Eastern Orthodoxy and the Science-Theology Dialogue

82 Pages·2022·1.761 MB·English

by  Christopher C. Knight

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.