12–14 November 2004
Rome, Italy
Jonathan Edelmann

The Bhaktivedanta Institute held the Second International Congress on ‘Life and Its Origin’ on 12–14 November. The Congress was held in the Protomoteca Hall, on Rome’s beautiful Capitol Hill. The aim was to bring together representatives of the world’s religions and the natural sciences to discuss perspectives on the origin of life, consciousness, the soul, life after death, the purpose and meaning of science and religion, and God. All of these topics were couched in various theological perspectives, as well as scientific theories such as Big Bang, neo-Darwinism, Quantum Mechanics, and Relativity Theory.

To my knowledge, most science and religion dialogues tend to focus on Christianity and modern science; Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists engage with science to a lesser extent, and Hindus even less than that. This conference, however, attempted to represent most of the world’s religions, as well as many of the sciences. There was something else unique here. The very notion of dialogue suggests equality, and this was explicit. It was assumed that science is not the final arbiter of truth, rather that the sciences and the religions have their own wealth of insight on this most elusive of all topics—life itself. Instead of a competition between the religions, or between religions and science, the traditions were employed as culturally specific, yet not culturally constrained, avenues to truth. Each tradition was respected as coming from a particular cultural, linguistic, and textual context, but it was not assumed that truths and insights beyond those traditions were precluded.

The conference started with invocations and blessings from religious leaders: a Jesuit priest, a Buddhist rimpoche, a Hindu swami, a Jewish rabbi, an Islamic imam, and a Sikh all expressed their sense of the importance of such discussion between the religions and sciences.

Some memorable moments from the sessions: In Session One, Professor Arij Roest Crollius SJ of the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome spoke about beauty. That which is closer to God is more beautiful, hence this is a way of judging object, ideas, and events. Most notably, he concluded his talk by chanting a Bhagavad-gita verse in the traditional Gregorian metre—and that was very beautiful. In Session Two there was a lively Q&A about the nature of consciousness in the Bhagavata-Purana, a Vaisnava-Hindu text, and the problems of holding a non-physical view of consciousness in light of modern biology. In Session Three, Professor Robert Mann, the Chair of the Physics Department at the University of Waterloo, attempted to show that neo-Darwinian evolution is a challenge to any religious tradition that believes there is teleology in the world, and Dr Anita Goel, from the department of Health, Sciences and Technology at Harvard University, attempted to show how ‘intelligent design’ could be inserted in nature. In Session Five, Professor Gianfranco Basti, a Catholic Priest from the respected Lateran University in Rome, gave a lucid exposition of the mind-body problem, and a persuasive defence of Thomistic views of the soul in light of contemporary computational theory and computer science.

Session Four saw a unique turn of events: Professor Lothar Schafer, a well known physical chemist and science-religion writer, argued that matter, as seen in quantum physics, is conscious, and thus the natural/supernatural or physical/metaphysical distinction is blurred by twentieth-century physics. Also in Session Four, Mann showed how neo-Darwinism has become the lens through which fundamental academic fields of research such as psychology and religion are viewed. This shows another challenge to religions.

In Session Eight, the accomplished Professor of Physics V. V. Raman, the 2004 Metanexus Senior Research Fellow, spoke about the importance of uniting science and religion, with special reference to Hinduism. In Session Ten, Dr Marco Gozzi made a very important and insightful comment: ‘We need a glossary or set of common words and concepts by which we can establish a dialogue between science and religion.’ Perhaps the greatest problem in science-religion discussion—as Gozzi rightly points out—is that of translating terms and concepts from one tradition to another. If I could make one criticism of the conference, it is that words like ‘science’, ‘religion’, or ‘spirituality’ were employed without critical rigour, as if they meant the same thing at different points in history, for different religions, and even for various people within the same religion.

Finally, Session Eleven was a conversation led by Anita Goel into the question of how science can help religion, and how religion can help science. This is the crux of the issue: it was nice to have scientists and theologians of various religions talking about the importance of unifying themselves, but what does that really mean? I found many of the definitions of ‘science’ and ‘religion’ glib. We can’t assume we know what these words mean to each other, or that their meanings are the same across history and in different scientific/religious traditions. Moreover, more work could and should be done on the heart of the issue: what does it really mean to have a synthesis, and how is this going to practically affect the academic disciplines?

Dr T. D. Singh, the organiser of this conference and head of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, concluded with a vote of thanks to all involved, especially the staff and the cooks (who prepared wonderful vegetarian Italian cuisine). He also delivered a very inspirational lecture stressing the importance of peace between academic disciplines and the world’s religions, as well as the need for open-mindedness. I believe it is conferences like these that can help further the discussion between the sciences and religions, and the Bhaktivedanta Institute deserves praise for taking such an active role.

More information about the speakers and conference at: www.binstitute.org/conference2004