THE

END
MATTERS
Philip Clayton
“Science and the Spiritual Quest”:
A Model for the Renewal of the Religion-Science Discourse

THE STATE OF THE INTERNATIONAL

RELIGION-SCIENCE DISCUSSION TODAY

The late 1980’s and early 1990’s saw an explosion of the global
dialogue on science and religion. Both within specific religious
traditions and across the traditions, scientists and religious believers
engaged in a more sustained, more rigorous, and more productive
dialogue than at perhaps any earlier point in history. This
“internationalizing” of the science-religion dialogue opened in a
mood of great optimism. Scientists and religious scholars in many of
the world’s religions began simultaneously to explore the intersections
between modern science and their own religious traditions. In the
initial meetings of Muslim, Jewish and Christian scientists one
experienced a clear sense of being involved in a common project—a
sense of commonality that one does not always feel when involved in
inter-religious dialogues. The mutual respect with which participants
viewed one another as fellow scientists certainly contributed
significantly to these early successes in the international science-
religion dialogue. One could tell that those who were geniuses at
drawing lines of connection, such as Prof. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, were
simultaneously recognized by those in other traditions as pioneers and
partners in a common field.
As I pen these words, however, we face a much darker time. No
man is an island; what occurs between our politicians and our nations
will also affect the discussions between our scientists and our scholars
of religion. Unnecessary and ill-conceived wars are being fought, and
our hearts are wrenched daily by pictures of the deaths of innocent

Philip Clayton, Claremont School of Theology, 1325 College Ave., Claremont,

CA 91711, USA; Email: [email protected].

Islam & Science, Vol. 2 (Summer 2004) No. 1

© 2004 by the Center for Islam and Science. ISSN 1703-7603
105
106 • Islam & Science • Vol. 2 (Summer 2004) No. 1

people. Undoubtedly wrongs are being committed on all sides, and a

balanced discussion of the political situation would have to present it
in all its ambiguities. Still, among the wrongs to be acknowledged are
the aggressive policies and cultural insensitivity of the current
American administration. Saddest of all, one recognizes that some of
the misguided policies stem, at least in part, from a wrongly
politicized interpretation of Christianity in its relationship to Islamic
cultures and nations.
It is not my place to resolve the political questions and to make
ultimate assignments of blame or praise. But one does have to be
realistic about how the present situation has affected the
internationalization of the science-religion dialogue. Clearly, for many
Muslims the recent hostilities have done great damage to the
partnership in which we were engaged together until only recently. A
few years ago leading Muslim scholars happily invited American
scholars to international meetings that they were organizing in
Pakistan, Indonesia, Morocco, and Iran. Today that is difficult, if not
impossible. One needs only to imagine the American professor
standing at the podium before a Muslim audience. Sadly, however
much the organizers may respect the American speaker as a person
and a scholar, they know that in his language and in the culture that
he brings the audience will inevitably see the policies of his
government. This fact means that the international science-and-
religion discussion is in the greatest possible crisis that it could be in,
for when we can no longer meet in each other’s countries for lectures
and collaborations, we are cut off from one another, and the dialogue
is at an end.
I open on this dark note because it is the situation that we currently
face. No one should see naive optimism in the proposal that follows.
To the contrary: I fear that it will take years to undo the damage that
has been done in recent years. But we must not accept defeat: the
more difficult the situation in our field becomes, the harder we must
work to attempt to reestablish common ground. First we seek, for the
sake of science, to reestablish collaborations between our scientists.
Then we seek to build upon that scientific exchange, once again
involving our religious scholars in science-religion discussions. We
know from the brief successes of the past how powerful these
discussions can be in overcoming misunderstanding and animosity
within our religious communities. And finally, we seek to expand that
discussion outward, so as to influence our broader culture—in the
 Philip Clayton • 107

hope, perhaps, of influencing our leaders and our politicians in the

direction of peace and justice.
But what kinds of collaborative programs can possibly have these
positive effects in today’s climate? In the few pages that remain I wish
to describe a program that recently brought together scientists from a
variety of religious traditions and allowed them to engage in
productive dialogue concerning themes in science and religion. I will
then suggest corrections and supplements to this program that would
increase its effectiveness in the present context. Finally, I will argue
that it is of the highest importance that we work to reestablish and
carry out programs of this sort so that we can again bring light into
the darkness that currently surrounds us.
Science and the Spiritual Quest
By most measures, “Science and Spiritual Quest” (SSQ) was a
successful program. Between 1995 and 2003 SSQ held 16 private
three-day workshops on two continents, involving 123 new scientists in
constructive dialogue at the intersections of science and spirituality.
The program organized 17 public events in nine countries on four
continents. Taken together, these events reached close to 12,000
audience members firsthand and many millions more through the
media—some 250 million, according to the official estimates of one
media research firm. Six books covering the research output of SSQ
have been published on four different continents or are currently in
production. The group’s website (www.ssq.net) lists four full-length
video products and contains a massive amount of supplementary
material; further excerpts from the SSQ program are available through
the Counterbalance Foundation (www.counterbalance.org). In all, 48
different organizations, institutions and financial supporters became
allies in achieving these results.
Could the SSQ program serve as a model for future international
collaborations? To answer this question, we must first consider not
only what made the SSQ program so successful, but also what were its
limitations and drawbacks. Only then can we determine ways to adapt
and improve this model for the present context.
SSQ scientists were chosen who could be effective spokespersons
for their religious traditions as well as strong representatives for
science. Scientists such as Mehdi Golshani in Tehran earned a hearing
as religious persons because of the high respect in which they were
held as scientists. Alongside senior figures with international
108 • Islam & Science • Vol. 2 (Summer 2004) No. 1

