Introduction: The Pastoral Problem

I welcome all of you for what I hope will be the first of a series of symposia on faith and science here at Holy Epiphany Parish. Should our work be productive and fruitful, it is my hope that it may be a source for future work within our parish. Many clergymen and laity alike have questions vis-à-vis this topic. Unfortunately, recent discussions have reached a dead end. What I hope we can accomplish today, as a minimum, is set a new framework on how to approach the questions relating to faith and science.

There is a perception among many that somehow science is at odds with faith. This perception is reinforced by an anti-religious culture that dominates contemporary culture, both in Russia and in the West, and claims legitimacy in being scientific and rational. Thus, the question concerning the relationship between faith and science merges into the battleground between faith and non-belief. We see this conflict played out before our very eyes. For example, at young age of five, six or seven, an Orthodox child learns at home and in church school that God always existed and created the world out of nothing in seven days.  We teach our children -- among other things-- about their Guardian Angel, the creation of Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babylon, and the Flood. In time we move on to the New Testament and teach about the Incarnation of the Son of God, the life and teachings of Christ, His Suffering and Resurrection.  Parents, clergy, teachers, and older parishioners are for these children authorities. But as a child grows up, he encounters conflicting messages in school, universities and from popular culture. Not only does God cease to be mentioned and new explanations offered, but young adults are exposed to –either directly or indirectly –to a militant atheism as well.  Representatives of this new ideology become the new authorities. The advocates of scientific culture strive to displace faith as the basis for one's world-view and self-identification simultaneously belittling religious experience as delusional.  Scientific culture is the attempt to explain all experiences (including religious) within a scientific framework void of faith.

At the present time there is a real pastoral dilemma that few in the Russian Orthodox Church wish to acknowledge and openly address. Tens of thousands of our youth throughout the Russian Church Abroad have left the Church after finishing school. (In Russia, similar problems exist as well). The reasons for this are many, but one of the more serious factors is the appearance of a conflict between faith and science. Faith is viewed as superstitious, backward and even delusional, whereas science is accepted as rational, trustworthy and real. Therefore, it seems to me that it will be very difficult to instill an Orthodox mindset among our youth until we seriously address the issues of faith and science with an approach that fairly incorporates the Orthodox patristic tradition with due respect to the scientific method.

The advocates of a militant scientific culture are erudite, forceful and seemingly persuasive to those who poorly understand faith. For all tense and purposes they control the discourse within contemporary social, political and cultural spheres. Therefore, any discussion begins with a faulty paradigm, and religious ideas become reactive to the scientific cultural model. History has shown that when Orthodoxy becomes reactive, this often leads to weak theology. Thus, for example, the question «what is the Orthodox view of evolution» is problematic. It is possible to answer this question easily, but by doing so, regardless of the answer, it allows for the infiltration of a faulty, reactive paradigm. Thus, today we need a new, fresh approach to the question of faith and science that mutually respects the experience and methods of both fields, while also understanding the limitations of each.

Bishop Alexander Milant and the quest for Reconciliation:
Where are we in the question of faith and science in the Russian Church Abroad and how did we get here?

In December 2002, Bishop Alexander (Milant) gave a lecture on faith and science at an Orthodox youth conference in Cleveland, OH. As a participant of the conference, I can attest that his lecture spark a wide spectrum of reactions (from shouts of «this has got to stop» to « finally we can be both Orthodox and intelligent»). The talk apparently got the attention of some members of the Synod of Bishops. Archbishop Mark of Germany was asked to offer his critique. Some time past and finally the Synod of Bishops asked that Bishop Alexander cease giving this lecture so as not to upset people, although they noted that his lecture contained no errors. I suspect that this may be in part due to the sensitive issue of the unification of the Russian Church which dominated the bishops' agenda at that time.  Within this context,  less noise the better.

What was it that Bishop Alexander said and why the various reactions? The first point which Vladyka made and repeated several times to the youth was that there are no contradictions between science and faith. He emphasized that these are two separate fields of knowledge. The problem arises when specialists from one field oversteps his area of specialty and competence. Thus, when scientists begin making broad statements about religion, they often make errors because they lack the knowledge or expertise –they overstep their area of competence. And vis-versa. When authorities of religion and/or the Orthodox faith attempt to speak about what science does or does not claim, mistakes occur which turn people away from faith. Bishop Alexander illustrated his point about two separate fields with the example of history and faith vis-à-vis the Russian Revolution and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Our bishops have historically claimed that God allowed for the Revolution due to the sins of the Russian people and their growing indifference towards the Orthodox faith. However, thanks to the witness and Glorification of the New Martyrs of Russia along with the repentance of the Russian people, God allowed for the collapse of the militant atheistic Soviet Union. However, this belief does not prevent historians from studying the causes of the Russian Revolution and the collapse of the Soviet Union from political, economic, social or nationalistic perspectives. These are two separate fields --faith and history -- and approaches that do not contradict each other. The same is with science and faith. Personally I was able to connect to his example. After I finished Seminary, I enrolled in a graduate history program at a secular university. My professors knew of my religious beliefs, but that did not concern them. They wanted to know whether I understood the historical method. Could I objectively discuss the historiography of a particular question and competently use primary sources? In other words, faith and history examine questions from different perspectives, but they do not contradict each other. The same point applies to faith and science.

