There are clear and obvious boundaries between theology and science. Theology, according to what the Greek source of the word assumes, is concerned with God: what God is and how man reaches communion with him. While science is concerned with the created world and is primarily concerned with using this world.
In examining this simple sentence, we discover that theology and science move on different levels, and therefore the possibility of conflict between them and even between theologians and scientists does not exist. A conflict arose in the West and reached a historical magnitude when metaphysics was attributed to theology. It is well known that the content of metaphysics is completely different from the content of revealed theology. For example, according to metaphysics, there is an uncreated world of ideas and from it this world arose either through fall or emergence (emanation). Thus, when the West attributed metaphysics to theology and, in fact, when the progress of the natural sciences shook the foundations of metaphysics, theology identified with metaphysics became questionable. Thus, one Athos monk jokingly referred to the opposition between faith and science as “the West’s pun and riddle.”
In the Orthodox Church, as the Holy Fathers express, we see that the content of theology is different from the content of science. Theology speaks about God, about the Creator of the world who is God, about the downfall and illness of the human personality and about its recovery so that man can be united with God. Science is concerned with what can be known scientifically, that is, what can be tested with the senses, and it tries to make human life bearable in his fallen condition.
Unfortunately, we often notice that a great deal of confusion prevails between these two boundaries and areas. The problem was born when science began to be greatly sanctified and transformed into superstition, and when theology became universal.
The sanctification of science occurs when scientists use scientific information with some discoveries to destroy teaching about God and even to liken themselves to God. In addition, science is sanctified when scientists try to find a system that solves all human problems, even existential ones. An example of this situation is the statement made by a geneticist who calls for human cloning: “We are about to become one with God. We will possess almost the same knowledge and the same power... Cloning and reprogramming of DNA is the first practical step in our being one with God. "It's a simple philosophy."[ 1 ].
Theology becomes eternal when it rejects its essence, which is to lead man to purification, enlightenment, and glorification, that is, when it loses its eschatological orientation, and when it becomes historian and just a part of society. In addition, theology becomes secular when it is completely dominated by anxiety and insecurity in the face of scientific arguments while it uses the methodology of science to talk about God. In these cases, theology creates problems for research. In fact, theology loses its mission if it does not have certain data and assumptions.
1. The two types of knowledge and the two types of truth, according to Saint Gregory Palamas
The dialogue between Saint Gregory Palamas and Barlaam was an opportunity, among other things, to clarify the limits of both Orthodox theology and science.
Barlaam, as a representative of medieval scholastic theology, recognized that truth, both human and divine, is one and singular. He accepted that the deifying words and the wisdom contained in them had the same purpose as philosophy, which comes from universal lessons and aims to find truth. Thus, he considered that the truth is one because it was given to the apostles while we uncover it through study, and that the lessons of philosophy (which contain much talk about the creation of the world and the reformation of man) also participate in raising man to the level of “the first intangible models of sacred symbols permanently.”[ 3 ]
Saint Gregory Palamas, using many quotations from the Bible and the Fathers, presented the truth about the two types of wisdom and the two types of knowledge. Through his work we see an emphasis on this fundamental difference between divine knowledge and human knowledge, proving that truth is not singular. St. Gregory Palamas mentions it distinctively “in that it shows that truth is of a double kind: one is the result of God-inspired teaching, while the other is neither necessary nor saving.” He aspires to eternal wisdom, but what he achieves is less than this.”[ 4 ] This means that one kind of truth, which is the vision of God, is the work and result of God-inspired teaching, while the other kind of wisdom, that is, universal wisdom, is neither necessary nor saving, nor is it fully achieved. Saint Gregory Palamas asks: “What is the interest of the divine wisdom in all the truth of the stars?”[ 5 ]That is, the truth and knowledge about the stars are not of interest to, and are of no benefit to, deified wisdom. This is the living experience of the truth of revelation.
Certainly, St. Gregory Palamas does not reject the universal wisdom that considers the knowledge of beings, but he argues that this human knowledge does not contribute at all to achieving divine knowledge, nor does it help it. Divine knowledge is the result of the purification of the heart and the enlightenment of the human soul. Saint Gregory Palamas wrote with clear thought and inspired wisdom: “Although universal philosophy’s definition of knowledge of beings is not entirely wrong, it is neither the purity of beings nor the wisdom that God gave to the prophets and apostles. This is the Holy Spirit. That the Egyptians and Greeks were participants in the Holy Spirit is something we have not heard to this day.” [ 6 ]. This means that using universal philosophy to achieve knowledge of beings is not entirely bad. Indeed, it may be true with some preconditions, but it is not the wisdom and knowledge that God directly gave to the prophets and messengers.
