- Overview of STARS Research
- Award Amounts
- STARS Grants Application Deadlines
- Flow chart showing the output from STARS Grants
- Qualifications for STARS research
- Definition of a Research Team
- STARS: rewarding innovative new approaches to science and transcendence
- Points of departure in developing potentially fundable STARS research
- Examples of Focal themes for STARS research
- Examples of Methods or approaches for STARS research
- Examples of non-fundable types of research programs
- Summary: Non-fundable and Potentially Fundable Research
- STARS: The "New Quest" rooted in CTNS's "Science and the Spiritual Quest" (SSQ)
Overview of STARS Research
The goal of STARS is to sponsor research by small teams of scientists and humanities scholars on the ways science, in light of philosophical and theological reflection, points towards the nature, character and meaning of ultimate reality. Priority will be given to young scientists with outstanding potential who are relatively new to interdisciplinary research. STARS will award up to $1.3 million in twenty-seven grants to research teams on a highly competitive basis.
We anticipate that STARS research will have a major impact on both the academic and public sectors of culture. This Overview is meant to clarify what we mean by such research and the ways research teams might carry it out.
Because STARS research is meant to break new ground, our approach to funding it, while in some ways sharply defined, is in other ways wide open to and encouraging of innovative new approaches. We will provide examples below of ways that might be fruitful as a point of departure in suggesting how to relate science and ultimate reality, but we strongly expect that radically new ways will arise that none of us has fully anticipated. So surprise us with your ingenuity, boldness and vision, share with us your team's synergism and courage, and convince us that your proposal should be judged as deserving serious funding in a highly competitive market!
back to top
Award Amounts
Twenty planning grants of $20,000 each will be awarded. These grants are to assist teams in the formation of their full research proposal for the $100,000 grants and/or to provide modest support for research by the teams even if this does not lead to a full research proposal. Next, up to five grants of $100,000 each will be awarded. Finally, up to two research grant renewals of $200,000 will be awarded from among the five winners of the $100,000 grants. The awards at every level will be based on the recommendations of a panel of distinguished judges.
Note: A research team need not have received a $20,000 planning grant to win a $100,000 research grant.
Note: Grants from STARS do not include overhead for institutions and/or other organizations with which the applicant is associated unless negotiated with the STARS Program Director in writing in advance, i.e., during the application process.
Application Deadlines
| May 1, 2007 |
Research Planning Grant Applications Due |
| November 1, 2007 |
Research Grant Applications Due |
| November 1, 2008 |
Renewal Research Grants Applications Due |
back to top
Flow chart showing the output from STARS Grants
The $20k Research Planning grants are primarily aimed at the development of proposals for highly-competitive $100k Research Grants but they include the option to do limited STARS research as well. The output of the $100k Research Grants include lectures and articles as well as the option to write a proposal for a $200k renewal grant. The outcomes of the latter include developing the lectures into courses and the articles into books, and expanding beyond these to include PR impact via media attention and PR materials. For details, see “Desired Outcomes” under the webpages for the $20k, $100k and $200k grants.
Qualifications for STARS research
Like an hour-glass, what qualifies as fundable STARS research is narrowly defined in two important ways: it must be highly interdisciplinary, spanning both qualifying fields in the natural sciences and qualifying fields in the humanities, and that interdisciplinarity must be embodied in a Research Team. This interdisciplinarity means that STARS research cannot be limited to either a single field or to multiple fields, whether they are within the sciences or the humanities. STARS research must be undertaken by small teams of researchers drawn from both qualifying fields in the sciences and qualifying fields in the humanities. This means it is not the result of individual research or of research accomplished through conferences. Finally, the product / desired outcome must reflect this interdisciplinary team-structured research. It must be ‘of a piece’, i.e., an integrated, multiple-authored text / research result / lecture series / research seminar, etc., stemming from the synthetic and synergistic work of the team as a whole. (For further details see products / deliverables under each grant amount.) STARS research proposals will thus be judged in part according to their success in demonstrating the formation of such dynamic research teams and the likelihood of their success in conducting STARS research.
Definition of a Research Team.
