It was a thrill to finally study at Harvard, even though my stint lasted only three days and came thirty years after my graduate school experience.

Last October I attended a conference that was held in The Memorial Church, right in the middle of famous Harvard Yard. Entitled "The Quest for Knowledge, Truth, and Values in Science and Religion," it was one of an extended series of meetings on the theme of Science and the Spiritual Quest directed by the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS), sponsored by a number of other organizations, and generously supported by the Templeton Foundation. With 650 in attendance this was the largest public event ever planned by CTNS, but it was not unique. The Boston Conference was part of Science and the Spiritual Quest II, which consists of ten programs scheduled over a four-year period (2000-2003) in various parts of the world. Future meetings are slated for Paris, Israel, Japan and India. And before SSQ II there was SSQ I, another series of meetings and conferences that were held from 1996 through 1998.

Both "Quests" comprise two types of programs: private meetings, which bring together accomplished scientists who have a serious interest in spirituality, and public programs like the Boston Conference, which make the conclusions of their discussions available to a larger audience. Together the two phases of SSQ have involved a large number of scientists, nearly 130, according to the program. The roster of SSQ II participants listed the names of 17 individuals in the area of "physics and cosmology," 18 in the area of "genetics and evolutionary biology," 16 who are involved in "sciences of the human person," and 14 whose area is "computer science and information technology."

The Boston Conference offered a full schedule, to say the least. There were ten program sessions, each consisting of two major presentations and a panel discussion involving the presenters and/or other respondents. Then followed questions from other scientists participating in the program, and finally questions submitted in writing from the general audience. The programs covered a wide gamut of current issues in the area of science and religion, with titles ranging from "physics, natural law, and divine action," through "evolutionary biology and the question of purpose," "cosmology, origins, and creation," "what does it mean to be human?" "reduction and emergence in science and spirituality," to "neuroscience, cognition, and consciousness," and "information sciences, intelligence, and creativity." There was also program on "ethics, policy and the practice of science."

Many of the most prominent figures in the area of science and religion were present, including Ian Barbour and Paul Davies, winners of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, the largest cash award ever for intellectual achievement. (Arthur Peacocke, who received a Templeton Prize since then, was also present.) Certainly the most famous participant was Jane Goodall, who entered the discussion via satellite.

Arthur Peacocke set an irenic tone for the meeting by proposing that we can start with the world described by the sciences and come to see that an Ultimate Reality, or God, provides the best explanation of all that is and all that is becoming. Peacocke also called for an "open, revisable, exploratory" theology in all religious traditions. Though the general spirit of Peacocke's presentation pervaded the program, his vision of God as the point where science and religion converge and where different religious traditions find common ground was by no means universally embraced.

Biologist Ursula Goodenough endorses an idea some describe as "horizontal transcendence." She does not believe in a supreme personal being, but finds the universe with its vast complex narrative an object of wonder and a source of meaning. And Terrence Deacon insists that something can come from nothing, that is, that "combinatorial creative processes" can adequately account for what we typically call "emergence," obviating the need for some guiding principle or higher power.

At the other end of the spectrum there were Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, and Muslims, who seemed to embody conservative versions of their traditions without sensing any conflict between their religious convictions and their scientific beliefs. A Buddhist scientist observed that there is no personal god, and a Hindu participant argued that science and spirituality really belong to separate spheres of experience. One of the most outspoken participants was Bruno Guiderdoni, of the Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, who is a devout Muslim. An influential figure somewhere between these poles is Paul Davies, who finds the biofriendliness of the cosmos remarkable and accepts the anthropic principle but does not endorse a conventional concept of God.

The most memorable comments in the meeting from my point of view concerned the distinctive nature of the human. Jane Goodall noted that the chimps she is famous for studying have nothing that resembles the complex symbol system of human language. And William Newsome, Professor of Neurobiology at Stanford University Medical School, asserted that human freedom reveals a higher level of organization than computational models of the mind can account for.

Overall, the emphasis of science and the spiritual quest was definitely on science, and there was little of what I could consider genuine theological work. Though capably moderated by two religion scholars, Philip Clayton and Mark Richardson, identified as "SSQ investigators," the discussion did not provide serious interaction between scientific and theological perspectives. With the exception of Peacocke, a scientist who became an Anglican priest, those offering constructive proposals were scientists with an interest in religion, or quasi-religious themes, rather than specialists in a religious tradition.

But even though the discussion was often complex and occasionally a bit tedious, the varied audience remained large and attentive throughout the meeting. I chatted with a couple from Wisconsin in a Cambridge restaurant while their teenage son put away a massive plate of French fries. She was a junior college science teacher, he was a Lutheran pastor. All three of them went to all the sessions and thoroughly enjoyed themselves.

For someone without a scientific background, I found a good deal of the discussion challenging, but I was strongly impressed by a number of things about the meeting. One was the good spirit among the participants, especially among those with widely differing views. Of course, I suspect they were all acquainted with each other from earlier meetings, but it was a pleasure to see such amicable disagreement. I also noted that some of the concerns that occupy Seventh-day Adventists were notably absent from the discussion. No one at the conference questioned the conventional cosmological and biological accounts of the history of the universe and the development of life on earth. Nor was any consideration given to the intelligent design movement that has attracted widespread attention elsewhere. Accordingly, if Adventists wish to participate in the current religion and science discussion in a more expansive way we need to look beyond the single issue that has preoccupied us for decades, important as it is, namely, the relation between earth history and biblical chronology. To mention two possibilities, we might enter the discussion in the areas of metaphysics, which deals with questions of ultimate reality, and philosophical anthropology, where our wholistic view of the human provides a natural basis for important work.

Coming when it did, the shadow of September 11 hung over the meeting, and there were numerous references to the events of that day. Boston's Logan airport, after all, was the origin of the American Airline flights that crashed into the World Trade Center. The tragic memories imparted an undertone of urgency to the meetings, a sense that life is precious, however we account for it, and that people of science and faith must blend their efforts to stem the frightening tide of misunderstanding and violence.

Richard Rice is a professor in the faculty of religion at Loma Linda University.