||The Physical Basis of Spirituality: Common Ground for Dialogue
Noetic Advanced Studies Institute, Orinda, California, USA
Human epistemology has followed a steady evolution from superstition through logical reason to the current state of empiricism. Now another Galilean class revolution completing epistemology by integrating Science and Theology (S&T) seems immanent. S&T represent opposite ends of a long continuum rather than mutually exclusive disciplines. An integrative noetic science must include an understanding of Transcendence to unite S&T. Here Transcendence is defined in terms of Plato's concept of noetic insight: No matter how great ones intelligence or knowledge, noetic insight is a cosmic insight beyond the self. All scientific theory formation has a low level metaphysical component. The high level addition of Transcendence as a tool of science in theory formation would accelerate progress by optimizing avenues for empirical research. Currently all the standard models of science are Darwinian or naturalistic which excludes any place for God or Spirit. For example Biological Mechanism, the basis for allopathic or scientific medicine and psychology states: The laws of chemistry and physics are sufficient to describe all life; no additional life principle is required! The founding fathers of quantum theory stated it could not describe biological systems; therefore something must be missing in physical theory. According to the Perennial Philosophy: God exists and has revealed a path to find him. The perennial philosophy is not only universal to all theology but ultimately to all truth whether theological or scientific. In this paper an extension of Einstein's Static Universe model called a Continuous State Conscious Universe (CSCU) is shown to naturally include a new action principle governing complex self-organized living systems. This CSCU elucidates the physical basis of spirituality. All legitimate religions or life paths in principle provide avenues to transcendence. Achieving transcendence is not based on the superficial icons of the world’s theologies. Artifacts like phylacteries or rosaries or rituals like bowing east or genuflecting are not relevant. Because humanity has an inherent spiritual component, transcendence is achieved universally by practicing principles of love, service and charity; or adhering perfectly to what is called the Golden Rule - Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. One may further clarify the requirements for transcendence in terms of a 3-level pyramid. The base represents crimes or sins of action like murder, theft or adultery. The middle of the hierarchy is represented by sins of word like lies or insults, which under extreme conditions could lead to another’s harm or death. The top of the pyramid represents sins of thought. Thought by nature is fleeting. As long as an evil thought is not dwelt on; it can be forgiven as quickly as contemplated. At this level of living the limitations of being human come into play. The author postulates that by routinely living at this apex a universal Principle of Transcendence comes into play whereby anyone maintaining this mode will spontaneously achieve a state of transcendence. If this noetic Principle of Transcendence is correct, any team of scientists whether comprised of any combination of Jews, Christians or Shintos for example will be able to utilize Transcendence as a tool in scientific theory formation. Likewise any dialogue between scientists and theologians could achieve the same fruition. Fruitful dialogue between S&T must take place in an arena of commonality. Empiricism has been an impossible challenge for theology; and scientists have historically denigrated any dialogue utilizing religious dogma based on logical put forth by theologians as merely a product of pre-Galilean imagination. Therefore only by developing a common basis for utilizing transcendence as a universal epistemological tool can any dialogue between S&T produce ripened fruit for general interdisciplinary use. Producing a universal framework for such dialogue seems of grave import because such a completion of human epistemology could have broad impact ultimately leading to world peace.
Event, Covariance, and Evolution:
Peirce and Whitehead's Philosophies in the Light of Modern Science
Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome, Italy
Quantum mechanics represents still a defy for philosophical and scientific thought to the extent to which a satisfactory explanation of its results, which can somehow fit in a more comprehensive understanding of our world, fails. This means that relatively recent efforts that have been made in order to understand the measurement process (through decoherence mainly) or how non-local correlation works have in general proposed solutions that seem very far away from all that we otherwise know about the physical world.
In this intervention I wish to stress that it is not so. In other words, these solutions contain a seed of rational understanding that goes far above the specific problem they are called to solve. The difficulty comes from the fact that these technical solutions, if aspiring to become true interpretation, should be correctly framed in a wider general understanding that must be ultimately of philosophical nature. In particular, I wish to show that Peirce and Whitehead, although with a language and problematic issues that are characteristic of a pre-quantic science, were faced with similar problems, and to a certain extent they offered solutions that, with suitable modifications, fit as a general framework for our problem.
In particular, it will be shown that the view of the world that comes out is centred on an evolutionary dynamics understood as a joint between discontinuous events and correlations.
Qualia – possible turning point between Transdiciplinary research,
Integrative Science prospect, and Theology
The inter/trans-disciplinary approaches upon the 3rd millennium are challenges to reduce the societal gap between humankind aspiration and limitation. Focusing on the globalization turning point, the contemporary societal gap is a complex reality. Our nature, our society, our thinking are the reverted parts of this non-systemic entity: societal gap. All these emulate the thinking upon the consciousness, Existence_Reflection profoundness, and Universal Consciousness re-approach. Is there a possibility of the Universal Entities re-approach? May an Evil pattern be into this type of re-approach? Are Universal Consciousness and Evil – the systemic parts of the universal entities? Is "Rational Subject - Universal Consciousness and Evil" a Relation?
Mathematical, meta-Mathematical, Linguistic, meta-Linguistic approaches are derived within the intuited, accepted, and adapted spectrum of the contemporary complexity of our world(s): (hypothetical) real world, models as meta-world, trans-real world, pre-real (managerial) world – as a ring (regarding the cycle of the worlds) and tabular pattern (regarding the approaches). The “meta” prefix is consonant to the “(meta)responsibility” mental construct – according to the following tabular frame:
mental focalisation / researcher’s aim Underlining Underlining
Responsibility Meta_ responsibility
Analytical mind GEOMODERNITY TRANSDICIPLINARITY
Algebraic mind FUZZYFICATION STRUCTURAL-
-PHENOMENOLOGY
and to the prospected continuity, as into the below quasi-space, centered on qualia:
to BE || PREREAL POSIBILITY CAUSAL DETERMINISM
||
|| METAREAL qualia HEURISTICS
||
|| REAL TRANSREAL PROBABILITY
||=========================================================
Continuum (existence; ownership ) to HAVE
REMARK: The (single) meta_rule may be to harmonize the (HYPOTHETICAL) REALITY, our (HUMANKIND) MODELS, and the IDEALS. These mental concepts are post-axiomatical proposed here, to enlarge our mental concepts/constructs. All these, but the IDEALS more, engage us into the Science-Poetry-Philosophy|Theology-Arts ideal ring of the Real-Metareal-Transreal-Prereal circular worlds.
