CHAPTER ELEVEN

THE PROBLEM OF FAITH AND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IN RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS THOUGHT OF THE NINETEENTH–TWENTIETH CENTURIES

Alexei V. Nesteruk

Introduction: Theological Delimiters

One interesting and distinctive feature of the problem of science and religion in the Eastern Orthodox context is that contemporary scientifi c and technological advance has little impact on the of the Orthodox and, in particular, its biblical interpretation. In my book I point out that the Orthodox experience with respect to the problem of science and religion is a special one for many reasons, including fi rst of all the theological differences with Western Christian- ity, as well as historical and political factors.1 These latter factors have a direct relation to Russian Orthodox theology and Russia in general, where scientifi c development, and its interaction with religion, appeared very late in comparison with the era of scientifi c revolutions in Western Europe. Russian Orthodox theology also did not experience any serious infl uence from the publication of Darwin’s work on biological evolu- tion. Darwinism as such was a subject of heated polemics and discus- sions in intellectual and academic circles in pre-revolutionary Russia, but essentially these discussions did not have any deep theological or exegetical overtones. It is striking that the fi rst serious theological works which try to incorporate relatively contemporary scientifi c achievements into the Orthodox context, started to appear only recently, following the spread of discussions about science and religion from the non- Orthodox West.2

1 Nesteruk 2003. 2 It is clear that these works could not appear in the Soviet Russia because of the ideological suppression of religion. By contrast, in the West, one can point towards Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975) who attempted a certain synthesis of Eastern Orthodox thought with evolutionary biology. See the survey of his life and works in van der Meer 2007. 372 alexei v. nesteruk

It is reasonable then to outline some underlying reasons which pre- determined the situation in which the dialogue between science and Orthodox theology was primarily carried out at the level of religious philosophy, rather than proper theology. The question we face is: why did the biblical interpretation of the Orthodox Church not react at all to scientifi c theories and views during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? There are a number of factors that explain this. The fundamental aspect of biblical interpretation in the Orthodox Church is that it cannot be separated from what is called ‘Holy Tradition.’ This effectively means that the Orthodox Church follows a particular hermeneutic principle, namely, that to interpret the Bible one needs faith, and, in order to have faith, one must read the Scriptures. In other words, as such, detached from the living experience of God and its inherence in the Church Tradition, has little value. Bluntly speaking, it attempts to discuss things whose meaning has not been disclosed through mystical and ecclesiastical experience. This is one reason why the Orthodox Church has always taught the principle that reading Scripture, without participation in the Church’s , is a risky enterprise, because the catholicity of truth in understanding the Bible cannot be achieved individually. It requires the whole experience of the Church and its tradition. Here one fi nds two further important and interlinked considerations. One is that biblical interpretation within the Tradition, the foundation of the Church’s reading of Scripture, is based on patristic theology, as it was disclosed to the Fathers through their mystical experience of Christ himself and through the biblical witness to him.3 One can ask whether this “pre-critical” attitude to exegesis is a viable, or indeed jus- tifi able, option for contemporary interpretation of the Bible. Can it be that when we refer to the Patristic age we effectively invoke an ancient relic, something which is outdated and incomplete and that, although necessary to be taken into account, must not be held to constitute the

3 According to the Orthodox view any appeal to tradition and to patristic theology, in particular, if taken simply in an academic context and without communion with the in the Spirit, splits the unity of that tradition and atomizes the Fathers’ thought. insisted that “it is misleading to single out particular state- ments of the Fathers and to detach them from the total perspective in which they have been actually uttered, just as it is misleading to manipulate with detached quotations from the Scripture. To ‘follow’ the Fathers does not mean just ‘to quote’ them. ‘To follow’ the Fathers means to acquire their ‘mind,’ their phronema.” (“St. and the Tradition of the Fathers”). Florovsky 1972, 109.