• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
  1
[Published in
Transdisciplinary Studies
1 (2011) 39-54. This version does not containthe interventions of the editors.] 
The Other Path in Science, Theology and Spirituality: Pondering a FourteenthCentury Byzantine Model
 Doru Costache
St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological CollegeSydney College of Divinity
  Seeking an alternative to the western medieval context that led to the dissociation of science, theology and spirituality, my paper explores a different paradigm, namely thecultural framework of the fourteenth century Byzantium. In my views, the antagonismbetween science and theology, together with the modern disinterest in the spiritualpath, could have been avoided if the Byzantine culture were seriously considered inthe west. My goal, therefore, is to point out the relevance of the Byzantine solution – as illustrated by its fourteenth century representatives – to the current efforts of bridging the domains. Given the consistent neglect of this alternative by westernauthors, such an enterprise is even more necessary today. In the process, I hope theunsound character of many western prejudices concerning the supposed stagnation of the scientific demarche in Byzantium, will become obvious.The discussion unfolds in four parts. First, I shall lay a broader context, addressing themain conflicting views related to the significance of medieval culture along withreviewing the causes that led to the split between science, theology and spirituality.Emphasis will be placed on some basic features pertaining to the western late MiddleAges and the Renaissance, together with the role played by the Byzantine migrants inthe fifteenth century, as catalysts of the Italian Renaissance. Second, my paper willexplore the major representatives of Byzantine scholarship in the fourteenth century,pointing out the weaknesses and strengths of their cultural milieu. This part is meantto contribute to the understanding of the cultural background of the Byzantines wholater fled to the west. Third, I shall explore the aptitude displayed by the Byzantineframework ……….40……….to creatively incorporate scientific expertise and theological insight. A brief discussion of the reasons why some Byzantine scholars came to be marginalised bytheir compatriots will prepare the fourth part, dealing with the fascinating synthesis of science, theology and spirituality achieved by St Gregory Palamas. I shall concludeby pointing out the relevance of Byzantine wisdom to current conversations inscience, theology and spirituality. 
 
  2
A culture of oppositions
It is well established that, beyond the various strands in science and religion (Griffin[2000] 22-3; Haught [1995] 3-4), contemporary scholars basically champion twoopposite views in regards to the significance of medieval culture: the ‘warfare theory’and the ‘alliance theory’. The first approach takes medieval theology as an obstaclefor the development of sciences whereas the second considers it a necessary conditionfor scientific progress. I shall provide here just two examples meant to illustrate thatbeyond any doubt, the contradictory understandings of the medieval legacy stillprevail in our culture. For instance, echoing the first approach yet without qualifyingthe role played by theology, Gribbin ([2003] 4) states that nothing really happened inscience after the ancient Greeks and up until Copernicus, throughout a period of ‘fifteen centuries of stagnation’. On the other side of the spectrum, Lindberg ([2002]58) maintains that within the Middle Ages can be found ‘the roots, the sources, of modern scientific disciplines and practices’. The contrast is obvious. Whilst the firstauthor perpetuates the common idea of a dramatic gap between antiquity andmodernity, the second author places his discourse within a more rigorous historicalperspective, acknowledging the accomplishments of medieval scholars.Beyond such paradoxes of perception, at least during the last century there haveemerged, along with more nuanced approaches, new trends (such as themultidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary methods) whose explicit goalis to build a holistic framework (Nicolescu [2002] 261-4). Within such a framework,not only the various scientific fields can creatively interact, but also the sciences andother domains of human knowledge and expression, like theology, philosophy and thearts. There is no space here to elaborate on these aspects.What should be noted, however, is that against the success of such new trends standsa series of internal obstacles, pertaining to the western mentality, the very matrix of modern sciences. I refer here to a range of famous oppositions such as matter vs.spirit, the visible vs. the invisible……….41……….and the natural vs. the supernatural, which pervade the western context and shapecontemporary civilisation. Nesteruk ([2003] 36-40) aptly points out that the origin of these obstacles should be looked for deep within the cultural history of the west, tothe fourth and fifth century Latin (i.e. Augustinian) ideas of the rapports betweenreason and faith, the representation of philosophy and science as handmaidens of theology, and the incapacity to acknowledge creation’s participation in the life of God. Built as they are upon such slippery ideological foundation, modern sciencescannot escape from being influenced by, and in turn contributing to, this culture of oppositions. It would be a truism to reiterate here in detail how modern sciences arethought of as representing a naturalistic standpoint with no reference to what laysbeyond the ‘natural’ realm. By all means, this ideological standpoint has nothingscientific about it yet this remains the ‘dogma’ behind any modern scientific theory.Thus, in order to ensure the success of current undertakings in regards to bridgingscience, theology and spirituality, one has to be fully aware of the western roots of thevarious problems we face. The ultimate source of these problems seems indeed to bethe scholastic division between the natural and the supernatural (Griffin [2000] 24,26-7). This opposition originally contributed to the dissociation of theology and
 
