Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 9 (2016 9) 2150-2183 ~ ~ ~ УДК 2-11 From a Neo-Patristic Legacy of Georges Florovsky to the Radical Theological Commitment in the Dialogue with Science Alexei V. Nesteruk* University of Portsmouth, UK Lion Gate Building, Lion Terrace, Portsmouth, PO1 3HF Received 09.04.2016, received in revised form 11.07.2016, accepted 24.08.2016 The article discusses the possible ways of the dialogue between science and theology in the context of modern atheism and secularism. It is argued that the dialogue cannot be symmetric and that the task of a theological critique of secularism is extended to the critical analysis of modern scientific theories in the context of existential problems of humankind, as well as of any particular person. As a matter of a historical precedent one discusses an idea of a neopatristic synthesis in theology advanced by a famous Russian philosopher and theologian Fr. George Florovsky. The paper discusses a possibility of extending of a neopatristic ethos towards the dialogue between theology and science. One then accentuates the main problems of the dialogue such as the centrality of human person and primacy of existential faith as being the basis for a scientific creativity. Any tension between theology and science is destined to disappear if they both are seen as flourishing from the same human experience of existence-communion. Science thus cannot be detached from theology and it is in a complex with theology that it can be properly understood and treated. Keywords: atheism, neo-patristic synthesis, person, science, secularism, theology, radical theological commitment, knowledge. DOI: 10.17516/1997-1370-2016-9-9-2150-2183. Research area: philology. Introduction: theology. A negative answer is provided by the “Theological commitment” unceasing scientific and technological advance in the dialogue between theology (in particular in the exact natural sciences) and science which continues with no recourse to the dialogue Research related to the dialogue between between theology and science whatsoever. All theology and science became a matter of intensive discussions on whether science and theology are scholarly discussions in the last 20-30 years. It is in conflict, or in “peaceful coexistence” with each then natural to ask whether this dialogue achieved other, do not have existential implications: the any results which had impact on both science and problem remains and its ongoing presence points © Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved * Corresponding author E-mail address: [email protected] – 2150 – Alexei V. Nesteruk. From a Neo-Patristic Legacy of Georges Florovsky to the Radical Theological Commitment... to something which is basic and unavoidable in the realities which are disclosed by science alone. very human condition. This result indicates that It appeals to those meanings of existence which the method of conducting this dialogue at present is do not compel the recognition of science in the unsatisfactory in the sense that it does not address manner of natural phenomena. These meanings the major question as to what is the underlying originate in an innate quality of human beings foundation in the very distinction, difference and to long for immortality, that is communion with division between science and religion as those the unconditional personal ground of the whole modes of activity and knowledge which flourish world, which humanity names God. It is through from one and the same human subjectivity. But this longing that the universe acquires a certain this type of questioning makes any scientific sense as that constituent of God’s creation which insight irrelevant simply because science is not makes it possible for human persons to fulfil capable of dealing with the question of its own God’s promise for eternal life and communion. facticity, that is the facticity of that consciousness Theological commitment is thus existential which is the “pillar and ground” of science. commitment.1 Theology can respond to this question from Another aspect of theological commitment within the explicitly belief-based ground, namely in the dialogue is the reaction to modern atheism.2 faith in that the knowledge of the world represents Indeed, in its goals and tasks the dialogue between natural revelation accessible to humanity because Christianity and science is to oppose atheism.3 of God-given faculties. Knowledge is possible However, if one carefully looks at how this only by human persons whose basic qualities are dialogue has been conducted so far, one easily freedom and capacity to retain transcendence realises that the existing forms of this dialogue with respect to all they assimilate through life are adapted to that which is imposed by atheism. and knowledge. In this sense the universe as Contemporary atheism manifests itself not articulated reality has existence and sense only only as freedom from historical authorities and in a mode of personhood, which is a divine gift. tradition (that is the liberation from freedom in a Since science does not account for the very Christian sense) or as the unprincipled following possibility of knowledge, that is personhood, it of the proclamation “enjoy life for there is no is automatically prevented from participation God”, but as the worst form of the unenlightened in the dialogue with theology on equal footing. slavery of the Plato’s cave in which the signs of If there is no impact of this “dialogue” on logic the Divine presence are not recognised and the and development of science, what remains for very ability to see them in the world is reduced to theology is to exercise an introspection upon nothing. Atheism promotes a cult of immanence, science, to conduct a certain critique of science the actually existent infinity of the given4, from a position which is beyond not only scientific appealing de facto to deprivation of the senses thinking, but secular thinking in general related and the vision of the transcendent (and hence to to particular socio-historical and economic the relaxation of a soteriological moment). Since realities. Thus symmetry between theology and modern science, and technology in particular, science is broken from its very inception and encourage individuals to be transcendent-blind, constitutes that approach to the science-religion creating the immanent images of the transcendent, discussions which we describe in terms of the advocates of atheism appeal to science and theological commitment, a stance on human being in so doing atheism adjusts to the demands and which always positions it above and beyond those moods of modern time. It is much easier not to – 2151 – Alexei V. Nesteruk. From a Neo-Patristic Legacy of Georges Florovsky to the Radical Theological Commitment... deny the presence of the Divine in the world, but in the economically advanced societies, for all- to claim that all spheres of the human activity are encompassing knowledge is potentially socially self-sufficient and do not need any reference to dangerous. This entails in turn that knowledge and God. Since from a philosophical point of view science both function in society in a reduced and the question of God’s existence or nonexistence popular form which does not allow one to judge of cannot be decided (the philosophical mind its certitude, quality and completeness. Scientific remains in the “negative certitude” with respect knowledge becomes a world-outlook, ideology to this question), then would be easier to recognise and a filter of the social loyalty and adequacy. As a that science, art, literature etc. are just given in result the abuse of science becomes a norm which rubrics of that which is unconcealed to humanity. creates an illusion of its efficiency and truth in all Here atheism reveals itself as secularism, as a spheres of life. The scientific method is treated kind of trans-ideological läicité , as a servility as self-sufficient and not being in need of any to nobody’s interests, and to the alleged ideal justification and evaluation. Science proclaims of humanity understood only empirically, as the truth of the world from its own rationality that humanity which is alive here and now5 (it is which functions in the disincarnate collective supposed that this ideal of humanity has in itself consciousness. Supported through the system of a universal criterion of its own definition). To grants from the economically powerful groups, define this humanity in simple categories which it is allegedly done for the sake of human good. overcome racial national and class differences However by functioning in society science forgets one needs a universal language. It is science about the simple truth that science is a human which pretends to be such a language; to be creation and its initial meaning was to guard the more precise, it is that scientific form of thinking interests of people and not to make them slaves which reduces the phenomenon of humanity and hostages of the scientific method. in all its various manifestations to the physical The situation with the dominance of the and biological. It is clear that modern atheism as scientific approach to all aspects of life becomes a certain form of the “immanent humanism” is even more paradoxical when one realises that no more than a scientific atheism. However this human beings do not become more happy and free atheism positions itself as more aggressive6 and from the aspects of material existence. They cannot sinister, more advanced philosophically and anti- escape social injustice, hardship of mundane life, theologically7 than was the case, for example, in diseases and moral losses. This happens because Soviet Russia. The reason for this is that modern science as an ideology does not spell out what atheism is ultimately motivated by the logic of is most important, namely that it does not know material production and human resources, that is the goals and ways of its future development.