Applications for STARS research grants must be from a Research Team defined as follows:
a) A Research Team consists of at least 2 and not more than 6 members. At least one must be a scientist and at least one must be a humanities scholar, and in each case their primary research must be in the following qualifying fields:
The scientific fields that qualify include the following and closely related fields: physics; astronomy; cosmology; chaos and complexity theory; astrophysics; physical chemistry; chemistry; biochemistry; molecular biology; evolutionary biology; astrobiology; computer science; artificial intelligence; cognitive sciences; neuroscience; psychology; and mathematics.
The fields that qualify in the humanities include the following and closely related fields: philosophy; philosophy of science; philosophy of religion; history of science; history of religion; phenomenology of religion; religious studies; and the theology of a living religious tradition.
b) Each Research Team member must have a Ph.D. or equivalent, or be an exceptionally well qualified ABD ("all but dissertation") graduate student.
c) Each Research Team member must have a record of publications in refereed professional journals. Exceptions will be made for publications in non-refereed journals only if a strong case is produced.
back to top
STARS: rewarding innovative new approaches to science and transcendence
STARS offers a unique vision of the way its particular form of interdisciplinary research is to be undertaken: STARS research must move from science to transcendence and ultimate reality. This further narrows the kind of interdisciplinary research that STARS will fund while it also “inverts the hourglass” and broadens the possibilities for innovative research by qualified Research Teams.
In STARS, the primary fields are the natural sciences. The humanities scholars provide a scholarly philosophical and/or theological analysis of the theories and discoveries of the sciences in order to point to and reflect on the nature, character and meaning of ultimate reality as revealed by the sciences through the lens of such scholarly analysis. In this sense, STARS research is not “interdisciplinary” in the usual way the term is used. Although members of the team must be drawn from both the natural sciences and the humanities, the terms “ transcendence” and “ultimate reality” do not, obviously, denote a field of research or academic discipline. Instead they denote a type of question being asked and a reference to that which most generally embodies it. In very general terms these expressions stand for the underlying ontology which grounds and makes possible the realities attended to by the natural sciences and the humanities and whose data range from the varieties of empirical evidence to the diversities of religious, ethical, aesthetic, spiritual and mystical experience. In STARS the central research areas for philosophical and theological analysis are the natural sciences, while philosophy and theology enter into the research primarily by way of facilitating the movement from the sciences to that which ultimately transcends the sciences even while being the ground and deepest reality of the empirical world the sciences study.
Here is where the “hour-glass” image inverts as STARS encourages qualified teams to put together highly creative proposals for STARS research grants — proposals that break new ground and explore the frontier of this uniquely interdisciplinary research into ultimate reality. We anticipate that STARS research will follow one or more distinctive methods which move from science to its implications for what is ultimately real, true, good, and beautiful. This research should exhibit lavish creativity, elegant innovation and the exhilarating discovery of new knowledge about the ways ultimate reality both grounds and transcends the extraordinary universe in which we live and provides the wealth of spiritual, mystical, aesthetic, ethical and religious dimensions of our experience of this universe and its ultimate ground and goal.
STARS thus calls for a variety of new research methods that include but potentially go far beyond those normally employed in the international, intercultural and inter-religious dialogue called “science and religion.” In science and religion, each field is typically an equal partner in a common research project consisting of dialogue and mutual interaction. The discoveries of science are then integrated into the theologies of a world religion either directly or indirectly through their philosophical interpretation, leading to a critical reconstruction of these theologies. Occasionally the philosophical and theological assumptions underlying and infusing science are studied by philosophers and theologians from the perspectives offered by world religions, and these scholars then bring new, critical insights to these assumptions. In STARS, however, the primary “data” that points towards ultimacy is drawn from the sciences. It is then interpreted through both philosophical and theological analysis by the Research Team as a whole without an a priori and normative commitment to the sources and categories found in the world religions. The term “transcendence" has been intentionally chosen to allow for a striking diversity in the meaning of ultimacy ranging from God to emptiness and from nature qua nature to those categories which are presupposed in philosophical ethics and aesthetics, reflecting the wider scope for STARS research compared to the kind of discussions typifying science and religion.