  3
spirituality, leading to the transformation of theology into a science, or the queen of all sciences, and the marginalisation of spirituality, considered as belonging with the‘illogical’ realm of affectivity. The same opposition furthermore led to the divisionbetween science, as a privileged field of exploration of the natural domain, andtheology, as an intellectual exercise whose object is the supernatural. I have arguedelsewhere that this dualistic background has no relevance whatsoever to the Byzantineframework and the tradition of the Orthodox Church (Costache [2004] 51-67; cf.Meyendorff [1983] 134, 138).Moving closer to the topic and the period of interest here, along with these traditionalwestern roots of the conflict there should be noted the revival of Platonism and other dualistic systems during the early, twelve century Renaissance (Lindberg [2002] 63-4)
1
. Endorsing the culture of oppositions, the Platonic propensities of manyRenaissance scholars have greatly added to the existing problems, widening theconceptual chasm between the natural and the supernatural, secular and religious. Indoing so, alongside the equally fascinating interest they displayed for the occult, thesescholars have precipitated the further ……….42……….estrangement of physics and metaphysics, science and theology. As a result of thisprocess, after centuries of religious preeminence due to the phenomenon of theRenaissance we live now in an era dominated by science (Allègre [1997] 7-8). Thesupernaturalist paradigm of the western Middle Ages has been replaced in moderntimes by another unilateral pattern, the naturalist one.Given the above, more precisely given the western parameters of the rapports betweenscience, theology and spirituality, why would anyone be interested in late Byzantium?For historical and practical reasons, the answer is obvious. Allègre ([1997] 218; cf.Geanakoplos [1989] 7, 34-5) notes that the Byzantine migration to Italy during thelate fourteenth and early fifteenth century brought to the west the flexible attitude of the Orthodox clergy, which encouraged the development of the sciences. What is thesignificance of this fact? If we seek European alternatives for the road that led to thesplit between the fields of interest here, we could very well begin by considering thepotential of Byzantine legacy.Before moving to more specific details concerning this legacy, a glance into the roleplayed by the Byzantines in the Renaissance is in order. Albeit the legitimate pride of the west for the antecedents of this cultural phenomenon (Copleston [2003] 207;Lindberg [2007] 203-53), the fifteenth century Renaissance cannot be fully assessedwithout considering the impact of the Byzantine migrants upon the western scholars(Bradshaw [2004] 263). Indeed, the Byzantines have been instrumental in the shapingof the Italian Renaissance, admits Copleston ([2003] 201-11). To substantiate hisassertion he mentions the contributions of a group of Byzantines who were activemainly in Florence
2
. Among these the most prominent were Manuel Chrysolaras
 
(d.

1
One of the outcomes of this resurgence of Platonism in the west is the modern belief in theimmutability of physical laws. Greatly influenced by the Platonic concept of eternal ideas, this belief still perturbs contemporary thought (Smolin [1997] 194).
2
Geanakoplos ([1989] 3-68) undertakes a far more comprehensive exploration of the Byzantinecontributions to the Italian Renaissance, which cannot be included here.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...