reputations, the program also included other scientists who were

younger and less experienced, since their early efforts at connecting
their scientific and religious lives brought freshness and authenticity
to the dialogue.
It is crucial to consider the format of the private workshops, since
that is the feature which, I will argue, is most worthy of repeating
today. The SSQ scientists were divided into groups according to
disciplinary interests, and each group met twice, each time in private
sessions that lasted for two and a half days. Crucial for the success of
these meetings were the in-depth and sometimes personal interviews
that were conducted with each scientist prior to the meeting. Each
scientist was asked to describe how he personally experienced the
“double identity” of being a scientist and a religious believer—not
only where the two sides of his identity enhanced each other, but also
where he experienced difficulties. These interviews were transcribed
and were distributed in advance to the other participants. Thus, when
they met for the first time, they already shared the sort of intimacy
and trust that comes from honest introspection and self-disclosure.
In one sense, what occurred at the private workshops was not
extraordinary. Each scientist had an hour to summarize his
understanding of science from his religious perspective. Two other
scientists, usually from two other religious traditions, then raised
questions and made comments about what they had heard, and the
entire group engaged in discussion with the speaker. But the results of
the process were extraordinary. Because of the personal nature of the
comments and the insight they represented, each participant
recognized that the struggles and the moments of integration
described by the speaker were not dissimilar to his own. In no way
were the differences between the religious traditions obscured. Still,
while recognizing these differences one also came to see deep
underlying connections in each person’s struggle to integrate his
religious belief with contemporary science.
The second meeting occurred six months later and offered the
opportunity to move from the personal to the conceptual level. In
preparation for this meeting, each scientist prepared a careful
position statement. These papers, which were circulated to the other
participants in advance, showed where contemporary science could be
integrated with the author’s tradition, where the common
understanding of science might need to modified, and where changes
in the usual interpretation of his particular religious tradition might
 Philip Clayton • 109

be necessary. At the actual workshop the words of the presenters and

commentators again led to intense exploratory discussions of the
topics. And once again the scientists became allies to each other as
each one attempted to find a more powerful and effective way to state
his own position.
Many of the scientists were then invited to present their position
papers at public forums around the world. In all, 17 public events
were held in nine countries on four continents. Not only scientists but
also religious leaders and interested laypersons were invited to hear
the presentations and to engage in sustained discussion with the
speakers. Newspaper and journal articles about the meeting appeared
in many different languages around the world, and many of the
presentations were collected into books that were later published. In
this way the sort of common understanding that can only be achieved
in small groups of experts—thanks to extended discussions, careful
listening, and a deep level of trust—was subsequently made available
to a much larger audience, spreading the impact of the program far
beyond the circle of participating scientists.
A Program for the Future
There were of course weaknesses in the particular details of the SSQ
program. The program leaders were all Christians, and the center that
administered the program had a particular interest in Christian
theology. Some of the selections of participating scientists were
arbitrary, since the selection committee was simply unaware of
scientists who would have been ideal participants. Although the public
events took place around the world, the workshops themselves were all
held in the West. Not enough participants were invited to speak at the
public conferences, so that not all of the ideas were heard in public.
Sadly, too few of the conferences took place within the Muslim world.
One therefore wants to know: what would be the ideal form for the
religion-science discussion in the future, so that it could be as effective
and influential as possible? In what ways might the SSQ program, in a
corrected and improved form, serve as a model? Rather than dwelling
on the past, we must hunt for fruitful opportunities for the future. To
make the question manageable, let’s limit the discussion to possible
programs involving Muslim, Jewish and Christian scientists only.
One imagines, first of all, a consortium of at least three centers,
one drawn from each of the three religious traditions. Leadership and
administration of the joint science-and-religion project is shared
110 • Islam & Science • Vol. 2 (Summer 2004) No. 1