Of course, some of the ongoing research in science and religion might qualify for STARS funding, particularly as it results from what are, in effect, early examples of STARS Research Teams. See for example the writings of Nancey Murphy and George Ellis, David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti, Matthieu Ricard and Trinh Xuan Thuan, and Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett. Another clear example is the broad avenue of natural theology, reflected in many of the recent Gifford Lectures focused on science and religion. More generally, many forms of ongoing research in science and religion might fit within STARS if they can be reconstructed to start with the discoveries and theories in the natural sciences and only then raise wider questions about transcendence. (See the section, “Science as offering intimations about ultimate reality,” below). Preliminary examples of some of these questions raised by science are listed under ”focal themes” below, but we expect that a much wider diversity of new and highly promising questions will be developed by future STARS Research Teams. We also list some of the analytic methods for relating science and transcendence below; these might serve as points of departure for research that move gradually from science to the nature and meaning of ultimate reality. In sum, the ‘net’ STARS is casting is much wider than “science and religion” even while including at least some of its ongoing research as possible candidates for STARS funding.
STARS research differs even more sharply from the new explorations called “science and its ‘big questions.’” Here, regardless of the way this research is packaged and described and its publications titled, the “big questions” actually stay strictly within the limits of scientific research as set by methodological naturalism and have no explicit bearing on transcendence and ultimate reality. Such "science and its 'big questions'" research does not qualify for STARS funding. (See #1, 2, and 5 under “Non-fundable types of research programs” below.)
back to top
Examples of points of departure in developing potentially fundable STARS research: focal themes and methods (All of these examples are included in #12 in the Table below)
Here we offer some tentative examples of what might be fruitful points of departure in developing potentially fundable STARS research. They include focal themes and methods or approaches. This is certainly not an exhaustive list of examples. More to the point, we strongly expect and encourage other approaches, some entirely new, to be conceived of and deployed by STARS Research Teams. These examples, therefore, should neither be taken as the entire scope of what could be done, nor as “perfect examples” of what should be done. Rather, these are idea starters which may help facilitate generating research ideas.
Examples of Focal themes for STARS research
First we list a series of “focal themes” generated for the January 2007 STARS Conferences. These themes suggest ways in which the topics in the sciences relevant to each of the conferences point toward the nature, character and meaning of ultimate reality.
Conference 1: Cosmology, Physics, and the Possibility of Life
Can physics and cosmology adequately address the perennial and profound question, why does the universe (however science defines it) exist? Why "something" and not "nothing"?
Does time, as treated in fundamental physics and cosmology (e.g., inflationary Big Bang, eternal inflation, superstring theory, Brane / multiverses, etc.), have an "origin" or is time "eternal"? What does this suggest about the temporal character of ultimate reality?
How do the asymptotic realms of the subatomic and the cosmological as revealed by physics point beyond physics to questions of wisdom, beauty and ultimacy?
Is life — terrestrial and extraterrestrial — of genuine significance in a universe that is “big and old, dark and cold,” a universe whose accelerating expansion will eventually split it into endlessly isolated spacetime fragments? Can such a universe be purposeful not only from a human perspective but also in cosmological terms?
Does the fine-tuning of our visible universe provide a point of departure in the quest for the ultimate meaning of existence or is it merely an argument for an endless sea of isolated multiverses?
Do physics and cosmology shed any light on the limits to the kinds of questions they can answer?
Conference 2: Evolution, ET, and the Significance of Life in the Universe
If these three broad issues can be solved to the satisfaction of biologists, would this reduce these issues entirely to the domain of biology or would we still value a broader and complimentary context of explanation that includes the transcendent issues of philosophy, aesthetics and religion?
Which of three following options provides the most robust argument for the source of actual human norms: human culture per se, an ultimate reality that is coincident with and immanent in nature, or an ultimate reality which transcends (while including) nature and culture?
What can we learn about human nature from the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligent life that we can not learn without it? Will this point to a transcendent source of life or to life as entirely the result of the processes of nature? Would the discovery of ET undercut the religions and spiritualities of humankind or would it complement and synergize human religious experiences and beliefs?
Conference 3: Complexity Theory, Emergence, and the Influence of Life on Matter
If the case for strong emergence is unsuccessful will it be a defeat for the validity of disciplines such as psychology, philosophy, and religion?
If the case for strong emergence is successful, will it address the problem of causal closure in physics by appealing to a transcendent source of causality or to a natural source that is inaccessible to physics — or to neither option?
