Eastern Orthodoxy and the Science-Theology Dialogue PDF
Preview Eastern Orthodoxy and the Science-Theology Dialogue
K n This study examines the science-theology dialogue from the ig perspective of Eastern Orthodox Christianity and provides a h t critique of this dialogue based on six fundamental aspects of that theology: (1) its understanding of how philosophy may authentically be used in the theological task; (2) its understanding of the use and limitations of scientific and Christianity theological languages; (3) its understanding of the role of and Science humanity in bringing God’s purposes to fulfilment; (4) its sense that material entities should be understood less in materialist terms than in relation to the mind of God; (5) its Christological focus in understanding the concept of creation; and (6) its sense that the empirical world can be understood theologically E Eastern Orthodoxy and only when the ‘world to come’ is taken fully into account. It a s t e is argued that Orthodoxy either provides an alternative pan- r n Christian vision to the currently predominant one or, at the very O the Science-theology r t least, provides important new conceptual insights. ho do Dialogue x y a n d t h e S c About the Series Series Editor ie n The Elements series on Christianity Andrew Davison c e - and Science will offer an authoritative University of t h e presentation of scholarship in this Cambridge olo Christopher C. Knight interdisciplinary field of inquiry. Opening g y nseerwie sa vweinllu heigs hfoligr hsttu sdeyv earnadl irsessueeasr,c nho, ttahbel y: Dialo sse tfoher uimndpeorrsttaanncdein ogf thhiset orerliactailo sncshhoipla rship gue rP ytisrev in U between Christianity and natural science. e g d irb m a C y b e n iln o d e h silb u P 9 0 0 6 0 1 9 0 0 1 8 7 9 /7 1 0 1 .0 1 /g ro Cover image: a gsandrew / iStock / Getty Images Plus / .io d Getty Images (detail) //:sp IISSSSNN 22663344--33446502 ((opnrilnint)e) tth ElementsofChristianityandScience editedby AndrewDavison UniversityofCambridge EASTERN ORTHODOXY AND THE SCIENCE-THEOLOGY DIALOGUE Christopher C. Knight Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies, Cambridge UniversityPrintingHouse,CambridgeCB28BS,UnitedKingdom OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,NY10006,USA 477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,VIC3207,Australia 314–321,3rdFloor,Plot3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre, NewDelhi–110025,India 103PenangRoad,#05–06/07,VisioncrestCommercial,Singapore238467 CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge. ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof education,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence. www.cambridge.org Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781009107761 DOI:10.1017/9781009106009 ©ChristopherC.Knight2022 Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements, noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress. Firstpublished2022 AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary. ISBN978-1-009-10776-1Paperback ISSN2634-3460(online) ISSN2634-3452(print) CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyof URLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain, accurateorappropriate. Eastern Orthodoxy and the Science-Theology Dialogue ElementsofChristianityandScience DOI:10.1017/9781009106009 Firstpublishedonline:June2022 ChristopherC.Knight InstituteforOrthodoxChristianStudies,Cambridge Authorforcorrespondence:ChristopherC.Knight,[email protected] Abstract:Thisstudyexaminesthescience-theologydialoguefromthe perspectiveofEasternOrthodoxChristianityandprovidesacritiqueof thisdialoguebasedonsixfundamentalaspectsofthattheology:(1)its understandingofhowphilosophymayauthenticallybeusedinthe theologicaltask;(2)itsunderstandingoftheuseandlimitationsof scientificandtheologicallanguages;(3)itsunderstandingoftheroleof humanityinbringingGod’spurposestofulfilment;(4)itssensethat materialentitiesshouldbeunderstoodlessinmaterialisttermsthanin relationtothemindofGod;(5)itsChristologicalfocusinunderstanding theconceptofcreation;and(6)itssensethattheempiricalworldcanbe understoodtheologicallyonlywhenthe‘worldtocome’istakenfully intoaccount.ItisarguedthatOrthodoxyeitherprovidesanalternative