In fact, the difference between St. Gregory of Amas and Barlaam is the difference between the scholastic theology of the West and the Orthodox theology of the East. Among many distinctive points, we can mention that Western scholastic theology expressed by Barlaam used one method in approaching creatures and the uncreated God. This means that the Scholastics tried to understand God in the same way they used to investigate creation and natural phenomena, that is, with logic. Illumination by divine grace simply helps human logic to understand concepts and things. Orthodox theology, as expressed by all the holy fathers, including Saint Gregory Palamas, adopts the opposite view and uses a dual methodology in approaching God and creation. This means that he uses logic to investigate creation and the nature of beings and examine natural phenomena, while arriving at knowledge of God through the purified and enlightened nous. Thus, the method the fathers followed to attain knowledge was experience.
We can define this difference and classify it, as St. Gregory Palamas did, with the terms “dialectic” and “demonstrative syllogisms.” This saint developed the view that the dialectical method of Barlaam, and with him the Scholastics, refers to the search for possibilities and, in general, to everything related to created reality. In contrast, the demonstrative method of the Hesychast Fathers, which carries the relationship between things and experience, refers to man's journey towards deification (theosis). [7].
All of this shows that education according to the world, including science, works on one level, while knowing God, which is the goal and goal of theology, works on another level. A science that attempts to understand God with its own methodology, i.e. reason, amounts to bankruptcy with a theology that has abandoned the hesychast method and uses reason in all issues, including God. In particular, this is the case of theology when it works within the limits of logic, that is, dialectical reasoning.
2. The theologian and scientist in relationship with God and the world
In order to be able to better express this distinction between theology and science, that is, that they operate on two different levels and within different frameworks, let us give the matter a personal form, that is, let us look at the difference between the theologian and the scientist. Father John Romanides provided four important and accurate theological statements on the subject.
First: It is not possible to ignore the difference between God and creatures, due to the lack of similarity between created and uncreated natures. Father Romanides writes that the Fathers, speaking from their experience, taught that “there is no similarity between God and creatures, even though God made the creatures and they depend on Him. This means that the truth of God and the truth of the nature of the universe cannot be similar, even though one depends on the other.” For this important reason, we cannot mix theology and science.
Second: The theologian and the scientist each have a different type of knowledge. “The beholder of God knows God, while the philosopher and scientist investigate created things.” This means that the philosopher and scientist, as they investigate the world through the scientific method and philosophical imagination, cannot have the same knowledge about God as God's eyewitnesses, the prophets, apostles and saints. The theologian, in any case, may be knowledgeable about scientific matters and he becomes a scientist through scientific knowledge and not through seeing God. In the same way, the scholar can attain knowledge of God through the method of sound knowledge (theognosia), that is, purification, enlightenment, and deification, and not through his knowledge.
Third: The goal and work of the theologian are different from the goal and work of the scientist. “The beholder of God knows how to prepare people to behold God. “The scientist knows how to teach his scientific method to his students.” The theologian may also know the method of investigating natural phenomena, but within the knowledge of science, as the Church Fathers did, and the scientist can become an eyewitness to God, not by science, but by seeing God.
Fourth: The theologian is inspired by God in what concerns God and not in what concerns natural phenomena. “The beholder of God is inspired by God and he speaks consistently about Him and leads directly to Him, but he is not infallible in matters related to applied sciences and others, about which he cannot know more than his contemporary scholars.” If someone does not see God while being a “theologian” in the academic sense of the word, then he can “maintain scientific nonsense, originating from philosophers, insofar as he departs from the method of precise theological beholders of God.” In the same way, a scientist is a specialist and well-informed in natural matters. But when he deviates from his specific scientific method and confuses his discoveries about the nature of the world with his view of God, what he utters are “irresponsible matters.”[ 8 ]
I see that the boundaries are clear and all of the above has clarified the subject and task of the work of both the theologian and scientist. Both are trustworthy when they work within their limits, but they become ridiculous when they move away from them and one enters the domain of the other without the necessary presuppositions and laws that both frameworks and domains entail.
In sum, a theologian can become a scientist through science, and a scientist can become a theologian through theology. The theologian cannot play the role of the scientist with his theology, nor can the scientist play the role of the theologian with his knowledge.
The great Fathers of the Church became theologians through the experience of revelation, and they even became scientists through the study of human science and learning it according to the dictates of conscience. That's why they were healthy.
3. Saint Basil the Great’s position on theology and science
After all that has been said, I think it is useful to point out in some detail the position of Saint Basil the Great regarding the sciences of his time. We can find this position and how the saint confronted the aspects of scientific information of his time in a theological way in his work “Sermons on the Six Days of Creation,” known as “The Six-Day Hexameron.” In fact, in this book we can investigate what the scientific views of that time were about the world and everything it was, as well as how a theologian could use this knowledge. Saint Basil was able to collect all of his contemporary scientific knowledge and then return to the topic of cosmology in some sermons.