Does the self-transcendence of the human spirit point to an ultimate, transcendent source of spirit, or is it an inherent property of nature?
back to top
Examples of Methods or Approaches for STARS Research
Next we suggest in a more formal style various methods or approaches to the ways Research Teams might work to relate science and ultimate reality. Again, in a very important way these are actually not to be taken as “perfect examples” because the kind of research that STARS will support is meant to be radically new. Moreover, these examples are only meant as examples of the ways a Research Team might consider relating science and ultimate reality. Technically many of these examples, such as the articles cited from the CTNS/Vatican Observatory Series, would not qualify as a STARS product because, while their content reflects genuinely interdisciplinary research about the focal themes and/or methods for STARS research, they were not the result of research by a Research Team.
Science and the philosophy of science: epistemological and ontological implications concerning ultimate reality
A. Time and ultimate reality
i) Special relativity
Chris J. Isham and John C. Polkinghorne, “The Debate Over the Block Universe.”
ii) Quantum mechanics
Bernard D"Espagnat, In Search of Reality ( New York: Springer-Verlag), 1983.
iii) Special and general relativity.
Lawrence Sklar, Space, Time and Spacetime (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974).
iv) Big Bang cosmology
William R. Stoeger, S.J., "What is the 'Universe' Which Cosmology Studies?" in Fifty Years in Science and Religion: Ian G. Barbour and His Legacy, ed. Robert John Russell ( Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004), 127-43.
v) Quantum gravity and quantum cosmology
Chris J. Isham, "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding, ed. Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger, S.J. and George V. Coyne, S.J. (Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory Publications, 1988), 419 pp, 375-408.
vi) Thermodynamics
Ilya Prigogine, From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1980).
B. Causality and ultimate reality
Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell's Theorem, James T. Cushing and Ernan McMullin, Editors,(Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989).
C. Complexity, self-organization and ultimate reality
Paul Davies and Philip Clayton, eds., The Re-Emergence of Emergence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
Stuart Kauffman, At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).
D. Mind, matter and ultimate reality
David Lorimer, ed., Science, Consciousness and Ultimate Reality ( Charlottesville, VA: Imprint Academic, 2004).
Nancey Murphy, Body and Soul, or Spirited Bodies? ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
_______________,"Supervenience and the Downward Efficacy of the Mental: A Nonreductive Physicalist Account of Human Action."
Science as offering intimations about ultimate reality (“natural theology”)
A. Natural theology
Paul C. Davies, The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), 254 pp.
_____________, “Intelligibility of Nature.”
John Leslie, "How to Draw Conclusions from a Fine-Tuned Universe," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding, ed. Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger, S.J. and George V. Coyne, S.J. (Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory Publications, 1988), 419 pp, 297-312.
B. Approaches to “theology and science” if reconstructed along the lines of STARS research
Ian G. Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science, Gifford Lectures; 1989-1990. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990).
________________, “Five Models of God and Evolution.”
Charles Birch and John B. Cobb, Jr., The Liberation of Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).
David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti, The Future of Humanity: A Conversation (New York: HarperCollins, 1986).
George F. R. Ellis, “Theology of Anthropic Principle.”
Arthur Peacocke, Theology for a Scientific Age: Being and Becoming --- Natural, Divine and Human, Enlarged Edition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).
______________, “Chance and Law in Irreversible Thermodynamics, Theoretical Biology, and Theology.”
Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett, Evolution From Creation to New Creation: The Controversy in Laboratory, Church, and Society (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 2003).
Ted Peters, Muzaffar Iqbal, and Syed Nomanul Haq, eds., God, Life, and the Cosmos: Christian and Islamic Perspectives (Ashgate Publishing Company, 2002).
John C. Polkinghorne, The Faith of a Physicist: Reflections of a Bottom-up Thinker, Theology and the Sciences Series (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1994).
______________, “Physical Process, Quantum Events, and Divine Agency."
Matthieu Ricard and Trinh Xuan Thuan, The Quantum and the Lotus: A Journey to the Frontiers Where Science and Buddhism Meet ( New York: Three Rivers Press, 2001).
Norbert M. Samuelson, Judaism and the Doctrine of Creation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
Science as the basis for the religious quest for ultimate reality
Willem B. Drees, Religion, Science and Naturalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
_________________, “Evolutionary Naturalism and Religion."
Ursula Goodenough, The Sacred Depths of Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).