Science is a field that has it own specific purposes and methods. Faith comes from a different source, or a different revelation, that cannot be tested in a laboratory. It is impossible to deeply understand what is occurring in the heart of an Orthodox believer in the same way one studies the development of a cell. When one begins to make extreme statements on a field he does not understand or is not trained, he comes across as ignorant and unenlightened by those more knowledgeable in that field. This is why when militant atheists such as Christopher Hitchens, or radical atheist scientists such as Richard Dawkins speak on religion, to us they appear no different than extreme Protestant fundamentalists such as Jerry Falwell whom they despise.

Concerning the two types of revelations which are important to us, Bishop Alexander wrote the following in one of his articles:

So, everything that we are going to say about synchronizing the Holy Scripture with modern scientific discoveries is based on the axiom of truth and validity of two revelations — natural and supernatural: the Lord makes Himself known to man either directly, through spiritual enlightenment, or indirectly, through nature.

Since the Source of both revelations — internal or supernatural, and external or natural — is one, their contents must be in complete harmony, complementing each other. If "conflicts" between the judgments of scholars and theologians sometimes arise, it is always the result of faulty interpretation — whether of scientific data or of the true meaning of God’s word.

His Grace continued his talk in Cleveland on the creation of the world in accordance to the first chapter of Genesis and contemporary scientific research. Vladyka emphasized that the Bible uses figurative and symbolic language. Each «day» as used in Genesis represents a period of time, perhaps even billions of years. Vladyka saw no problem with the formation of the universe through a Big Bang theory, with the gradual formation of the planets and the sun, the creation of plant life on day three that used Carbon Dioxide gasses which cleared the atmosphere and permitted the sun to appear on the forth day, followed by the gradual development of life guided by God with the participation of nature. He also had no problem with the evolution of man with God granting Adam a soul. In conclusion Bishop Alexander wrote:

Reconciling scientific data with religious conviction is far from an abstract exercise — particularly for parents who are believers. In these times, youths sooner or later become acquainted with various evolutionary theories and they begin to question how to reconcile these theories with what they have been taught in classes about the Law of God.
Here it is counterproductive for parents to simply dismiss the discoveries of modern science and assert without confirmation that they were all made up. Both non-religious evolutionists and creationist extremists want to thrust their conceptions on the growing generation, passing them off as facts – the former, by saying that everything originated in and of itself, and the Bible is a collection of myths; and the latter by insisting on a literal interpretation of every word of the Bible and teaching that everything was created instantly in its final form. Youths will feel like they are caught in a cross-fire that forces them to choose between the Bible and science.

Meanwhile, both extremes — evolutionism and creationism — rely not so much upon objective data (of science or the Bible) as upon their own specific suppositions. The evolutionist worldview suffers from a lack of spirituality, shortsightedness and haughty pretensions that in the end, science can explain everything exhaustively. It sometimes repels people with its anti-religious fanaticism. Creationism is notable for its narrow literalism. Not having any positive data in science, it limits itself mainly to a criticism of Darwinism. In spite of astronomy, geology, paleontology, atomic physics and other sciences, creationism insists that the earth is young and disputes obvious facts. However, as everyone knows, facts are "stubborn things."

As for detriment to faith, it is hard to say which of these extreme worldviews is more harmful: the first in that it eliminates our Creator, or the second, in that it creates an artificial conflict between Divine revelation and science.
Fortunately, there is in fact no fundamental conflict between religion and objective scientific data, and there is no need to choose between science and religion, because the two spheres of knowledge complement one another and discuss different sides of the same coin. God is the First Cause and author of all that exists — regardless of how He achieved His goals.

There are several reasons why Bishop Alexander's commentary upset some members of the audience in Cleveland. First, it contradicted what was taught at St. Herman's Youth Conferences for nearly 20 years before, namely, that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, we must understand «day» in Genesis as a literal 24 hour period as today, true scientists really don't believe in evolution and any attempt at reconciling evolution with Orthodoxy is at best an error and perhaps even a heresy. This view is rather wide spread in Russia today as well. These arguments were repeatedly made by Priest Nikita Grigoriev who presented this view again at the youth conference the following year in Montreal in 2004. Father Nikita stated that Bishop Alexander was wrong and he (Fr. Nikita) was sent to «set the record straight». Needless to say, this only led to more confusion and among the Orthodox youth.