Science moderne et apophase
Michel Cazenave
Radio France / France Culture, Paris, France
Toute la science moderne s’est construite depuis le début sur une proposition métaphysique forte: il y a de l’un, proposition qui a largement démontré sa fécondité et son efficacité. Pourtant, il est rare qu’on en interroge les fondements et qu’on veuille en tirer les conclusions nécessaires. Quel est, en effet, cet un supposé, et comment peut-on le penser ? Peut-on en rester à l’un comme puissance d’unification, à cet un qui se maintient, d’hypostase en hypostase, fût-ce sous forme de reflet jusqu’à l’extrême du multiple ? Ou ne doit-on, nécessairement et selon les réquisits mêmes de la raison, un un d’avant l’un, un un antécédent à l’Être même? (voir Plotin et Proclus dans leur reprise des hypothèses du Parménide de Platon) On débouche alors sur l’ek-sistence d’un inconnaissable premier, d’un au-delà de la raison discursive qui n’est plus accessible que par l’intuition immédiate, la puissance de la contemplation. La philosophie rejoint ici la théologie, et derrière une via negativa, introduit à la notion de productions apophatiques qui, de niveaux en niveaux de réalité, dévoile cet un principiel (la Cause des causes, ou Dieu), tout en voilant à mesure son noyau irradiant. C’est la totalité du réel qui devient alors une icône, le visible de ce monde se présentant comme le signe de l’invisible essentiel. À quoi d’autre nous renvoient les avancées les plus fines les plus fines de la physique quantique, de la cosmologie contemporaine ou des mathématiques modernes ?
Oxford University, UK
Modern science – associated to the West - excluded the intervention of God in the world and treated it as an unnecessary “hypothesis”. However Islamic philosophy rejects any scientific investigation that is not based on the fundamental belief in God.
In his defense of rational Philosophy and Faith against the Kalam theologians lead by Al Ghazali, Averroes wrote an outstanding manuscript where he demonstrates that there is no contradiction between science, philosophy and theology as long as the levels of investigation are well defined and the methods separated. The transliteration of Averroes’s manuscript is “On Discourse Differentiation”.
I argue that in modern cosmology, although cosmologists can claim that God is unnecessary to explain the data, it is unavoidable the raise the question of God especially when one discusses the questions of origin of the universe and the nature of time at the “singularity”. On the other hand can Islamic philosophy revivify itself by joining the debate in modern cosmology and “risking” the God hypothesis as a potential paradigm that can remove the dichotomy [Science]-[Religion]?
Radu Constantinescu
University of Craiova, Romania
The present paper will analyze how the concepts of determinism, chaos and Divine providence could act in the understanding of the world, both from sciences’ and theology’s sides. Newtonian physics postulates the existence of determinism in the evolution of dynamical systems. However, there are systems which do not obey to classical Newtonian determinism. They were named chaotic systems, and their study requires statistical laws. The chaotic behavior was pointed out and modeled mathematically, even for the case of the social systems’ evolution. An exhaustive study would involve an interdisciplinary approach that should take into account the Divine action in the human history.
Theology offers many outlooks and perspectives on the external connection from a cause to its effect. The action of God, known as the Divine Providence, is founded upon the concept of “continuous creation”, which is not at all opposite to the development of science as a mean for human knowledge.
We will point out the way through which the laws of statistical Physics and Quantum Physics could be integrated into the concept of Divine Providence. Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty admits the human being’s impossibility of crossing over a certain limit of his knowledge on the external world. We are not speaking of agnosticism, as sometimes speculations were drawn, but about the existence of another type of determinism, the Quantum one. A clear distinction between the concepts of “impossible” and “improbable” has to be noticed.
For the systems formed of a large number of constituents, including the peculiar case of the social ones, the evolution is as well deterministic and chaotic. These types of systems can be accurately described by quantities, such as the “entropy”, able to approximate realistically the disorder degree and the coherent structure of the system. According to a fundamental principle of thermodynamics, the entropy of any uncostrained system evolves increasing till its highest value. For theologians, an interesting fact is the identification of the highest entropy state with the system’s “death”. As a concrete example, there are fatalistic theories which postulate that growth of entropy for the Universe, seen as a dynamical system, could be assimilated with the phenomenon of its thermal death. A second example of a system upon which entropy acts is the human being himself, considered as a biological system. Since birth, the evolution of the human being flows through stages of increasing entropy culminating by death, understood as the maximal level of entropy. The deepest microscopic disorder coincides in this case, with the absolute level of macroscopic order (that is to say death).
Christopher J. Corbally, S.J.
Vatican Observatory
Strange to some, the Vatican has been seriously participating in science for over 400 years. That participation is essential to the endeavor of theology, though this has not always been clear. I shall reflect on times when the dialogue has failed, notably the Galileo case, but also its persistent "myth" today. There has been a new beginning of the dialogue for the Vatican, significantly under Pope John Paul II in 1986. We also know that the dialogue persists today, but challenges are evident such as in our understanding of the place of humanity in the scientific account of evolution, future as well as past. In this review of the Vatican's relationship with science, I hope to convey some of the potential in an ongoing dialogue between our grasp of the natural world and our reaching towards the mystery of its Creator.
The Unifying Ladder of St Maximus the Confessor
Going Upwards with Everything You Are
Doru Costache
St. Mary’s Romanian Orthodox Church, Sydney, Australia
St. Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College, Sydney, Australia
We are living a time of redefining culture.
Modernity taught us to separate between culture and life, and to ignore the natural link between knowledge and inner experience.
The challenge of our times is to regain this necessary link, to bridge the gap between knowing and living, in order to properly define ourselves and to acquire appropriate instruments for the purpose of building a better both internal and external world.
Contemporary dialog between science and theology could be a serious candidate to become such a tool only meeting the field of the inner life. It is not without significance here that many interested in this domain are committed to or seeking the wisdom coming from spiritual traditions. After all, religious and mystical traditions always represent a comprehensive context for thinking and experiencing.
Working for many years on St Maximus’ thoughts, I found that his grand unification theory could serve both to coherently integrate science and theology, on the one hand, and knowledge and life on the other hand.
My paper will focus on the wisdom St Maximus could provide us with, for a better understanding of our contemporary quest.
