Customer Reviews

Light from the East (Theology and the Sciences) (Theology & the Sciences)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Nesteruk goes through a number of major issues in big science to show how each one ends up at an antinomy (Kantian style) which can only be "resolved" by seeing the tension itself as a divinely mandated pointer towards the diaphora in all creation. The universe, in other words, points to God not only because it is coherent, but also because it is incoherent (in se); as these two premises clash antinomically, they point even deeper to the very nature of Nature as diaphoric (split) between realities manifest to dianoia (natural, empirical reason) and the logoi, rooted in God, known by the nous by grace. To read this book more profitably, it will help to have a fair grasp of Orthodox theology and Kant's legacy.

I found the structure of the book a bit dizzying at times, until I "got it" a few chapters in: it's a set up job (but not a straw man), like one chapter-long article from a scholastic manual. "It would seem that creation is not a divine work since it manifests the following antinomy." "On the contrary, creation is a divine work because the antinomy indicates the diaphora (Greek: difference, split) in creation as a contingent work from a Divine source." Each antinomy gets a chapter, after some introductory chapters on the history of science in the West and a dense grounding in Orthodox metaphysics. At times, this book bent my head. Hooray!

Nesteruk has provided a fine resource for the philosophy of science to have a crack at. Very appealing was Nesteruk's emphasis on science as a form of worship (Nesteruk being a theoretical physicist and all modes of life being properly subsumed by their theo-logical foundation). Alas, I feel his dismissal of S. Jaki's and R. Hooykas as idealistic in their treatment of history was off-base. But no book is perfect.

Author Alexei Nesteruk presents a hefty tome of 248 pages divided into seven chapters in this 2003 monograph from Augsburg Fortress, a Lutheran Press with principal offices in the USA. In addition to manuscript pages, footnotes that are collated by chapter occupy another 20 pages, followed by Latin and Eastern Patristics sources in translation organized by author, a bibliography of primary Orthodox texts, a separate general bibliography, and Index--in all another 39 pages appended to the manuscript.

The author is a philosopher of science and lecturer on faculty at the University of Portsmouth (UK). Nesteruk's monograph is one of 17 titles in the publisher's Theology and the Sciences series (led by general editor Kevin J. Sharpe). It earns critical acclaim along with other titles in the same series by exemplary theologians and philosophers such as Langdon Gilkey, Patricia A. Williams, and Ian Barbour.

Given the breadth of remarkable and provocative books in this publication series, I recommend what Nesteruk contributes vis-à-vis others in the same series. 'Light from the East' is singular among the lot in having entered "...the dialogue with science" on the scale of Christian Orthodoxy and not Western Christian theology (Preface, 1). Nevertheless, Nesteruk's contribution shares a handful of common themes addressed in other monographs in this series, such as H. Paul Santmire's approach to a Christian ecology and Samuel Powell's study of the Creation by relations among the Holy Trinity.

Bringing a secure Orthodox faith to his dialogic enterprise underscores how Nesteruk differentiates scientific and theological strands from Latin West and Byzantine East with the confident hand of an ancient mariner. Sailing along a geographic and historical fault at 47 degrees North and variably 15-20 degrees East, ethnic Orthodox enclaves that appear south-by-northeast of this intersection as well as the Orthodox Diaspora elsewhere have produced far less discourse between science and eastern theologians than witnessed in the West. However, according to Nesteruk's view, less might well be a 'felix culpa.'

Nesteruk calls for synthesizing Greek, Syriac and Arabic Patristics qua Orthodox theology to answer Kantian objections ascribed to the constraints of human perception. Furthermore, he assures philosophical engagement with object(s) of science without borrowing Augustinian or Baconian assumptions (Chapters 1-3). The author explores an Orthodox metaphysics, which Orthodox contemporaries, Christos Yannaras of Greece and Archbishop Lazar (Puhalo) of Canada, charted across several decades prior to this book. Emphases on attachment of subject and object by apophaticism, hypostatic union of three divine Persons, and the spiritual intellect (nous)--three metaphysical realities of eastern theology, he envisions ground for dialogue with science that a western "detachment of the intellect from its object" (p.47) cannot achieve. Acknowledging fragmented conclusions in western dialogues, the central premise of holism in Orthodox theology establishes philosophical ground--a "logic of mystery"-- for compatible mystical and empirical inquiry.

Nesteruk develops theological monodualism in Chapter 4, a critical contruct for his thesis. Again, he remains in dialogue with Kant regarding a possibility for genuine onotology by identifying a process that would expose an apophatic opposition, which theology could address by way of its own praxis and theoria combined. An apophatic opposition comes close to a cataphatic principle, so careful attention to Nesteruk's distinction portends a prominent place for apophatic opposition in future dialogues between theology and science.

Similar to Nancy Cartwright's approach of detailed analysis of a scientific idea to expose philosophical problems, Nesteruk's investigative process employs first a dualist perspective to establish scientific objects as ontological entities and relations. Having first assured ontological comparability and comparisons, his process calls for a summary of the philosophical problems by creating a statement--an apophatic opposition. An apophatic opposition affirms and denies any claims about the object(s) under investigation in the way that apophatic theology affirms and denies every claim about God. Indeed, as Nesteruk concludes, the apophatic opposition directs investigation of the scientific object(s) under review toward Orthodox theology, which he has already defined in the ancient Eastern sense of a mystical understanding, arrived at by prayer and contemplation.

Karl K. Allen reviewed this book in the 2005 issue (Vol. 7) of 'The Journal of Religion and Society' (an electronic peer-reviewed journal), having concluded that" "Much of the fun of this book, once one has swum through the surge of new concepts, is watching Nesteruk getting great minds in different disciplines to talk to each other."

Yes, I agree with Professor Allen, there are technical hurdles in language to climb in 'Light from the East,' but they are fun and enticing. Every future endeavor by philosophers of science or religion, and every theologian who sails the way of studying science, must grapple with Nesteruk's ideas.

I anticipate posting a review soon of Alexei Nesteruk's 2008 monograph 'The Universe as Communion: Towards a Neo-Patristic Synthesis of Theology and Science.' (London: T&T Clark, 2008).

Light From The East: Theology, Science, And The Eastern Orthodox Tradition by Alexei V. Nesteruk (a researcher in cosmology and quantum physics), presents a new perspective on the conflicts between science and religion. Revealing unique contributions from the Orthodox tradition of Greek Patristic thought that apply to human understanding of God in our world in a way that Western traditions do perceive as adroitly, Light From The East persuasively addresses a vision of harmony between Orthodox vision and cosmology that incorporates the irreversibility of Time, humanity as universal hypostasis, and more. A highly erudite and complex discussion, Light From The East is a welcome and recommended addition to Religious Studies collections and Christian Theology reading lists.

Although there seems to be an increase in interest in Eastern Orthodoxy, there is very little understanding that this view of Christianity is indeed as far as the east is from the west.

This book bridges the gap in thinking and practice of Eastern Christianity where the subject of science is concerned, and is a decent primer of the thought process and practice of Eastern Orthodoxy as it intersects with western thought especially the compartmentalism and reductionism of science. It begins the dialogue and path to understand that Eastern Orthodoxy is much more concerned with verified truth, truthful practice and personal responsibility than with method and opinion.