equally between the three, and each plays some role in hosting and
supporting the program. Most importantly, decisions concerning
participating scientists are made jointly by the leaders of the three
institutes. After all, it is not easy to find scientists who are both
representative of their religious traditions and also willing and able to
engage in open, exploratory dialogue with members of other
traditions.
The workshops themselves, and of course the final conferences,
will be divided equally between locations that are primarily Muslim,
Jewish and Christian. Each workshop group will consist of 15
scientists—five from each religious community—who share a common
area of scientific work. The task of moderating at each of the
individual workshops will be shared among the leadership staff, with
representatives of at least two of the traditions sharing the role of
chair at any given time.
It is not hard to imagine what would be the positive effects of
carrying out this truly international project on “Science and the
Spiritual Quest in the Abrahamic Traditions.” Indeed, in today’s
context the mere existence of a cooperative program of this sort would
be a powerful statement, even before any concrete results were
achieved. The relationships built among the participating scientists
themselves will be transformative: there is nothing like the experience
of internalizing the perspective of another person, understanding it
both in its similarities to and in its differences from one’s own
perspective. The mutual understanding that occurs through
discussions of the interviews and through cooperative work on the
various position papers will itself be worth the effort of running the
program.
But it is through the organization of the public events that the
broadest and clearest impact will be felt. These large-scale meetings
will be events of great significance both for the international scientific
committee and for our respective religious communities. In today’s
context, one can be sure that the international media will flock to
report on them. In fact, the appearance of leading Muslim, Jewish
and Christian scientists on the same platform will be such a charged
event that one has to worry about whether it will be possible to find
safe venues where the events can take place. One wonders, for
example, whether Muslim scientists would feel safe appearing on a
public stage at any major university in Israel today, and one can
imagine the difficulties of hosting Jewish and Christian scientists at
 Philip Clayton • 111

certain locations in the Muslim world. Some compromises will

certainly be necessary. Thus, for example, the SSQ meeting on “The
Three Monotheisms” had to be held in southern Spain—which has
long been a meeting ground for scholars from the three Abrahamic
traditions—rather than in Tel Aviv as originally planned.
Why Should One Attempt Inter-Religious Discussion?
In the end, the motivation for pursuing inter-religious science-religion
discussions must come from within each individual religious tradition.
Muslim scholars have written in the pages of this Journal and
elsewhere that there is ample reason within the Qurban and within the
Islamic intellectual traditions for a close dialogue between
contemporary science and Islamic thought and practice. The same is
true, though for different reasons, for Judaism and Christianity. But,
one wants to know, is there also a Muslim motivation for an ongoing
dialogue between the various religious traditions on this topic? This is
a question that I am not competent to answer.
It might be helpful, however, to pause to review some of the
motivations a Christian scholar might have for engaging in an inter-
religious conversation on science and religion. In the Protestant
Christian tradition, the task of interpreting the scriptures and the
history of the church—not to mention the history of the world as a
whole—is placed upon each individual. If God is the God of the whole
cosmos and of all of history, then everything in the world, and all
parts of history, are relevant to our efforts to discern the divine will
and action. For most Christians, and certainly for liberal Protestants
like myself, God’s revelation is not limited to the Christian tradition
alone. Over the last 300 years Protestants have struggled to
understand how to be faithful to their own tradition while at the same
time acknowledging that divine revelation goes beyond any neat set of
categories we may have developed. The concept of revelation is two-
sided: there must be a speaking by God, and there must be a receiving
and comprehending of the revelation by human agents. If this is true,
then all factors that are relevant to humanity’s comprehension of the
world and its Creator—including the full complexity of our scientific,
cross-cultural and inter-religious understanding—will be relevant to
the project of interpreting the divine will.
This means that we have much to gain from a multi-religious
approach to the science and religion discussion. By ourselves we may
see only one side of the whole picture. But when we learn to listen to
112 • Islam & Science • Vol. 2 (Summer 2004) No. 1

those of other traditions—and especially to those who share our belief

in the same self-revealing God and who trace their lineage back to the
same Father Abraham—we are enriched in our understanding of God
and God’s relationship to the sciences of the natural world.
I believe that Christians should acknowledge another reason that
makes an inter-religious approach to the religion-science field
particularly important to us. For much of its history, Christianity has
tragically allowed itself to be associated with absolutist claims, claims
that have sometimes manifested themselves in imperialist, colonialist,
and warlike actions. Just when we think that the last of these
tendencies have been eradicated from the Christian world, one is
disturbed and disappointed to find that the tendencies are not gone
after all. This is why it is particularly important for Christians to
engage in ongoing dialogue with representatives of other religious
traditions: when we do so, we can see much more clearly what is
peaceful and positive about our tradition, and what dangerous
potentials we must continue to avoid. When Christians listen carefully
to what those in other religions are saying to us, their words serve as a
sort of mirror, which provides greater self-understanding and helps
ward off misapplications of our tradition.
Conclusion
I have described an inter-religious project in the field of science and
religion, to be called “Science and the Spiritual Quest in the
Abrahamic Traditions” (SSQAT). Outlining the strengths of the
“Science and the Spiritual Quest” program (1995-2003) and admitting
its weaknesses and inadequacies, I argued that SSQAT offers a model
for future work in the field that is both productive and urgently
required. Further, I described some of the motivations that Christians
might have for engaging in such a collaborative program.
It is clear that the reasons for and against supporting such a
program will be different for Muslims. It is my hope that the concrete
proposals and reasons offered here will call forth responses from
Islamic scholars, who alone are in the position to say whether there
are reasons for cooperative inter-religious projects of this sort. The
pages of Islam & Science offer the ideal forum in which to explore what
theoretical foundations there are for future science-religion programs
and what types of programs would be of most interest to Muslim
scientists and to scholars of Islam. And may God bless the outcome of
our work!