Cosmological Implications of the “Hexameron” of
Saint Basilius the Great
Danezis, E.1, Theodossiou, E.2 and Dimitrijevic, M.3
1&2 Department of Physics, Section of Astrophysics, Astronomy and Mechanics, University of Athens, Greece
3Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
Basilius the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea and Saint of the Eastern and Western Christian Church (330-379 A.D.), was born at Neocaesarea of Pontos by a wealthy family of intellectuals in 330 A.D. At the age of 21, Basilius came to Athens, the main centre of university studies of the time, where the famous philosophical schools founded by Plato and Aristoteles were still operating. At these schools were teaching the distinct sophists of the time, Emaerius and Proaeraesius. In Athens, Basilius took classes of rhetoric, grammar, philosophy, dialectics, astronomy, geometry, arithmetics, and, to a lesser degree, medicine. That cycle of studies was completed within four years, after which he returned to Caesarea (356 A.D.). After his return to Cappadocia and a five year-period of ascetic isolation and meditation, Basilius was ordained a priest (364) and finally became Archbishop of Caesarea after the death of Eusebius.
For his great moral and spiritual virtues as well as for his general social contribution, the Christian Church has declared Basilius a Saint and his memory is honored by the Eastern Orthodox Church on January, the 1st and 30th, together with two other holy Fathers, Gregorius Theologus and Ioannis Chryssostomus, and by the Western Christian Church on June, the 14th.
One of the most important works of Basilius the Great constitutes his nine Speeches on the Hexameron where, through the scientific knowledge of his time accompanied by a brilliant theological justification, he tries to prove the truth of cosmological events, as are those described in the biblical book of Genesis.
Considering the speeches of Saint Basilius from the point of view given by the history of science, we wish to indicate that this work is one of the most important sources of knowledge as far as the dominant views in the field of Astronomy and, in general, in the field of the sciences of that era, are concerned.
The truth of this indication is evident if one takes into account that, the astronomical views in the Hexameron are stated, by someone (Saint Basilius) who had a deep knowledge of science and astronomy being formed in the wide region around the Mediterranean sea.
In the present work, being a small part of a wider project concerning the investigation of the physical knowledge during the time of Saint Basilius as it is deducted from the Hexameron, we shall examine some pioneering ideas developed by the Great Father of the Christian Church, which can constitute the beginning of a series of considerations for the historians of Astronomy.
Emmanuel Danezis1, Efstratios Theodosiou1, Ioannis Gonidakis1, Milan S. Dimitrijevic2
1 National and Kapodestrian University of Athens, School of Physics,
Department of Astrophysics, Astronomy and Mechanics
2 Belgrade Astronomical Observatory
A distinctive characteristic of the modern theological reality, which is developing in Western societies, is the effort to confute the metaphysical views of the Christian Theology through the expression of ideas that are mainly based on the findings of the Exact Sciences (Antiretic-Objectionable Theology). The exact scientific way of thinking nowadays takes for granted that the current scientific knowledge, will inevitably be expanded, corrected, completed, and some ideas even annulated in the future under the pressure of new dramatic scientific discoveries. Thus, scientists from other fields, that are not familiar with the reality stated above, should not support their theological considerations on perishable and temporary views that may be overruled, once the scientific facts they are based on overrule themselves.
Antiretic Theology is based, in many cases, on scientific views of the 17th century that are no longer valid. We should mention that, due to this fact, the theological schools should study in depth the new Exact Sciences achievements and adapt their objections upon them, pursuing their antiretic work. In fact, we suggest that the theologians should follow the model of the Christian Church Fathers and become experts of the exact sciences of their epoch. In order to clarify this, we discuss here in accordance with the views of modern science, a problem that was a point of disagreement and dispute between philosophers, theologians and exact sciences throughout the centuries. The problem concerns the existence of an invisible to the human senses, but actual and objective, reality that co-exists with the so-called tangible world.
Emergence, Discovery and a Platonic Perspective on complex systems
Physics Department. Elon University, USA
The expression "emergent property", though expressive of the novelty reflected in complex systems, risks mis-construing the fundamental nature of dynamics. This paper offers an alternative formulation reflecting the "discovery" of existence in potential of such properties"
On the Reform of Julian Calendar on
Ecumenical Congress in Constantinopole in 1923
Milan S. Dimitrijević1 and Efstratios Theodossiou2
1Astronomical Observatory, Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
2Faculty of Physics, University of Athens Panepistimiopolis, Athens, Greece
Patriarch Meletios IV, the head of the Orthodox Churches, was convening an ecumenical congress in Constantinople in May 1923, where one of the principal points was the reform of the Julian calendar. On the Congress attended Greek, Russian, Romanian and Serbian Churches, and representatives of Serbian and Romanian Orthodox Churches submitted two elaborated propositions for calendar reform.
In Serbian delegation were Metropolitan of Montenegro and Coast Gavrilo Dožić, who later become Patriarch of Serbian Orthodox Church, and Milutin Milanković, one of the greatest serbian scientists, later vice-president of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and Director of Belgrade Astronomical Observatory, who explained by astronomical reasons the phenomenon of Ice Ages, elucidated the history of Earth’s climate as well as that of other planets, being in addition the author of the matematical theory of climate and of the Earth's pole motion. They came on the Congress with the proposition of calendar reform which author was Maksim Trpković. He proposed the intercalation rule that the secular years whose number of the centuries divided with 9 give the remainders 0 or 4 will be leap years. In such a way 7 days will be omitted from 9 centuries, so that the calendar will be closer to the tropical year than Gregorian, and equinox will be always on 21 March or very close.
In Romanian delegation were Archimandrite Julius Scriban and senator Dragici. They came with the following proposal of the calendar reform. The year has 364 days, full 52 weeks, so that every date has a fixed, always the same day in the week. March, June, September and December have 31 days and other months 30 days. An additional week which number of days corrects the difference with tropical year, is added every 5 years between 31 June and 1 July. The first day of Easter is fixed on 29 April and all other holidays become fixed. The unsigned proposition senator Dragici presented to Congress as his, but he told to Milanković that the author is baron Bedeus from Sibiu, who is not an orthodox, so that is inconvenient that his name is on proposition to Congress of Orthodox Churches.
