I'm reminded as the professor talked of Edward Wilson's suggestion that metaphysics be put aside in favor of a joint ecumenical search for ethical precepts that address human problems created by this growing stress on the environment. So I ask any of you who would like to try, do you think that's possible? Can we in a world charged with notions of divinity, put metaphysics aside in favor of trying to develop an ethic for the environment. I'm very sympathetic to Professor Wilson's attempt, you know, his new book called Consilience is a source of inspiration. But I think people in religious studies, maybe in the humanities in general, can really contribute to this dialogue. It's not simply to accept the view that, let's forget about all the metaphysical thinking, ultimate concerns, let's just agree there is certain kind of scientific enterprise can unify all forms of knowledge. What we can contribute perhaps is to remind our colleagues that what is required in a very basic sense is an attitudinal change. The change of a mindset, change your way of looking at the world, looking at ourselves. In other words, the meaning of life or the question of what does it mean by being human? We need to address very fundamental questions. What is the human condition? Why are we here? We need to address those kind of issues. And many religious traditions have profound insight into these traditions, and yet each of the religious traditions in reference to the degradation of environment and ecological crisis, we have to be able to imagine new language, new concepts, new views rooted in various forms of spirituality to deal with this issue. Now, let me try just a little bit from my own tradition. The view of the human is predicated on the belief that as joint venture, heaven engenders, humans complete. In other words, the creative impulse of heaven that engenders the world, but it's our responsibility to try to complete that task. It's a great task for us to do. And this the assumption that heaven is omnipresent and omniscient. In other words, heaven is everywhere and heaven can sense it, but heaven is not omnipotent. In other words, heaven is not all powerful. We just leave having to do its own course, its own thing. We need to be collaborators, we need to be participants, we even for fear of being misunderstood as blasphemous. We need to consider ourselves as stewards in the sense of co-creators. There is a statement in the Analects, which is being often misunderstood. That is, it is the human that can make the way great, it is not the way that will make humans great. Now, it is not to say that human ability is going to transform the cosmic process. It is to simply say: our gratitude, our sense of responsibility, our sense of participation is such that we need to do our part because everything is a life form. It's not necessarily a subscription to the Gaia thesis, but the notion that everything is made of the vital energy ch'i, which is both spiritual and material. Of a plant, even a piece of rock. You know, you look at the Chinese aesthetic vision, a piece of rock is never just that matter out there. In order to capture a piece of rock, you use the brush to give a sense of its configuration of energy. As if configuration of energy as piece of jade carry a piece of jade. It is powerful, it is potent. So that's true with trees, true with the mountains. You don't look at mountains as static structures, you look at mountains as ocean waves frozen in time. There is dynamism, there's life force, there's a continuous transformation. Like Thomas Berry's notion that we are here to celebrate the great event, to appreciate, to understand aesthetically. But also it has a tremendous sense of responsibility. I'm reminded of the proverb, I think it's an African proverb, that Earth is not ours, it is something there that we are entrusted by future generations. It's a treasure that we should take for future generations. It is not something that we inherited from the past, it's something we need to hold in trust for generations to come. That's the reason the Native Americans who say seven generations, you have to think everything in terms seven generations. But I think we need to think more than just seven generations for generations to come. Now, that perspective is very compatible with what Edward Wilson is want to do. If he wants to have a very impoverished scientific view of the world, and hopefully some kind of great message will come out of them. And that's probably not as efficacious to have a view of the world which is rooted in various kinds of spiritual traditions, in terms of celebration, in terms of personal appreciation, I would say, embodied understanding of what that is as a precondition for appreciating some of the very brilliant minds in the scientific community to help us to understand what that evolutionary story is all about. It's not just something about dead matter.