pan-Christianvisiontothecurrentlypredominantoneor,atthevery least,providesimportantnewconceptualinsights. Keywords:Christianity,EasternOrthodoxy,philosophyofreligion, philosophicaltheology,scienceandreligion ©ChristopherC.Knight2022 ISBNs:9781009107761(PB),9781009106009(OC) ISSNs:2634-3460(online),2634-3452(print) Contents Introduction 1 1 NaturalTheology 5 2 TheLanguagesofScienceandTheology 16 3 Body,Mind,andthe‘MindofGod’ 21 4 PanentheismandChristology 34 5 DivineAction 40 6 Naturalismandthe‘Miraculous’ 47 7 AnEschatologically FocusedandTrinitarian Understanding 51 Afterword 62 Bibliographies 64 EasternOrthodoxyandtheScience-TheologyDialogue 1 Introduction Thestudyoftherelationshipbetweenscienceandtheologyisoftenreferredto as the science-theology dialogue. My intention in this study is, from the perspectiveofEasternOrthodoxChristianity,toprovideacritiqueofperspec- tivesthathavebeendominantwithinthisdialoguesince1966,theyearinwhich IanBarbour’sIssuesinScienceandReligionsetboththesceneandtheagenda formuchofthemainstreamdiscussionthathasoccurredsincethattime.1 WhileBarbourscrupulouslyoutlinedtheperspectivesofmanymoderntheo- logicaltraditions,anotablecharacteristicofthediscussionheinitiatedhasbeen a tendency to follow his own predilection for a rather abstract kind of theism. Whilemostofthepre-eminentscholarsinthisfieldhavebeenChristians,manyof them have put little emphasis on the traditional doctrines that distinguish Christianityfromothertheistictraditionsoronthoseaspectsofthephilosophical theologyoftheChristianworldthathavetheirrootsinthepre-modernera.2This has meant that, except through their rejection of biblical fundamentalism, the majorityofthese scholars havenot taken fully into account the waysin which specificChristiantraditionsmightmodifythepositionstheyhavedeveloped. Inwhatfollows,Ishallillustratetheproblematicalnatureofthisapproachby arguing that a number of topics that are important for the dialogue might be affected significantly if understandings to be found in the Eastern Orthodox community are taken seriously. A similareffectmay perhaps bebrought about ifcertain Westernframeworksofa traditionalistkindareusedinacomparable way,andcertainlymyhopeisthatmyowncritiquewillencourageotherstouse suchframeworkstodeveloporexpandcomparableevaluations.However,while Ishallmentionsuchframeworksfromtimetotimeinwhatfollows,Ishalldoso onlyinpassingsincemyfocuswillbefirmlyonOrthodoxperspectives.3 1 Barbour,IssuesinScienceandReligion. 2 Arguably,thedialogueinthelatetwentiethcenturywasdominatedbyliberalprotestantperspec- tives,sometimes–asinJohnPolkinghorne’swork–shadingintoamoreconservativeprotestant mouldinwhichclassicalChristiandoctrinesareclearlyaffirmedbutwithlittlesenseoftheir philosophicalfoundationsandexpansion.(ForacomparisonofPolkinghorne’sworkwiththatof IanBarbourandArthurPeacocke–who,togetherwithhim,dominatedthinkinginthisfieldin thatperiod–seePolkinghorne,ScientistsAsTheologians.)Thissituationisoneinwhichthinking withintheRomanCatholicworld–suchasthatpresentedinJohnHaught’sGodafterDarwin– hasfrequentlybeenapplaudedbutinpracticeundervalued.Thissituationmayhavearisenfrom thefactthatsomeoftheinfluentialvoiceswithinthedialoguehavebeenthoseofscientistswith littletheologicaltraining,whilethosewhohavehadsuchtraininghaveoftenreceiveditwithin traditionsthatputlittleemphasisonpatristicandmedievaldevelopmentsofChristianthinking andfocusprimarilyonsupposedly‘biblical’perspectivesandonthekindofmodernphilosoph- icaldiscussionthatlargelyignoresearlierphilosophicalperspectives. 3 As my occasional mentions ofit will indicate, an understanding that I regard as particularly promisinginthisrespectisthatofthe‘returntothesources’ornouvellethéologiemovementof thetwentiethcentury,which–partlythroughencountersinParisbetweenFrenchandRussian 2 ChristianityandScience Itshouldperhapsbenotedthat,becauseanOrthodoxconsensusonscience doesnotyetexist,thecritiquethatIshallofferisbasedonanEasternOrthodox approach,nottheEasternOrthodoxapproach.ThisispartlybecauseOrthodox Christians, while unanimous in seeing the patristic witness as central to their theology, still often manifest a culpable disregard of Georges Florovsky’s warningthattofollowtheFathersmeansnotsimply‘toquotetheirsentences’ but‘toacquiretheirmind’.4Thisinsighthasnotbeenentirelyignoredbut–even whentakenseriously–ithastendedtoleadtoarathernarrowscholarlyfocuson understandingthepatristicwritersinthecontextoftheerainwhichtheylived. There has been little engagement with the associated question of how the patristic ‘mind’ might have implications for questions that have arisen only sincethatera.Thishasmeant,amongotherthings,thatseriousexplorationof thetheologicalimplicationsofmodernsciencehas–atleastuntilveryrecently– been undertaken by only a handful of Orthodox scholars, and no consensus positionhasyetemerged. Indeed,intheworkofthesescholarswecanfindexamplesofalltheattitudes tomodernsciencethatBarbourhascategorizedintermsofconflict,independ- ence, dialogue, and integration.5 In their details, however, none of these atti- tudes bear much resemblance to what in Barbour’s terms would be their Western equivalents. This is partly because of the general distinctiveness of Orthodox theology,which means that the questions seen as relevantare often differentones.6ItisalsopartlybecauseChristianresponsestoscience,inboth medievalandmorerecenttimes,havenotbeenthesameintheOrthodoxworld asintheWest.7 sse Thesefactorsneedtobetakenintoaccountifwearetounderstandthewayin rP y whichtheOrthodoxconflictviewpointhasnotusuallyarisen,asithasamong tisre WesternChristians, frombiblicalfundamentalism.Orthodoxsuspicionofsci- v in U ence, where it does exist, has a distinctive historical and sociological e g d irb m a C yb émigrétheologiansinthedecadesimmediatelyaftertheRussianRevolutionof1917–developed en areactionagainstneo-scholasticismandhadasignificanteffectontheSecondVaticanCouncil. iln o Foravariedsetofstudiesofthismovement,seeFlynnandMurray,Resourcement. deh 4 Florovsky,‘TheEthosoftheOrthodoxChurch’,188. silb 5 Barbour,ReligioninanAgeofScience,1–30.Therehavebeencriticismsofthisfourfoldscheme uP butinthecontextinwhichIuseithereitissufficientlywellknownstilltobeusefulasa‘broad 9 00 brushstroke’framework. 6 01 6 Ware,TheOrthodoxChurch,hasrightlyobserved(p.9)that‘ChristiansintheWest,bothRoman 9 00 andReformed,generallystartbyaskingthesamequestions,althoughtheymaydisagreeaboutthe 187 answers.InOrthodoxy,however,itisnotmerelytheanswersthataredifferent–thequestions 9/7 themselvesarenotthesameasintheWest.’ 1 01 7 TheonlygeneralstudyofthishistoryintheOrthodoxworldisthatinNicolaidis,Scienceand .01 EasternOrthodoxy.ThemaindevelopmentsexaminedinthatbookaresummarizedinKnight, /gro ScienceandtheChristianFaith,37–44. .io d //:sp tth EasternOrthodoxyandtheScience-TheologyDialogue 3 background.8Itsattemptsattheoreticaljustificationdonotarisefromabeliefin the literal inerrancy of the Bible but from a selective approach to patristic biblicalinterpretation.9However,mostOrthodoxscholarsrecognizethatpatris- ticwritersoftentookthescienceoftheirowntimeveryseriously,andinsome casesanticipatedaspectsofmodernscientificunderstanding.10Asaresult,this ‘conflict’ attitude is not common in the Orthodox scholarly world (though it remainssointhewiderOrthodoxcommunity). A more usual stance is the ‘independence’ position, in which it is assumed that science and theology do not interact. Just as with the conflict attitude, however,thisviewisnottheresultofthesameinfluencesashavegivenriseto a comparable attitude among theologians in the West. Sometimes, among Orthodox, it reflects little more than wishful thinking that science need not affecttheologicalreflectionbecauseonecanvalidlyadoptsomethingakintothe ‘non-overlappingmagisteria’conceptdeveloped–withoutmuchunderstanding of the nature of theology – by Stephen Jay Gould.11 Sometimes it has been linked to the kind of postmodernist perspective that has been presented by writers such as Christos Yannaras.12 Most frequently, however, it has been due to the influence of an older kind of phenomenology. Here, Alexei Nesteruk – from the perspective of one who (as a cosmologist) knows the sciences from the inside – has made a version of this position an influential one.Hedoesnotproclaimindependence,assuch,butstressesthatscienceand theologydonotinteractinsomeabstract,impersonalwaybutcanproperlybe understoodonlyinrelationtohumansubjectivity.Anymediationbetweenthe twopursuitsliesonlyintheunityofthehumanexperience.13 WhenexaminingworkthatcorrespondstoBarbour’sothercategoriestoo,it isimportanttorecognizethedistinctivenessoftheOrthodoxversionsofthese attitudes towards how scientific and theological perspectives should interact. ThoughusuallyinalesscomplexwaythanthatexploredbyNesteruk,Orthodox scholarsoften implicitly assume thekindof‘unityofknowledge’that pushes the enquirer beyond the usual bounds of interdisciplinarity. This approach is sometimes described in terms of the concept of transdisciplinarity.14 Often, 8 Knight,ScienceandtheChristianFaith,37–45. 