In scientific commission formed to examine two projects were Milutin Milankovic, senator Dragici and Archimandrit Scriban, but both propositions were rejected by Congress as inconvenient and Milutin Milanković obtained task to elaborate a new one. He proposed a new intercalation rule, that secular years are leap years only provided that the number of centuries they belong to, divided by 9 yields the remainder 2 or 6. In such a way he obtained the calendar more precise than Gregorian one but identical with this up to 2800. He underlined that the advantage is that Orthodox Church has not accepted the calendar of the Catholic Church and that it is in principle better than Gregorian.
Also, Anthimos Metropolitan of Viziys proposed to determine the exact date of Easter by astronomical methods with the help of Observatories and Universities in Athens, Belgrade, Bucharest and Pulkovo.
Milutin Milanković made the final redaction of the calendar reform adopted on the Congress, which was signed by Patriarch Meletos IV, Metropolitan of Kyzikos, Kalinikos, Archbishop of North America, Alexander, Metropolitan of Montenegro and Coast Gavrilo Dožić, Metropolitan of Nicaea, Vasilios, Metropolitan of Durachion, Jakub, Archimandrite Julius Scriban, and Professors V. Antoniadis and Milutin Milanković. In this contribution we will discuss this calendar reform.
The theology of T. F. Torrance and the future of the science-theology dialog within
Orthodox Christianity:
Reasons why the science-theology dialog engages vital issues & challenges for the future.
Charles L. Harper, Jr.
John Templeton Foundation, USA
The dialogical engagement of scientific research within the broad context of "Eastern" orthodox theology offers great challenges and opportunities. Orthodox theology can be thought of in two complimentary ways. First, it can be viewed statically as a great historic repository of tradition within the heritage of philosophical theology, reflecting the greatness of the "Patristic period” and linked with ethnic heritage and its preservation today. Or, second, it can be thought quite differently in a dynamically sense. How can the Christophoric vision and experience of he Church engage in a serious way with the best scholarly learning of the contemporary age and in dialog and debate with the best challengers and skeptics of the age? My purpose in this talk will be to explore and encourage ways by which scholars working within the Eastern Orthodox context might consider the second mode of action. I will refer to the thought of an early mentor of mine T.F. Torrance who was very much absorbed with this task. The range for deep interaction today is vast, but the challenges for seriousness in the engagement of science are very demanding and serious.
Apophatism in life sciences and its implications in Bioethics
Nowadays, more than ever, we encounter huge confidence in human mind and its ability to generate infinite progress. Biomedicine is continuously updating its agenda, usually futuristic, usually seeming to stand on the verge of science- fiction. We accumulated great knowledge in biomedical sciences. Still, some basic things continue to escape investigation, such as the true nature of life, its substance, and its essence. Life sciences are, probably, the sole scientific domain where experts could not agree on the very object of their pursuit.
The situation is even more complicated when it comes about our own kind. Theologians, as well as most scientists and philosophers admit that there are some things very special about humans, which require a special status to be admitted for the human species on this earth. The point where disagreement emerges is defining these special traits. The paper intends to investigate some of the consequences of this disagreement, its influence on science and a most interesting outcome, namely the way it led to a new, composite domain, Bioethics.
A Methodological Comparison
between Contemporary Science and Orthodox Theology
Ste. Parascève - Ste. Geneviève" Orthodox Romanian Parish, Paris, France
Why and how we have to trust in the results of science? In which way does science produce knowledge? Should we identify a change in paradigm in contemporary science in comparison with modernity? Which are its theological consequences? On the other hand, is theology also knowledge? Consequently, can we identify a theological methodology? Moreover, the dialogue between science and theology, should be more fruitful if proposed by means of methodological and conceptual comparative analysis?
As known, science deals with the concrete, material world. It is a specific way to develop knowledge by means of cognitive human abilities. It is a body of knowledge about determined and accepted objects of interest. It presumes a specific methodology, a way of achieving sure, verifiable information about the world. Contemporary changes in fundamental concepts and methodology occurred by the bias of quantum physics offer a new scientific perspective. A new scientific paradigm is on the way. New fundamental concepts, more coherent with the traditional theological perspective, are proposed. By means of discontinuity, uncertainty, nonlocality, indeterminism, antinomy, for the first time from the modernism a sort of apophatism is accepted in the core of scientific research. Moreover, concepts like experiment, model, theory or paradigm that seemed to be exclusively scientific, as well as concepts like inspiration, revelation or dogma that seemed to be strictly theological, and consequently, forbidden for serious science, need to be revaluated in terms of nuances, and out of a binary prohibitive logics of mutual exclusion. For instance, we discover that dogma in science does not mean the same as dogma in theology, so the anti-dogmatic character of science and the dogmatic character of theology do not make them necessarily antagonist. We also find that many remarkable scientists confess the intervention of a kind of inspiration and revelation in their scientific research. Are they incompatible or dramatically distinct from the religious ones? Moreover, we identify parallelisms unimagined before that could be performed between scientific experimentation and religious experience, between scientific model and theological ones - icon, parabola or symbol, between theory in science and thēoria in theology, between scientific and theological language, between scientific and theological rationality. The examples can infinitely follow.
In the light of these considerations, the Orthodox theology should not neglect the opportunity to renew its dialogue with science on a more profound base. On one hand, by means of a deeper understanding of scientific contemporary concepts and methodologies. On the other hand, by proposing to scientists a way to accede, in terms of liturgical life and understanding, to the religious richness that concerns the presence of the divine grace. For the Orthodoxy, the neopatristic theology seems to be the more appropriate cadre of theological initiative towards science, in the spirit of saint Maxim the Confessor’s perspective:
Theologically, knowledge of material world is affirmed not to be the same with God’s knowledge. The first one can be autonomous, and it is possible due to the inner structure of universe that confesses rationality. But the second one is necessarily theonomous. It does not depend exclusively on our initiative, it is a dialogue biased by personal experience and faith, and beyond intelligence and reason. In the light of these considerations, the dialogue between science and theology means reciprocal acceptance and honest identification of competences due to their different methodologies, premise for mutual respect and enrichment. The infinite profound dimensions of the world reality encourage us to a complementary dialogical scientific and theological research.
“As If” or “I Believe”: Models for the Seen, and for the Unseeable
Although a search of popular press and internet discussion venues will reveal many voices calling for the worlds of Science and Religion to find common language, this presentation argues instead that mutual respect and comfortable dialoguing between Science-based and Faith-based viewpoints can be facilitated by first re-emphasizing that the tools of science and those of Faith are designed to assist with different goals, that, in effect, the reintroduction and emphasis of separate languages would aid mutual understanding.