Science and aesthetics: nature and the ultimate reality of the beautiful
John D. Barrow, The Artful Universe Expanded (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
Leonard Shlain, Art & Physics: Parallel Visions in Space, Time & Light (New York: Quill / William Morrow, 1991).
Science and axiology / ethics: nature and the ultimate reality of the good
Philip Clayton and Jeffrey Schloss, eds., Evolution and Ethics: Human Morality in Biological & Religious Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).
Nancey Murphy and George F. Ellis, On the Moral Nature of the Universe: Theology, Cosmology, and Ethics, Theology and the Sciences Series (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1996).
Holmes Rolston III, Genes, Genesis and God: Values and Their Origins in Natural and Human History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
Science and spirituality / mysticism: ultimate reality through nature-based mystical experience
Loren Eiseley, The Immense Journey (New York: Random House, 1946).
W. Mark Richardson, Robert John Russell, eds., Science and the Spiritual Quest: New Essays by Leading Scientists ( London and New York: Routledge, 2002).
New Research in Science Inspired by Philosophical and/or Theological Assumptions: New Science and Ultimate Reality
Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Jayant V. Narlikar, A Different Approach to Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, 2000).
Abner Shimony, Search for a Naturalistic World View (Cambridge University Press, 1993).
Robert John Russell, "Life in the Universe: ‘Back to the drawing boards' or ‘the Cosmic Christ'?" (Presentation from STARS Conference) [We're making this presentation available because it suggests at least one way to restructure the standard material in "theology and science" in terms of potentially-fundable STARS research.]
back to top
Examples of non-fundable types of research programs
The following examples illustrate the type of research that is not fundable by STARS either because the research is not carried out by a team and/or because it is not interdisciplinary research between qualifying fields in the sciences and humanities (see the Table below). Note again, some of these examples are self-described as involving “ultimate reality” when in fact the text is almost if not entirely restricted to science. Apparently the tacit assumption is that science as such is about “ultimate reality.” It should be clear from all that has been said above that that is a philosophical assumption outside the competency of science per se; if the import of science to ultimate reality is to be sustained it requires clear, explicit and scholarly philosophical and theological assessment.
1. Individual researcher in a single field
FQ(x) research: (Foundational Questions in Physics and Cosmology) See Inaugural Request for Proposals - Recommended Awardees.
Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Reality (New York: Vintage Books / Random House, 1999).
2. Individual researcher in multiple fields in science
John D. Barrow, Theories of Everything: The Quest for Ultimate Explanation (Clarendon Press, 1991).
3. Individual researcher in multiple fields in the humanities
Gustavo Guiterrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, ed. Sister Caridad Inda and John Eagleson (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1973).
4. Individual researcher in multiple fields in both science and the humanities.
Abner Shimony, Search for a Naturalistic World View: Volume II, Natural Science and Metaphysics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
5. Conference of researchers in a single field.
GENERAL RELATIVITY AND GRAVITATIONAL PHYSICS: 16th SIGRAV Conference on General Relativity and Gravitational Physics, Vietri sul Mare, Italy, 13-16 September 2004 edited by Giampiero Espositio, Gaetano Lambiase, Giuseppe Marmo, Gaetano Scarpetta, Gaetano Vilasi (American Institute of Physics, Conference Proceedings 751: March 2005).
6. Conference of researchers in multiple fields in science.
Computational Biophysics: Integrating Theoretical Physics and Biology (Biophysics from First Principles. EuroConference: From the Electronic to the Mesoscale).
Science and ultimate reality: Quantum Theory, Cosmology and Complexity, edited by John D. Barrow, Paul C. W. Davies and Charles L. Harper, Jr. (Cambridge University Press, 2004). (The volume includes a few brief hints about ultimate reality as, for example, on p. 634.)
7. Conference of researchers in multiple fields in the humanities.
Metaphysics: The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, Volume 2, Tom Rockmore, Volulme Editor, Jaakko Hintikka, Robert Neville, Ernest Sosa, and Alan Olson, General Editors (Philosophy Documentation Center: 1999).
8. Conference of researchers in multiple fields in both science and the humanities.
Five CTNS/Vatican Observatory publications on Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action.
Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life, Paul Davies (HarperCollins, 1995).
