Building on the success of the main anniversary conference "Revisiting and Reimagining the Relationships between Science and Religion". This online conference examines foundational issues within the science-and-religion sphere.
At Foundations in Science and Religion, we’ll dive into some of the most compelling and complex questions at the crossroads of scientific inquiry and religious thought.
Whether you're interested in theology, philosophy, physics, cosmology, or interreligious dialogue, this conference offers a unique space to engage with foundational issues that matter—across disciplines, traditions, and generations. The conference is open to all attend, and we warmly invite you to join us for two days of lively conversation as we examine topics across science-and-religion(s).
For further information on the days and speakers see the programme. (Please note the programme is still subject to timing changes; links to the meetings will be sent out to registered delegates & speakers closer to the time)
20th November: Focus on Science, Religion and Metaphysics.
21st November: Focus on Science and Religion in inter/multi faith contexts.
Colleagues are welcome to join for one or both days.
In addition to keynote papers the conference will prioritise presentations from students and early career scholars (defined as having completed study (including ordination training) or research in the last 10 years). We have chosen to broaden the definition of early career in recognition of the precarity of many academic contracts and environments.
Keynote Speakers:
20th November Dr Emma Jaura, Bath Spa University: Buddhist Interdependence, Metaphysical Coherentism, and Relational Quantum Mechanics
Metaphysical coherentism is an underexplored alternative to traditional foundationalism which (a) rejects any commitment to ontologically independent, fundamental foundations, and (b) embraces the possibility of symmetrical ontological dependence. Coherentism has received relatively little attention from analytic metaphysicians, with notable recent exceptions including Thompson (2016, 2018), Bliss and Priest (2018), Morganti (2018), Morganti and Calosi (2021) and Swiderski (2024).
I argue that it is more often considered as a serious metaphysical thesis across various Indian and Chinese Buddhist schools. Beginning with the dawn of Mahayana and the work of Nāgārjuna, the concept of emptiness (sunyata) has played a vital role in the development of Buddhist metaphysics. Authors such as Kang (2025) and Priest (2018), provide an insightful interpretation of the illusive Buddhist concept of emptiness, in terms of interdependence. With this precedence for understanding interdependence as the cornerstone of both the Buddhist concept of emptiness, and the analytic thesis of coherentism, this sets the scene for my analysis and comparison of emptiness and coherentism side by side.
21st November Professor Yiftach Fehige, University of Toronto: Pluralizing Foundations: Scientific Pluralism, Religious Education, and Democratic Flourishing
The interaction between science and religion in democratic societies must be reimagined through the lens of pluralism—both scientific and religious. While scientific pluralism has emerged as a significant metaphysical topic in recent philosophy of science, its implications for education and public discourse remain underexplored. I will argue that scientific and religious pluralism are not epistemic threats to democracy but foundational resources for renewing democratic life and civic education. Scientific pluralism challenges the dominant monist narrative in which science is seen as aiming for a unified, authoritative body of knowledge that marginalizes alternative ways of knowing. This monism has been used to justify the exclusion of religious perspectives from public education on the grounds that they are inherently sectarian or irrational. However, the assumption that science is a neutral arbiter of truth fails to recognize the diverse methodological, theoretical, and cultural foundations of scientific practice itself, some of which resist unification. Pluralism in science acknowledges that multiple, sometimes incommensurable approaches can coexist, especially in complex domains such as climate modeling, evolutionary theory, or the human sciences. Recognizing this plurality opens conceptual space for engaging religious worldviews as rational, interpretive frameworks alongside scientific perspectives. Using the case study of recent reforms in religious education in Hamburg’s public schools—which have embraced a multifaith, dialogical model—I show how a pluralist curriculum can both respect worldview diversity and foster democratic citizenship. Contrary to fears that religion fragments the social fabric, pluralist religious education can cultivate the civic virtues of mutual recognition, critical engagement, and public reason.