The presentation will first define the role of science as the creation of useful models for explaining measurable aspects of the physical universe, and the role of Faith as providing an understandable model of the realm beyond the measurable universe. While the first goal demands that the scientist accept that the question why will forever remain unanswered, the second requires theologians to recognize that answers to the question why can never be tested. (In both cases, assuming the continuation of the physical world, as we know it.)
The development of science and theological thought will then be illustrated using examples from the writings of scientists and Orthodox theologians to show that many of those recognized as epochal scientists took great pains to explain that, in the words chosen by Sir Isaac Newton, they did not propose “the reason for these properties … and … do not feign hypothesis”, while many of Orthodox Christianity’s greatest saints have emphasized that God can never be known, measured, or described using rational tools.
Finally, the author will propose Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as a model for Scientific-Religious dialogue, and Schroedinger’s cat as a useful tool for popularizing this model: the cat in the box belongs to religion; any opened boxes belong to science.
The title of this presentation is taken from the modeling language commonly used by classical scientists and from the first two words of the Nicene Creed which defines the core of the Orthodox Faith, words which clearly highlight the difference between the rational modeling function of science and the superrational modeling function of Faith.
Un croyant face à l’évolution dans l’Univers
Jean Kovalesvky
Membre de l’Académie des Sciences, France
Dans une première partie, je présenterai rapidement les théories actuelles sur l'évolution de l'Univers depuis ses tout premiers instants. La notion de point-origine n'est accessible par la Science que par une extrapolation utilisant les lois de la physique. En revanche, les évolutions ultérieures sont bien modélisées. Il est remarquable que l'évolution constatée menant à la formation des galaxies, des étoiles, des planètes et, sur au moins une d'entre elles, à l’apparition de la vie et à son aboutissement à l'homme capable de penser, est conditionnée par un ajustement singulièrement précis des constantes fondamentales de la physique (principe anthropique).
Rien dans tout ceci n'est contradictoire avec un Dieu créateur de l'Univers et de la vie dans cet Univers. L'Univers n'est pas seulement la matière qui l'emplit, mais aussi les lois qui la gouvernent. Par conséquent le Dieu créateur n'a pas seulement créé la matière, mais aussi ses lois. Ces dernières sont telles, le dessein d'aboutir à des êtres pensants aura été réalisé. Parmi les aléas de l'évolution et ses nombreux embranchements, un d'entre eux a abouti à l'homme. On peut donc dire, que l'homme est bien, dans ces conditions, une créature de Dieu.
Comment, dans ce contexte, placer la révélation biblique et évangélique? Certes, le récit de la Genèse est en contradiction avec nos connaissances actuelles. Il s'agit d'une cosmologie qui fut cohérente avec les connaissances scientifiques de l'époque et non une révélation. Mais dans la Bible, il y a quelque chose de bien plus important: Dieu nous accompagne et se manifeste envers nous. Qu'est-ce à dire? C'est qu'il y a autre chose que la matière, il y a l'Esprit de Dieu. Cet Esprit qui est "partout présent et emplissant tout" comme le dit une prière Orthodoxe est ainsi accompagnateur de tout le passé, de toute l'évolution (il n'est quand même pas devenu omniprésent seulement lorsque l'homme est apparu!) Ce qui signifie que, dans l'évolution qui a abouti à l'homme, ce n'est pas seulement la pensée qui a jailli, mais aussi la perception de cet Esprit qui est en nous ("Le Royaume de Dieu est en vous"). Cette perception n'est pas uniformément répartie entre les hommes et, comme il y a des hommes plus intelligents que d'autres, il y en a qui sont plus enclins à la spiritualité que d'autres. Mais de même que l'on peut développer son intelligence, on peut développer aussi sa spiritualité, sa capacité d’appréhender Dieu. C'est le rôle de la Religion de nous y aider.
Quelles conséquences peut-on tirer de cette dualité? Elles sont nombreuses. Je n’en retiendrai qu’une. Tout en étant habité par le divin, il est partie intégrante de la Nature. Il a été co-créé avec elle. Certes, il la domine, mais le problème actuel est qu’il l’utilise de façon de plus en plus irresponsable. Bien au contraire, notre relation avec elle devrait aussi avoir un aspect spirituel puisque l'Esprit est partout présent. Il ne s'agit pas là de panthéisme, mais d'une approche chrétienne de l'écologie. Saint Serge et Saint François d’Assise en sont les prophètes.
The age of Moses.
In Bible (Gen. 6:3) the age of man is limited to 120 years. 120 years exactly is the age of Moses at death (Deut 31:2). This age certainly means some sort of fulfilment for human beings, but it might reflect a more general order. We know of a cycle from Sasanid Persia with an intercalary month every 120 years, but there is a more interesting coincidence. The book of Daniel and the Revelation of John report a dramatic period of three and a half-year also expressed under the forms of 42 months or 1260 days. (Daniel 7:25); (Daniel 12:7); (Rev.11: 9-11); (Rev.12: 14); (Luke. 4:25); (Letter of St James apostle, 5:17); (Rev. 11:1); (Rev. 13:4-6). All these mentions are using the Babylonian sexagesimal system in which 1 year = 12 months = 360 days, both measures being purely conventional of course. In fact we are not dealing here with real days but 30 thitis in the lunar month and 360 sauradinas in the solar year well preserved in Hindu astronomy. The very technical aspect of these measures does not exclude the fact that they are also purely formal and try to present a normalised universe. If we multiply the 120 years of the life of Moses by the conventional 360 ‘days” we find 43200 “days”. A number in which we recognise immediately the well known cosmic eras of Hindu cosmology imported from Mesopotamian traditions such as those reported by Berosos.
These equivalencies are of a structural nature and propose a negation of the questions of size and duration in the Universe. Man finds himself at the focal point or at the balance point between two infinities. So the 120 years of the life of Moses are not reflecting an historical value but the completeness of a human life as a microcosm. Other religious traditions such as that of ancient Mexico have tried to integrate perfectly man and the cosmos in a formalised and conventional way.
Is our modern civilisation still able to offer man the religious feeling that he is fully a part of Universe, that he is important? To achieve this, should modern religion follow or precede science or should it rather develop in arts and ritual?