Ted Peters, Robert John Russell, and Michael Welker, eds., Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002).
9. Team of researchers in a single field.
James Watson and Francis Crick, "Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid," Nature 171, April 25 (1953): 737-38.
10. Team of researchers in multiple fields in science.
Paolo De Los Rios and Pierre Goloubinoff, "Physics in Biology," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, no. 3 June (2006).
11. Team of researchers in multiple fields in the humanities.
David G. Myers and Malcolm A. Jeeves, Psychology Through the Eyes of Faith, revised and updated edition ( San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002).
back to top
Summary: eleven types of research that are non-fundable and one type of research which is potentially fundable by STARS
The table below summarizes the types of research that are either non-fundable or potentially fundable by STARS according to the minimum set of qualifications just discussed. It displays research by individuals, research arising from conferences, and research by teams, against research in a single field in the sciences or in the humanities, in multiple fields in science, in multiple fields in the humanities, and in multiple fields in science and the humanities. This table displays eleven types of research which are not fundable by STARS and one type of research which is potentially fundable by STARS in that it meets the minimum conditions for being considered: interdisciplinary team research in both the sciences and the humanities.
Table: Types of research that are either non-fundable or potentially fundable by STARS
back to top
STARS: The New Quest that builds on and expands beyond CTNS’s “Science and the Spiritual Quest” (1996-2003)
The doing of science is a spiritual experience. There is little to compare to the wonder and exhilaration when hard work yields a secret about the universe that has never before been disclosed.
Joel Primack, Physicist-Cosmologist
In approaching God, we come clothed in humility, aware of our limited vision...Nonetheless, even as a single cell responds to its environment...it is by being in the environment of God that we gain some small insight into the mind of God...
Pauline M. Rudd, Biologist
Science and the Spiritual Quest (SSQ) was an international program created and conducted by CTNS and involved over 120 distinguished senior scientists. Its mission was to invite these scientists to reflect on the connections between their scientific research and their spiritual practices, and to present the results to a worldwide audience through conferences, publications, and multimedia resources. SSQ did not advocate a particular religious or scientific position or a specific outcome for discussions between science and religion. Rather, SSQ sought to promote open and authentic dialogue on this topic within the scientific community, and to offer the insights and questions resulting from these discussions to the educated public.
Contrary to the frequent public claim that science is intrinsicly atheistic, SSQ demonstrated that scientists of Nobel caliber can also be people of faith from a diversity of religious traditions. At the same time it demonstrated that those who are not traditionally religious can offer insights of great value to religion. In an era of extreme specialization, scientists need an opportunity such as SSQ provided — a rare opportunity to embrace the larger philosophical and cultural contexts which can give their life’s work a range of meaning far beyond the confines of technical proficiency and professional success. SSQ offered scientists the unique opportunity for free and open exploration of ideas about ultimate reality, a critical and sustained interaction with colleagues, and it equiped them with the intellectual tools needed for interdisciplinary work.
Scientists participating in SSQ were asked what for them personally were the links between their research science and their spirituality. While their responses varied wonderfully, they tended to circle around six key views:
- Doing science is itself a spiritual experience of uncovering mysteries about the universe.
- Doing science requires an ethical commitment grounded in spirituality.
- Nature is one form of divine revelation disclosing intimations of divine purpose in creation and
humanity’s place in the universe’s destiny.
- The laws of nature reveal something about the mind of God, and the history of the cosmos which
unfolds on the basis of these laws traces God’s activity in nature.
- Science leads to God as the ultimate reality and source of all that is.
- Scientific knowledge brings fresh insight into wisdom held within the various religious traditions of
the world, and the impetus for scientific pursuit is received from the unifying vision offered by
religion.
STARS as the “New Quest” is the natural outcome and at the same time radical expansion of the seven-year, highly successful SSQ program. It builds on the strengths of SSQ by starting with the sciences in asking questions about the nature and meaning of ultimate reality. At the same time it expands beyond SSQ by giving special attention to young scientists who have yet to achieve a distinguished career but who show every potential to do so. It also expands beyond SSQ by encouraging scientists to participate who may have no particular religious tradition but who are open to exploring questions of meaning that, while rooted in science, transcend the intrinsic limits of science in the "New Quest" for ultimate reality.
back to top
|