The second reason why Bishop Alexander's approach troubled some of the older members of the conference was the influence of Father Seraphim Rose.  Father Seraphim Rose was an American convert to Orthodoxy in the 1960s and jointly founded the St. Herman’s Monastery in Platina California. A prolific writer and translator who died rather young at the age of 48 in 1982, Father Seraphim has become an authority within some Orthodox circles in both Russia and the West. In the 1970s until his repose, Father Seraphim wrote many letters, articles and gave a number of lectures strongly arguing against the idea of incorporating an evolutionary model within Orthodoxy. In 2000 the St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood published a 700 page collection of Father Seraphim's work on creation. Versions of Father Seraphim's thoughts on creation and evolution have appeared in Russia as well. Thus the critical reaction among some to Bishop Alexander's lecture in Cleveland in 2002 can be explained by the influence of both Father Seraphim Rose and Priest Nikita Grigoriev on segments of that audience.

            Several points I believe need to be made about Father Seraphim's «Genesis, Creation and Early Man» in the context of our symposium. Father Seraphim's postmortem monograph -- although rich in quoting the Church Fathers and has much that  is healthy --  is rather narrow in scope vis-à-vis the question of science. Very little mention is made about science at all, and in discussing the six days of creation, he almost completely ignores astronomy and cosmology. His main concern is fighting against scientific culture and its pretense to control the minds of men. Therefore, he feared that any acceptance of evolution among Orthodox will sooner or later lead to agnosticism, since evolution seeks to explain the appearance of man without God.  I would suggest that it is very likely that specialists in patristics may come to a different conclusion on Church Fathers vis-à-vis the creation of the world.

Conclusion

Thus the pastoral dilemma. How do we explain the creation of the world and the role of faith in this era of rapid scientific and technological advancement? How do we achieve a balance between faith and science?  How do we incorporate new scientific facts and theories within Orthodox catechism? As I noted above, what is needed now is a new, fresh approach. It is important that such new discussions occur in a spirit of humility and recognition that our knowledge of both Holy Scriptures and science is limited. Acknowledging that the universe is billions of years old is not an attempt to fit Genesis in an evolutionary model.

Lord, Thou hast been our refuge in generation and generation. Before the mountains came to be and the earth was formed and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting Thou art. Turn not man away unto lowliness; yea, Thou hast said: Turn back, ye sons of men. For a thousand years in Thine eyes, O Lord, are but as yesterday that is past, and as a watch in the night. (Psalm 89: 1-4. Holy Transfiguration Monastery Translation).

Today we can calmly recognize scientific facts while rejecting the scientific philosophy which have at times emerged from these facts. Orthodox theology never feared scientific discovery, unlike Roman Catholic and Protestant thinkers and/or Church leaders. Orthodox theology is so rich, that it lives and speaks in any age. The truths which they contain are timeless; the problem resides in our pride. As we study the laws of nature, we should remember the words of St. John Chysostom: «So don't pry too closely with human reasoning into the works of God; instead let the works lead you to marvel at their maker. »  And «Let us accept what is said with much gratitude, not overstepping the proper limit nor busying ourselves with matters beyond us; this is the besetting weakness of enemies of truth, wishing as they do to assign every matter to their own reasoning, and lacking the realization that it is beyond the capacity of human nature to plumb God's creation.” (Second Homily on Genesis).

Saint John also noted that in writing the book of Geneses, Moses was writing to a specific audience, i.e. the Hebrews who were wandering for 40 years in the desert. The Creation narrative was purposely limited because; «it wasn't logical that those still requiring to be fed on milk be given solid food instead. To take another example: whereas teachers who have been entrusted by parents with the education of their children give them the fundamentals of learning, those who receive the children from them at the next stage take them through more developed stages of learning.» (Second Homily).

St. John Chrysostom explains the main purpose of Moses' account: «Since he was talking to Jews, people quite wrapped up in the world about them and incapable of forming any spiritual notion, he led them along for the time being from visible realities to the creator of all things, so that from created things they might come to learn the architect of all and adore their maker, not stopping short at creatures. » 

In conclusion I wish to add that it is important that we do not forget that the Church Fathers used for illustration of deeper theological points the scientific discoveries and data which was known to them. Science has greatly evolved over the past 1,600 years. Undoubtedly, if St. Basil the Great had written his Hexaemeron last year, it would have differed from his fourth century original. However, his main point would not only have remained, but he would have found even more convincing proof that the universe had a beginning and that matter is not eternal: both ideas which conflicted with the main scientific and philosophical thought of his times. St. Basil's concern was the same as Moses', i.e. that the faithful worship the Creator, and not His creation.  At the same time, we cannot forget that our understanding of science will seem rather primitive in 1,600 years. Therefore, I again emphasis that when we discuss questions concerning the relationship between faith and science, we must do so in a spirit of humility and in accordance to any future conciliar decisions of the Orthodox Church. Scientific understandings change, but we know from history that the Word of God is eternal.

            It is my prayer that the beauty and creative spirit of Orthodoxy will again re-emerge so that all areas of knowledge will be filled with the Spirit of Truth. It is possible that this moment is at hand thanks to the rebirth of the one Russian Church.