The Apophaticism-an Epistemological Interface
in the Science-Religion Dialogue
Faculty of the Orthodox Theology, University of Bucharest, Romania
Orthodox gnoseology is based on an iconic ontology in which knowledge means participation in the being of a known thing, and partaking of the ontological reasons of the existing thing presupposes an ontology that is not materialistic or self sufficient. Iconic ontology presupposes a participatory logic and a relationship of faith and of reasons in the act of knowledge. Knowledge through faith surpasses every formal conception because beyond formal logic, a kind of logic that participates in something higher than immanent reality is implied. Faith is not just a given psychological sentiment of trust in something or someone, but is an ontological reality given by certitude, uncovered by participation in the transcendent structures of the world.
Orthodox theology, starting with the extraordinary epistemological mutations of the paradigms of contemporary science, could open an honest dialogue with science, valorizing the comprehensive dimension of Patristic Tradition. A profound rationality of the world does not fulfill its ultimate meaning in the absence of the Person Who generated it and recapitulates all of creation’s divine reasons. Beyond the pretensions of scientific objectivity, the knowledge of these reasons means communion with the divine Word. From this point of view knowledge is a mystery of encounter that bears fruit through the experience of grace. Therefore, apophaticism does not just mean an acknowledgement of the mystery of the world, but especially the experience of the grace that gives knowledge beyond human power.
A re-examination of Blaise Pascal question on Man,
between modern physics and the Bible
Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines of St Etienne, France
At the end of each truth, one must consider the opposite truth, the two opposite reasons. If not, everything is heretic.
This statement from the French scientist-philosopher-theologian Pascal asserts that the approach of truth requires the clash and synthetic combination of opposites. This is no far from Heisenberg’s statement about a completely different problem, the wave-particle duality, which asserts that the contrary of a deep truth can be another deep truth. This is quite close to the complementarity principle from N. Bohr in quantum physics.
The aim of the present paper is:
(i) to show that such approach of the truth can be common to different domains of knowledge (science and theology for instance) and is particularly relevant for the Bible (Covenant, Incarnation…);
(ii) to re-examine the Blaise Pascal question on Man, between physics and the Bible, through the approach of reality in modern quantum physics and the new subject-object relationship which is involved.
Does Science Have a Spiritual Dimension?
Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania
In the study of science-spirituality relation I try to learn from my long experience in the investigation of the relation between science and art. Long time I have considered that science is here, while art is there; many authors are still considering science and art as disjoint territories. Later I realized that things are not so simple: besides the art located outside the territory of science, under the form of music, painting, poetry etc., there is much art located inside the body of science and for which the greatest scientists acknowledged the presence.
I am afraid that there is a danger to be victims of a similar oversimplification in respect to the relation between science and spirituality. There is much spirituality incorporated in science. I accept that the usual way science is taught and textbooks are written hardly permits to perceive the aesthetic component of science and its spiritual dimension. But we should transgress this difficulty and capture its very nature.
Symmetrically, there is much science incorporated in music, painting, poetry etc., and a whole literature accounts for it. There is also much science incorporated in the theological writings and in this direction too a rich literature is available. To give only two examples, I will refer to the journal SCRIPTA MATHEMATICA, devoted to the mathematical symbolism in the Bible and to the book by Steven Brams, proposing a reading of the Bible through the glasses of strategic games theory.
The above statements were always valid, but the development of culture in the XXth century increased considerably their validity. I include here the new perspectives in the understanding not only the science-spirituality relations, but also the art-spirituality and art-science relations.
My approach is in the direct continuation of my previous work in this respect ("The creator versus its creation", a joint work published in the Annals of the Kurt Goedel Society, 1996 and "Metaphor as a common paradigm of science and religion", in B. Nicolescu, M. Stavinschi, eds., "Science and Religion: antagonism or complementarity?", Eonul Dogmatic, Bucharest, 2002).
Department of Mathematics, University of Portsmouth, UK
The paper deals with the problem of establishing a viable methodology of mediation between Eastern Orthodox theology and contemporary science. This problem has two dimensions: on the one hand there is a problem of the spit between Orthodoxy and Western Christianity, on the other hand there is a problem of Orthodox attitude to the Western technological civilization. The appeal to a Neo-Patristic Synthesis in theology in order to acquire “the mind of the Fathers” and to incorporate contemporary Western philosophical and theological ideas into the “fabric of ecclesial fullness” was an attempt to reintegrate the historically split spirit between East and West. It also attempted to overcome the alleged crisis of Orthodox theology in the 20th century. On the second dimension, Orthodox theology expresses its concern about the ways of utilization of modern scientific achievements, which potentially dehumanize man and desanctify nature. It expresses its concern by attributing the term “crisis” to that scientific advance which fails to be intrinsically prophetic and eucharistic. In other words it fails to address existential needs of humanity by subjecting humanity to cosmic determinism and slavery to nature. It is here that Neo-Patristic appeal becomes similar to that critical analysis of naturalism and rationalism in science, which was undertaken independently by phenomenological philosophers. Whereas a Neo-Patristic Synthesis reveals itself as a carrier of a “teleological idea” faithful to that of the Christianized Greek Hellenism of the past in which the teleology of universal history of salvation, as authentic history and destiny of humanity, was articulated and understood by the Fathers of the then united Church, phenomenology reveals itself as a carrier of a “teleological idea” faithful in contrast to that of the pre-Christian Greek philosophy of the past in which the teleology of Western European thought, originates. Thus, one can argue that science and theology can be related through the fundamental existential fact of their inherent unity in the human spirit which (being in its actual split) can only be achieved eschatologically. It is in this sense that the reconciliation of science and theology as the reintegration of the historically split teleologies of the human spirit becomes the task of the future age, which can only be approached at present by treating science as para-eucharistic achievement.
Elements of a Relational Ontology in Science and Theology
Theoretical Physics at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
We consider the developments in Modern Science, notably in Special and General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Cosmology, Complex Systems, Cantorian infinities, Godel's theorem. We observe that strong relational patterns emerge from all the branches of Science, advancing an increased unification of the whole Nature the unification process is a dynamical evolution, leading from the realm of necessity (at lower levels of reality) to the realm of spontaneity and freedom (at the higher levels of reality) the emerging relational patterns are suggestive of a relational logic, proposed by C. S. Peirce Nature is revealed as a "hypostasis" with its "modes of existence" (Saint Maximos the Confessor), a unique and concrete web of relations, the "inanimate incarnation" of Logos. Thus Relational Ontology appears as the common meeting ground for Science and Theology.