9 AnexampleofthisselectivityisRose,Genesis,Creation,andEarlyMan. 10 For example, some patristic writers suggested a scenario that is distinctly reminiscent of evolutionary theory. See Till, ‘Basil, Augustine, and the Doctrine of Creation’s Functional Integrity’. 11 Gould,‘NonoverlappingMagisteria’. 12 Yannaras,PostmodernMetaphysics. 13 See,forexample,Nesteruk,TheUniverseAsCommunion. 14 ThemeaningofthistermhasbeenexploredinNicolescu,ManifestoofTransdisciplinarity.Its generalmeaningis,however,nottiedtoNicolescu’sparticularapproach.Thetermseemstohave beenfirstusedbyJeanPiagetin1970toadvocateanapproachtopsychologythatisnotlimitedto recognizingtheinteractionsorreciprocitiesbetweenspecializedfieldsofresearch.Rather,it 4 ChristianityandScience however, it is understood in terms of something on which I shall put great emphasisinwhatfollows:the‘mystical’strandofOrthodoxthinkinginwhich Christiantheologyis–asVladimirLosskyhasputit–‘inthelastresortalways a means: a unity of knowledge subserving an end which transcends all knowledge’.15 TheearliestOrthodoxattitudeinwhichthenecessityofinteractionbetween theology and modern science was recognized arose in the Russian religious philosophy of the nineteenth century. A significant figure here was Vladimir Soloviev,whosethinkingwastakenupintheearlytwentiethcenturybytwoof his more theologically mainstream successors, Pavel Florensky and Sergius Bulgakov.RelativelyfewOrthodoxscholarsofthepresentdayhave,however, been significantly influenced by these two. This is due partly to the fact that Florensky’sdeathatthehandsoftheSovietscutshorthiswork,muchofwhich has only recently become widely available, and partly to the way in which Bulgakov – who was exiled rather than killed – has often been considered idiosyncraticbecauseofhiswayoffocusing(asdidSolovievandFlorensky)on theconceptofdivineWisdom.16 Exceptionstothislackofinfluencecanbefound.StoyanTanev,forexample, has beenawareoftheir workindevelopinghis analysisofwaysinwhichthe uses of the concept of energy in physics and in Orthodox theology might be mutually illuminating, while Gayle Woloschak has sometimes used insights from Bulgakov in her defence of neo-Darwinism.17 Most Orthodox scholars who are active in exploring the impact of modern science on theology have, however,approachedthedialoguefromratherdifferentdirections.18 OnesuchscholarisBasarabNicolescu,whointhe1990sledthefirstmajor effort to develop a structured and widespread science-theology dialogue in a traditionally Orthodox country: his homeland of Romania. He has focused on the essentially philosophical issue of transdisciplinarity, attempting asignificant(ifarguablyover-complex)explicationofthe‘unityofknowledge’ outlook.19 Another is Lazar Puhalo, a Canadian archbishop who, while not attempting any systematic analysis of the interaction between science and locatestheselinksinsideatotalsystemwithoutstableboundariesbetweenthosefields.This understanding hasnowbeenexpandedtoincorporatethe interactionofanytwodisciplines. Implicit in this approach is a more flexible attitude towards the accepted boundaries and methodologyofeachdisciplinethanisusualininterdisciplinarywork. 15 Lossky,TheMysticalTheologyoftheEasternChurch,9. 16 Bulgakov’ssophiologyhasbeenusedinanadaptedformwithintheWesternscience-theology dialogueinDeane-Drummond,CreationthroughWisdom. 17 SeeTanev,EnergyinOrthodoxTheologyandPhysics;Woloschak,Faith,Science,Mystery. 18 Asenseofthevarietyofapproachescanbeobtainedbyexaminingrecentlypublishedantholo- giesofessaysbydifferentauthors–seethe‘FurtherReading’sectionoftheBibliographies. 19 Nicolescu,ManifestoofTransdisciplinarity.
The list of books you might like
