SCIENCE AND RELIGION Series coordinated by Basarab Nicolescu and Magda Stavinschi This volume is issued with the generous support of the John Templeton Foundation within the framework of the Program “Science and Orthodoxy. Research and Education” TRANSDISCIPLINARITY IN SCIENCE AND RELIGION 55//22000099 Eric Weislogel, Guest Editor BUCUREªTI, 2009 EDITORIAL BOARD Director: Basarab Nicolescu Editor in chief: Magdalena Stavinschi Members: Ioan Chirilã Philip Clayton Radu Constantinescu Milan Dimitrijevic´ Christopher C. Knight Thierry Magnin Eric Weislogel ISSN 1843 – 3200 Published by Curtea Veche Publishing House Bucharest, Romania CONTENTS / SOMMAIRE ERIC WEISLOGEL Editorial …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 Research Works / Recherches JEAN-FRANÇOIS MALHERBE Un choix décisif à l’aube de l’éthique : Parménide ou Héraclite ? ……………… 11 DANIEL P. BUXHOEVEDEN Orthodox Religious Experience in the Science-Religion Dialogue …………… 37 EFSTRATIOS TH. THEODOSSIOU, VASSILIOS N. MANIMANIS, EMMANUEL DANEZIS, MILAN S. DIMITRIJEVIC’ The Cosmology of the Gnostics and the Orthodox Church ………………………… 47 ELENI ROVITHIS-LIVANIOU, EUGENIA ANTONOPOULOU Cosmology and Genesis ………………………………………………………………………… 53 JEAN KOVALEVSKY Models, Parables, Analogies, and Other Signs ………………………………………… 63 VALENTIN CIOVEIE On the Ontological Reality of the 8`(@4 of Creation ………………………………… 71 MARINA GIGOLASHVILI, LAMARA SHENGELIA The Orthodox Church of Georgia …………………………………………………………… 81 MILAN S. DIMITRIJEVIC’, EFSTRATIOS TH. THEODOSSIOU The Orthodox Church and Astronomy in Common Fight Against Astrological Superstition …………………………………………………………… 87 GHEORGHE ISTODOR Scientology: False Science and Religiosity ……………………………………………… 95 Studies / Études THOMAS B. FOWLER Causality, Personal Causality, and the Science-Religion Dialogue …………… 111 NANCEY MURPHY Non-Reductive Physicalism and Free Will ……………………………………………… 141 GEORG GASSER, MATTHIAS STEFAN, DANIEL WEHINGER The Myth of the Middle Course. A Critique of Non-Reductive Physicalism …………………………………………………………………………………………… 157 EMMANUEL M. CARREIRA The Human Person: Natural, Ethical, and Theological Viewpoints ………… 165 FELICITY BROCK KELCOURSE A Phenomenology of Self, Psyche, and Soul: What Can We Learn from a Name? ………………………………………………………………………………………… 179 EDWARD J. ALAM Soul Matters: Apes, Anthropology, and Aristotle …………………………………… 197 AUGUSTUS E. JORDAN Before Virtue: Ethics As Evolutionary Expertise ……………………………………… 235 ROBERT KANE Ethics and the Quest for Wisdom …………………………………………………………… 251 GARY BOELHOWER The Possibility of Practical Wisdom: An Interdisciplinary Model for Discernment ………………………………………………………………………… 267 TERESA KLIMOWICZ René Girard and the Genealogy of Consumerism …………………………………… 285 PATRICIA HELEN BENNETT Towards a Neurotheology of Health: A Transdisciplinary Exploration of Personal Relatedness, Emergence, and the PNI Function …………………… 297 PAULA S. DERRY Preconditions for Transdisciplinary Health Sciences ……………………………… 335 Events / Événements MAGDA STAVINSCHI New Topics for ADSTR ………………………………………………………………………… 355 Editorial nce again, I am privileged to introduce the current issue of Trans- O disciplinarity in Science and Religion. This issue consists of papers and reflections drawn mainly from two events. In the “Research Works” section, you will find (with one exception) papers from the international congress “The Dialogue Between Science and Religion in the Orthodox World”, held at the Romanian Academy in Bucharest from September 24 to 27, 2008. Collectively, these essays demonstrate the fruits of a construc- tive engagement of science and religion from an Orthodox Christian perspective. The papers are of interest from a cultural perspective in that they demonstrate (as if it still needed to be demonstrated!) that there is no one thing that goes by the name of science and religion, that no such engage- ments can completely free themselves from their historical and geo- political situation, that there is always something ineluctably particular in every encounter. There is no one thing called “science” and no one thing called “religion”. The science and religion engagement takes place among persons, individuals with their own life-histories, their own cul- tural contexts, their own worldviews. The issues and concerns that face the contributors to this congress differ in many important ways from those confronting North Americans or even the participants’ neighbors to their immediate west. All of us engaged in this on-going dialogue would do well to bear in mind the fundamental particularity in which we go about our explorations. That said, we are certainly able to draw more general insights from these particular engagements, that will prove applicable to us no matter which our context is. How scholars