Theoretical physicist at CNRS, University Paris VI
Member of the Romanian Academy
President of the International Center for Transdisciplinary Research and Studies (CIRET)
The main problem of the dialogue between science and religion is that there is not one science but more than 8000 scientific disciplines and not one religion but more than 10000 religions and religious movements. Such a dialogue is impossible in the absence of a methodology compatible with a great number of different methods, theories and models. Multi- and interdisciplinarity are concerned with the study of the Object: they therefore remain in the disciplinary framework and are not adapted to the dialogue between science and religion. However, transdisciplinarity is concerned with the study of the interaction between Object and Subject and it is beyond the disciplinary framework. Transdisciplinarity is therefore adapted to the dialogue between science and religion. Its methodology is founded on three postulates: the ontological postulate there are, in Nature and in our knowledge of Nature, different levels of Reality and, correspondingly, different levels of perception; the logical postulate: the passage from one level of Reality to another is insured by the logic of the included middle; the complexity postulate: the structure of the totality of levels of Reality or perception is a complex structure: every level is what it is because all the levels exist at the same time. This methodology induces a Gödelian quantum apophatic structure of Nature and knowledge. The key concept is that of the ternary of levels of Reality, levels of perception and levels of included third. This basic ternary allows us to define several other ternaries of levels, extremely useful for the dialogue: organization/ structuring/ integration; confusion/ language/ interpretation; physical/ biological/ psychical; ignorance/ intelligence/ contemplation; objectivity/ subjectivity / complexity; knowing/ understanding/ being; materiality/ spirituality/ non-duality. In such a way, the science-religion dialogue can become a focal point in building a new spirituality, conciliating the technoscience and the sacred. The spiritual poverty of our world of today, based on fear, violence, hate and dogmatism might be eradicated.
Archbishopric of Tomis, Constantza, Romania
His Eminence Prof. Theodosie Petrescu PhD, Archbishop of Tomis, brings forward the issue of the existence of soul, unquestionably arguing that man is indeed the crown of the Creation by his endowing with eternal soul.
His arguments are not only theological, but are completed by psychological stands.
Research and Development National Institute for Metals and Radioactive Resources, Bucharest, Romania
“God is love.” (I John 4, 8;16)
Love was and is continuing to be a very controversial subject and eternally on everybody’s lips. It is word of thousands meanings and senses. The theologians consider it the highest virtue of all virtues. Love represents an unexhausted and living source of inspiration for the artists and a continuous challenge for the researchers’ community. At last but not at least love represents the essence of life continuity.
In its first part, the present paper aim to overview the love image in the light of the orthodox theology tradition and the manner in which this concept is receipted by our modern society.
Although many of us are not ready to admit it, the chemistry is permanently present in our life and even intimately bounded to it. Thus our paper shall analyze the way in which the human body is responding as a “biochemical plant” to the so-called “physical attraction” or “chemistry”, using the available information. It shall also try to make some comments about the relationship between spiritual and the material human beings’ interfaces.
The paper shall be concluded with the appropriate considerations and conclusions.
Archbishop Lazar Puhalo
retired Archbishop of Ottawa and All Canada, Orthodox Church in America
It is my proposal to demonstrate that almost all the apparent conflicts between science and faith arise from models of reality and not from reality itself. The resolution to such conflict may arise from a re-examination of the models of reality we hold which are based on obsolete information. The Church Fathers should perhaps be given credit for having the integrity and intelligence to have restructured their understanding of the history, geography and nature of the earth and the universe, if they had had access to the technology and information which is at hand in our century. The Holy Fathers were open to the learning and experience of the world around them, and utilised that learning themselves. There is every reason to surmise that they would utilise our own contemporary exploration and learning to reshape many of their own models of reality. The reshaping of our models of reality does not contravene our basic dogmatic understandings about God as Creator and Redeemer. In fact, the discoveries of the past century only open us up to greater wonder and the beauty of the universe, along with its fragility: this can open to us also a greater appreciation of the presence of God and His role in the sustenance of our universe. We need not limit the role and plan of God by the boundaries of our own finite understanding and wisdom, but can open up our minds to the beauty, the vastness, the fragility and the dimensionality of the universe, as a way of increasing our faith and love-relationship with God.
When we become rigid and frozen in our models of reality, particularly when based in Fundamentalist understandings of Scripture and the Holy Fathers, then we deprive ourselves of the universe itself, and close ourselves off from a fullerl discovery of God's presence.
Pauline M. Rudd
Glycobiology Institute, University of Oxford, UK
Living organisms depend on the appropriate activation of complex biochemical pathways to survive. This includes the complex pathways which attach sugars to proteins. These glycosylation pathways are frequently altered in disease environments and can lead to changes in functions that are associated with pathogenesis. Factors which control the expression and fidelity of genetic information and therefore the levels of enzyme activity are complex and systems biology is attempting to rationalise the input and output of information at the cellular level. Religious experience is also a complex activity in which the same 'input' or experience may be interpreted in different ways in different cultural environments, giving rise to alternative 'outputs' or practice. The analogy between these two sets of processes may shed important light on the nature of religious experience and religious symbols. Mathematical or biochemical descriptions of a system constitute an attempt to find general statements that can apply to many singularities. In religion, symbolism may fulfill the same purpose and provide a unifying function in inter-religious dialogue. Neither overly deterministic approaches in science nor extreme fundamentalism in religion takes into account our need to select intelligently between the many choices that lie before us. Moreover, these philosophies do not support our conviction that, as mature individuals, we bear responsibility for protecting and enhancing life, perhaps even as co-creators with the Almighty.
Université Interdisciplinaire de Paris, France
Jean Fourastié, ancien secrétaire perpétuel de l’Académie Française des Sciences Morales et Politiques avait déjà noté dès 1980 que les évolutions récentes de nos connaissances avaient profondément modifié le projet même de la Science.
Celui-ci était, depuis la Renaissance et le siècle des lumières, d’expliquer tout le réel par le réel lui-même. Par « Réel », nous entendons le « niveau de réalité » où nous nous situons, celui qui est constitué de matière et d’énergie et qui est localisé dans le temps et dans l’espace.
