “world-knot”’, Science CLXXX (1973), 1135f.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 4} Barbour, I. G., Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966), pp. 292ff.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 5} Ibid. p. 293.

^{page 37 note 6} Bohr, N., Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature (London: Cambridge University Press, 1934), pp. 23, 77f.Google Scholar, 81, Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (New York: Wiley, 1958), pp. 6f.Google Scholar, 19, 21, 99 and Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1963), pp. 5, 11, 25, 63.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 7} Atomic Theory, pp. 22f., Atomic Physics, pp. 9f., 20f., 62, 76, 92, 100, and Essays, pp. 26f.; cf: Elsasser, W. M., Atom and Organism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 8} Atomic Theory, pp. 24, 100f, 117, and Atomic Physics, pp. 11, 78; cf. Brody, N. and Oppenheim, P., ‘Application of Bohr's principle of complementarity to the mind-body problem’, Journal of Philosophy LXVI (1969), 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 38 note 1} Austin, W. H., ‘Waves, Particles, and Paradoxes’, Rice University Studies LIII, 2 (Spring 1967), 85–92Google Scholar; cf. Barbour, I. G., Myths, Models and Paradigms (London: SCM Press, 1974), pp. 151ff.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 2} Review of ‘Waves, Particles, and Paradoxes’, in Scottish Journal of Theology xxv (1972), 94f.Google Scholar Note ‘trivial’ = ‘rival’!

^{page 39 note 1} On the use of the terms ‘incompatible’ and ‘coreferential’ see Bedau, H. and Oppenheim, P., ‘Complementarity in quantum mechanics: a logical analysis’, Synthese 13 (1961), 216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 40 note 1} Among those who opt for this solution are Margenau, H., The Nature of Physical Reality (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950), pp. 321f., 418Google Scholar; and Bunge, M., Foundations of Physics (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1967), p. 235CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Analogy in quantum theory: from insight to nonsense’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science xviii (1967), 270–3, 280ff.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 2} Atomic Theory, pp. 8, 16, 23f., 53, Atomic Physics, pp. 25ff, 39f., 67f, 72f, 88f., and Essays, pp. 3, 5ff., 10f., 24, 59f., 78.

^{page 40 note 3} ContraAustin, W. H., loc. cit. pp. 30f., 89.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 4} Cf. Bedau, H. and Oppenheim, P., loc. cit. pp. 221ff.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 1} Austin, Contra W. H., loc. cit. p. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 2} On the use of the terms ‘negative’ and ‘positive analogy’ see Hesse, M., Models and Analogies in Science (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966), p. 58.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 3} The ‘incommensurability’ of different ‘paradigms’ and their respective terminologies is discussed by Kuhn, T. S. in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn 1970), pp. 150, 198ff.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 1} For Bohr's various uses of the terms ‘analysis’ and ‘application’ see Atomic Theory, pp. 23f., Atomic Physics, pp. 6f., 9, 27, 52, 90, 97, and Essays, pp. 5, 11, 13.

^{page 42 note 2} Atomic Theory, pp. 13, 23, Atomic Physics, pp. 6f., 9, and Essays, pp. 5, 11.

^{page 42 note 3} Atomic Physics, p. 9, Essays, p. 5.

^{page 42 note 4} Atomic Theory, pp. 11, 15, 54, and Atomic Physics, pp. 50ff., 78ff., 91f.; cf. Petersen, A., ‘The philosophy of Niels Bohr’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists xix, 9 (1963), 11.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 1} Atomic Physics, pp. 40, 72, 90, 99, Essays, pp. 5, 11, 25.

^{page 43 note 2} Cf. Hilary, On the Trinity 11.7, ix.72.

^{page 43 note 3} Atomic Theory, p. 96, Atomic Physics, p. 26.

^{page 43 note 4} ‘One being (phýsis) of the divine Word made flesh’, Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 4Google Scholar (Against Nestorius 2).

^{page 44 note 1} Atomic Theory, p. 88, Atomic Physics, p. 98.

^{page 44 note 2} Leontius of Byzantium, Against Nestorius and Eutyches 1Google Scholar; Leontius of Jerusalem, Against Nestorius 11. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 3} Austin, Contra W. H., loc. cit. pp. 26Google Scholar, 28, 31, 86f., 89, and ‘Complementarity and theological paradox’, Zygon 1 (1967), 370ff.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 4} Atomic Physics, p. 90.

^{page 44 note 5} Atomic Theory, p. 55, and Atomic Physics, pp. 4, 46. On the current status of this ‘semi-classical’ approach see Scully, M. O. and Sargent, M. III, ‘The concept of the photon’, Physics Today xxv, 3 (1972), 38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 44 note 6} Atomic Physics, pp. 40, 74, 90, 99 and Essays, pp. 4, 12, 19, 25, 60, 92.

^{page 44 note 7} Atomic Theory, pp. 10, 56, 94 and Atomic Physics, pp. 5, 26, 40, 74.

^{page 44 note 8} Atomic Physics, pp. 6, 9; cf. Atomic Theory, pp. 12, 87.

^{page 44 note 9} Atomic Physics, pp. 42f.

^{page 45 note 1} Pseudo-Cyril, , On the Holy Trinity 24Google Scholar; and John of Damascus On the Orthodox Faith 111.17Google Scholar; see Wolfson, H. A., The Philosophy of the Church Fathers 1 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956), pp. 423–7.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 2} Atomic Physics, pp. 42f.

^{page 45 note 3} Hilary, , On the Trinity ix.5Google Scholar; Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistle 101Google Scholar; Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 1.95, v.5, vi.2ff.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 4} Atomic Physics, pp. 42f., cf. pp. 19, 99 on particles ‘in’ atoms.

^{page 45 note 5} Atomic Theory, pp. 10, 19, 54, 77f., 85, 107.

^{page 45 note 6} Austin, Contra W. H., loc. cit. pp. 26, 31, 86f.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 7} Atomic Theory, pp. 11, 59f., 63, 94.

^{page 45 note 8} Gregory, of Nazianzus, , Orations 37.2, 38.13.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 9} Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 681); cf. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith 111.13.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 1} Atomic Theory, pp. 18f., 60, 94f, Atomic Physics, pp. 40, 72, and Essays, pp. 5, 61.

^{page 46 note 2} Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius vi.1Google Scholar; Cyril of Alexandria, Epistles 4, 40, 46.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 3} Atomic Theory, pp. 13, 23, 81, Atomic Physics, pp. 6f., 19, 21, 99, and Essays, pp. 2, 11, 25, 63.

^{page 46 note 4} Atomic Theory, pp. 23, 81, Atomic Physics, pp. 6f., 9, 99, and Essays, pp. 34, 63, 84.

^{page 46 note 5} Cf. Barbour, I. G., Myths, Models and Paradigms, p. 152.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 6} Atomic Physics, pp. 4, 46.

^{page 46 note 7} Landé, Notably A., From Dualism to Unity in Quantum Mechanics (London: Cambridge University Press, 1960), pp. vii, xiiif.Google Scholar, 73f., 100, 104.

^{page 48 note 1} See e.g. Lossky, V., The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1957), ch. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 2} Compare Professor John Hick's analysis of the ‘Augustinian’ and ‘Irenaean’ types of theodicy in Evil and the God of Love (London: Macmillan, 1966Google Scholar, Fontana Library, 1968).