and educators deal with the spread of cultic and pseudo-religious movements in post-totalitarian situations hungry once again for spiritual fulfillment will also be instructive for educators who confront the same ideas proffered by Hollywood stars in a consumer culture liable to escapism. Regardless of the significant dif- ferences in the societal meaning of “astrology” in, for instance, Serbia or Greece, on the one hand, and England and the US, on the other hand, science and theology educators must deal with unstated presuppositions uncritically adopted by large segments of society, that pose obstacles to a genuine quest for truth. The physicists, astronomers, and other scholars who have contributed to this issue of TSR exhibit an open and exploratory approach to dealing with both scientific discovery and religious wisdom. We have much to learn from each other. One addition to the congress papers is the essay by Jean-François Malherbe, in which he explores the implications of Heraclitean versus Parmenidean foundations for our thinking about ethics. The papers you will find in the “Studies” section of the journal come, once again, from the international Metanexus Conference, held in Madrid from July 13 to 17, 2008, entitled, “Subject, Self, and Soul: Transdisciplinary Approaches to Personhood” (see TSR 4/2008 for our previous selection of conference papers). The current sampling of papers exhibits the rich diversity of work being done in a transdisciplinary vein, with topics ranging from the nature of causality, the implications of non-reductive physicalism for the question of free will, the concept of personhood, neurotheology, practical wisdom, transdisciplinary approaches to health, and much more. The international group of contri- butors represent a wide variety of academic disciplines and intellectual and spiritual perspectives. Allow me also to draw your attention to Prof. Madga Stavinschi’s report on ADSTR’s ongoing research as further evidence of the fruitful- ness of engaging in transdisciplinary approaches to science and religion dialogue. I want to express my gratitude to my colleague Gregory Hansell, Managing Director of Global Communications at the Metanexus Institute, and especially to Prof. Basarab Nicolescu for his direction of TSR and for his tireless advocacy of transdisciplinarity. Eric Weislogel Research Works ——————— Recherches Transdisciplinarity in Science and Religion © Curtea Veche Publ., 2009 No. 5 / 2009, pp. 11-36 Un choix décisif à l’aube de l’éthique : Parménide ou Héraclite ? JEAN-FRANÇOIS MALHERBE Doyen honoraire de l’Université de Sherbrooke, Canada, et Straordinario di filosofia morale presso l’Università degli Studi di Trento, Italie ans son précieux petit livre d’introduction à la lecture d’Héraclite, D le philosophe et helléniste Jean Brun soulève la délicate question de savoir comment éviter de faire d’Héraclite « le méritant précurseur de celui qui s’intéresse à lui », comment ne pas tenter de « lui enseigner la leçon désirable ».1 Héraclite lui-même semble répondre au professeur français. Il décrit, en effet, « les nombreux » comme des endormis qui, par manque de vigilance, prennent leurs opinions singulières pour des vérités universelles. Ne suggère-t-il pas ainsi de distinguer la subjectivité de l’arbitraire qui consiste précisément à tenter d’imposer aux autres sa pro- pre perception subjective comme vérité universelle ?2 Toute interpréta- tion est nécessairement subjective puisqu’elle est l’œuvre d’un sujet. Mais toutes ne sont pas arbitraires. Entre subjectivité et arbitraire, il y a un abîme qu’on ne peut éviter qu’à l’aide de ce que j’appellerais le respect du texte. Un texte supporte souvent plusieurs interprétations. Il est toutefois des interprétations que contredit le texte lui-même. Celles-ci sont arbitraires, 1. Jean Brun, Héraclite ou Le Philosophe de l’éternel retour, Éditions Séghers, Paris, 1965, p. 8. Pour ce qui est des textes d’Héraclite et de Parménide et de leur traduction, je me fie aux remarquables travaux de Marcel Conche : Héraclite, Fragments, texte établi, traduit et commenté par Marcel Conche, coll. « Épiméthée », PUF, Paris, 1991 et Parménide, Le Poème. Fragments, texte grec, traduction, présentation et commentaire par Marcel Conche, coll. « Épiméthée », PUF, Paris, 1996. Sauf indication contraire, les traductions citées sont celles de Marcel Conche. 2. Pour plus de précision à ce sujet, voir ci-dessous le texte : « Sans intelligence, etc. », cité à la page 20. 12 JEAN-FRANÇOIS MALHERBE tandis que celles-là assument simplement leur subjectivité. L’arbitraire commence précisément là où un sujet tente d’imposer à autrui sa subjecti- vité comme norme universelle. L’interprétation que je propose d’Héraclite et de Parménide n’est certainement pas la seule