Le XXème siècle a connu une révolution épistémologique qui semble avoir définitivement enterré cet espoir. En effet, s’il n’est pas question de revenir à des conceptions selon lesquelles on ne sait pas telle ou telle chose (et où donc on sous-entendait que Dieu en était le concepteur, le « God of the gap des anglo-saxons), on peut affirmer aujourd’hui que l’on sait très bien et parfois avec une précision extraordinaire ou une démonstration des plus implacables pourquoi on ne saura jamais certaines choses.
Par exemple, on sait de façon très précise pourquoi on ne connaîtra jamais la position et la vitesse d’une particule au même moment, ou pourquoi aucun système logique humain ne peut être à la fois complet et cohérent.
Dans cette intervention, nous allons passer en revue l’ensemble des grandes disciplines scientifiques (physique, astronomie, biologie, neurologie, mathématiques, sciences de la complexité) et nous allons essayer de déterminer à chaque fois comment et jusqu’où cette nouvelle épistémologie, cette approche apophatique de la connaissance peut s’appliquer.
Les résultats obtenus seront d’une grande importance pour le dialogue entre la science et les traditions religieuses spécialement les théologies apophatiques ou « négatives » des églises chrétiennes d’Orient et d’Occident.
Association for the Dialogue between Science and Religion in Romania
For a year and a half scientists and theologians from Romania are benefiting by a very important grant offered by John Templeton Foundation: "Science and Religion in Romania". It is the first large grant for an orthodox and postcommunist country. We try to introduce the activity of the participants implemented until now and their perspective for the next future.
Max Planck about the Problem of Causality in Physics
and its Implications on Relations between Science and Religion
Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca,
Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, Romania
This paper is the natural development of our previous work about Planck’s opinions on the relations between Science and Religion (ref. [1]). In his famous book, (ref. [2]), the great German physicist expressed his critical opinions about the science and scientists of his period, including his teachers and followers, as well as about the Meaning and Limits of Exact Science and The Concept of Causality in Physics.
It is interesting to remark that, if Planck’s articles dedicated to the analyze of Science had a very important impact on main philosophers and historians of Science (see, for example, ref. [3], where the author recognizes his inspiration from Planck’s statements about the advancement of new theories). In spite of the interest presented by his remarks on Science and Religion problems, this domain was not sufficiently explored by scientists and theologians.
Our paper (ref. [1]) has shown that, even in the field of SR, Planck is a forerunner, being a critical realist before the word. The present paper will present his considerations on the causality in Physics, a central problem in Science and Religion, mainly in connexion with the so-called “top-down” causality, which allows to explain in Science the influence of the superior levels of complexity on the “inferior” ones and in Theology attempts to describe the divine action in the world (see, e. g. ref. [4]). The perspective and the limitations of Planck’s vision are also analyzed in the perspective of actual Science.
References:
[1] G. Stratan, Max Planck (1858-1947) on the relations between science and religion, International Symposium on science and religion: Antagonism or complementarity? Bucharest, 8-11 November 2001, eds. B. Nicolescu and Magda Stavinschi, Eonul Dogmatic, Bucharest, 2003, 153-163.
[2] Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, translated from German by Frank Gaynor, Greenwood Press Publishers, Westpoint, Connecticut, 1971.
[3] Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Second Edition, Enlarged, University of Chicago Press, 1970.
[4] Arthur Peacocke, Theology for a Scientific Age, Enlarged edition, SCM Press, London, 1993, pp. 52-55, 58-59, 60-61, 157-160.
The Oriental Studies and Sciences in Dialogue with Orthodoxy.
The Cases of Egyptology and Coptology”
The main goal of this topic is to offer a detailed perspective on a possible dialogue between the Oriental studies and the Orthodoxy. Examples are provided from Egyptology and Coptology, with a special focus on the ancient Egyptian funerary Texts (i.e., Book of the Dead, Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts), The Magical Papyri, the Gnostic texts and the Nag Hammadi Library. One particular aspect is the reconsideration of these Oriental studies from the interdisciplinarity’s point of view, precisely the relationship with the fundamental sciences. A special place is devoted to the possible Egyptian and Coptic influences in the comprehension of God’s nature and the doctrine of salvation as it is reflected in Orthodoxy. Here are some questions and problems the present study is proposing to answer:
- Based on the ancient Egyptian funerary and magic texts, could we speak about a so-called “science of religion”, or, better, a “science of divinity”?
- Further on, to what extant the investigation tools and the methodology of our present fundamental sciences are useful to a better understanding of the God’s nature in a possible science of religion?
- From the Orthodoxy viewpoint, is this approach fruitful and moreover useful?
Trinh X. Thuan
Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia, USA
Did the Universe have a beginning? Or is our universe just one in an infinite series of universes, without beginning nor end. Is the stunning fine-tuning of the universe, which has produced just the right conditions for life to evolve, a sign that a "principle of creation" is at work? How does the radical interpretation of reality offered by quantum physics conform to or differ from the Buddhist concept of reality?
I will discuss the remarkable connections between the teachings of Buddhism and modern science.
Some of Buddhism's views are strikingly similar to modern physics' theories on quantum mechanics and relativity. Even though Buddhism and science have different ways of investigating the nature of reality, they complement rather than oppose each other.
Reform of the Julian Calendar and
Pan-Orthodoc Congress in Constantinople in 1923
In the context of the solution of the calendar reform at the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople in 1923 the present author considers the project of Maksim Trpkovic (1864-1924) which was the official proposal of the Serbian Orthodox Church at this Congress and also, its advantages over the modification of the same project done by Milutin Milankovic (1879-1958) and accepted at the Congress are emphasized.
Bakhtin’s Dialogism, a Bridge between
“Politehnica" University of Bucharest, Computer Science Department
Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Romania
One of the main goals of artificial intelligence (AI) was to develop computer programs that could enter into a dialog with human beings. After fifty years, despite all predictions, this desideratum is still far away… This failure is related to the problems and subsequent debates in the 20th century on language in philosophy, logic, sociology, linguistics and others. In the last decades, several scholars found Bakhtin’s dialogism as a new paradigm, which could tackle these problems. What only a few authors remark is the orthodox theological dimension of Bakhtin’s dialogism, the essential role in his work of perichoresis, of corporeal words in the St John’s Gospel way. Therefore, Bakhtin’s dialogism, in an orthodox theological perspective could actually be a bridge between artificial intelligence and theology.