Jean-Francois Lyotard coined the term post-modernity to show the distrust of modern society supported by science and technology. Support here refers to the means by which we predict the future scientifically and take and judge our actions by standards derived from the predicted framework. Lyotard envisaged it as another stage of societal development to go into the era of post-modernity, where scientific knowledge no longer holds a privileged position, multiple opinions are allowed, and holistic fusions between intellect and compassion are admitted. On the other hand, Anthony Giddens would assert that we are not entering the era of post-modernity but rather are in a transitional period in which the consequences of modernity will manifest absolutely and become universal. Those two different assertions seem to contradict each other, but we may also see them as a sort of front and back of modern society in which both views coexist.

Daily we are experiencing the construction of the social phenomenon called the global economic enterprise, supported by computerized systems. The effects of modernity are becoming more and more noticeable, and we now face a social acceptance of health and environmental risks as a defining characteristic of today's society, as described in Ulrich Beck's Risk Society. At the same time, we are experiencing an epoch-making movement in which society is seeking new knowledge and new ways of life more encompassing than the current understandings of science and technology. For example, regarding the natural environment, the ideas of living harmoniously with nature and establishing a cyclical society which reuses and/or repurposes as many of its materials as possible, which moves us away from the supremacy of an economy that controls and manipulates nature in order to gratify humans' desires, have become prominent, and in matters of health, such activities as pain management in terminal care, quality of life concerns, and spiritual care in sites of modern medical services, where modern science and technology are predominant, are becoming increasingly significant. These quests for spiritual activity are reflected in the fact that the World Health Organization has taken into account the word spirituality while reformulating its widely applied definition of health.

Religions have historically been the institutions that include spiritual healing and values as fundamental to their activities while seeking the meaning of human existence and the ultimate nature of the world. Yet today many people are turning to the words spiritual and spirituality rather than the word religion. This shows that, just as science and technology have been criticized from the viewpoint of the search for meaning, religions also are under criticism. After religions originally appeared, the dogmas long established by many religious institutions in order to support their system have often become absolutized at the prejudice of the original spiritual core of the religions, and in some cases where the origins have become clouded, this situation has even led to outrageous actions in the name of the religions, in some cases even terrorism. In other cases, a religion imposes its static dogma on people and denies their quest for meaning, even punishes them for it. Some of the so-called fundamental movements might show such tendencies in many religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islamism, and various new religions. Encountering such religious activities, we must wonder if we can learn from religions values good enough for us to depend on.

In the 1970s, John Kenneth Galbraith characterized the contemporary society as The Age of Uncertainty, and the characteristics he described seem to have become increasingly prominent today. Therefore, in which direction should modern society aim for its future? On what spiritual values should we base our search for models for a future society? Science, or religion? Neither, or some combination or amalgamation of both?

The Yoko Civilization Research Institute (YCRI) is holding its fourth international conference in
September 2005 with the theme of "Science and Religion in the Age of Crisis." The goal of the conference is to examine relationships between science and religion based on the view that
today's society is in an age of crisis. The meaning of "the age of crisis" can be understood in various ways. In this conference, we would like to start by focusing on the activities of modern life science, such as the development of ever more refined scientific capabilities for screening genetic material for purposes of scientific intervention, interventions that are meant to free us from some of the constraints that have until now been a part of being human, such as disability, sickness, and even death, and which we have so far accepted as destiny. We would also like to bring into the discussion issues in other areas of technological advances which promote a society of increasing mass consumption by developing technologies for output-oriented agriculture and food production and growth-oriented energy production, which are leading us to intervene in the balance and rhythm of our local and global ecology, and discuss various meanings and problems generated from these activities. And further, our wish is for the conference participants to clarify methodological foundations and meanings and problems of these issues, which then will be related to the semantic world called spirituality.

The word spirituality has many connotations. We sense its power of generating creative activity, and at the same time we sometimes get a sense of its power of destroying daily life and/or eliminating those who do not accept its power. Both science and religion are considered to be creative arts emerging from a process in which spiritual power is involved. By being engaged in intelligent and sense-making human activity, both science and religion are considered to be actions expressed on the level of a system; however, when both science and religion became fixed as systems and their semantic contents were self-absolutized, both science and religion sometimes caused problems. Holding these views that spirituality functions in both positive and negative ways, we would like to discuss the meanings and problems of science and religion.

Last but not least, we would like to discuss how the activities of science and religion can have a common view. We have a session in the program to give participants the opportunity to examine frameworks of meaning and other problems that may be limiting factors for both science and religion. We hope the participants can envision and discuss the potential for developing an expanded framework for both science and religion, that is, the possibility, despite each coming from a different field and culture, for the creation of a universal perspective which encompasses both points of view. In order to overcome the age of crisis, we believe this is a very important aspect that should be considered, the aspect of how to help people to acknowledge each other's positions and at the same time go beyond their individual position and come to a mutual understanding.

We would like to critically examine the positions of science and religion on each of the points discussed above and then develop suggestions and recommendations on ways to foster and maintain the relationship of science and religion in the future.

Isamu Nagami, Chairman Planning Committee

>Synopsis >Page Top