A) First, we must point out that Saint Basil studied all branches of science in his time. We know, from the testimonies of Saint Gregory the Theologian and from the reports of Socrates and Sozomen, that he attained the best scientific knowledge possible in his time.
After receiving his general education first from his father, and then in Caesarea in Cappadocia, he went on to study under the important pagan philosopher Libanius, most likely in Constantinople. However, Athens is the main city where the principles of science and philosophy were taught. We know that four philosophical schools operated in Athens during the fourth century, in addition to several centers for rhetoric and some for medicine. There were many schools, and each one was run by a teacher who gathered around him a number of pupils, no more than two dozen, some of whom remained at the teacher's side as a participant and assistant.
In Athens, Saint Basil received lessons from two professors, Homericus and Priaresius. He followed all the sciences of his time, such as the art of rhetoric, which was considered the king of sciences, literature, history, philosophy in its four branches (ethics, theories, logic, and dialectic), astronomy, geometry, arithmetic, and medicine. In fact, he knew each of the sciences so well that a person could spend his life studying just one of them without being as versed in them as the saint was in all of them. All this knowledge appears clearly in his commentary on the six days of creation (Hexameron). The saint spent four and five years in Athens.[ 9 ]
b) In commenting on the six days of creation, Saint Basil constantly refers to the opinions of philosophers and scientists on topics related to cosmology. Naturally, he does not call them by name, but they are revealed through the opinions he presents. For example, in analyzing the sentence “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” he refers to the opinions of Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Pythagoras, Empedocles, Xenophon, Heraclitus, Laphesipus, Democritus, and Aristotle. [ 10 ]
The saint writes, among other things: “The Greek sages went to pains to explain nature, and none of their interpretations remained stable and unshakable, as their successors turned against each of them. “It is not our job to refute them, they are capable of overthrowing each other conveniently.”[ 11 ]. Others saw that a thinking cause presided over the creation of all things (Anaxagoras of Chlazomania). Others believed that the foundation of the world was material elements (Anaximander, Anaximenes, Pythagoras, Empedocles, Heraclitus), while others believed that visible nature was composed of “atoms, indivisible bodies, molecules, and tubes” and that the relationship between these contributed to birth and annihilation, and also contributed to supporting The World (Lafceps and Democritus) [ 12 ]
Saint Basil’s reference to the views of philosophers regarding the creation and preservation of the world is significant, especially since he creatively evaluates these views as a theologian and scientist. Sometimes he accepts it, sometimes he comments on it in a theological way, while sometimes he gives his different interpretation. Thus, Saint Basil's work is not just a presentation of the opinions of scholars but rather a creative contribution. Of course, this is a result of Saint Basil the Great being well acquainted with the various opinions of his time, because he spent a long time studying, but also because he had experience of revelation.
I will cite two distinct examples:
The first example is metaphor, that is, the way in which some interpreted the Torah, such as Philo the Jew. Saint Basil writes: “I know the laws of metaphor, though not from my own research, but rather from the works of others.” He means Philo and others who, as he explains later, did not accept the ordinary meaning of the text, but rather said that water is not water but rather another nature, and that plants and fish are interpreted according to their own theories and concepts. They did the same thing with reptiles and predators. In any case, Saint Basil does not follow their example in these delusions. He writes: “When I hear the word grass, I think of grass, and the same goes for plants, fish, predators, and domestic animals. “I accept it all as it is told.” Also, based on the revealed truth, he argues that “although many have memorized much of the earth’s destiny, whether it is a celestial sphere and a cylinder, whether it resembles a disk or has round edges, and whether it is in the form of a network of rods and hollow in the middle”[ 13 ]All this “will not lead me to consider our story about creation less evil, since Moses, the servant of the Lord, never spoke about forms.”[ 14 ].
The second proverb is from the interpretation of the verse: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind.” “Cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind” (Genesis 1:24). Some of Saint Basil's contemporaries argued that during the rainy season the earth produces grasshoppers and countless flying insects in addition to mice and frogs. Saint Basil was prepared to accept this theory, that is, that all of these come from the earth, but he gave it a theological explanation to support his opinion that all of these are the result of the power of God present in creation and not the natural qualities of creation. “This matter continues and the earth does not stop serving its Creator.”[ 16 ]. Thus, it is the uncreated power of God present in creation that continually creates and produces animals and insects. Here we clearly see the creative theological approach to the faith of that time.
But Saint Basil does not only explain the scientific opinions of his time according to theological assumptions, but rather he does what is equally important. It interprets the verses of the Bible, that is, the experience of revelation, through the opinions of science. [ 17 ]In his interpretation of the phrase “God made the heavens,” he makes extensive observations, trying to provide the correct interpretation. After mentioning a number of Bible verses, he concludes by saying that the phrase “the heavens” in which “God separated the waters that were under the sky from the waters that were above” means a fixed substance capable of holding liquid water. He also offers other comments that we cannot include here.
c) We must in any case look at the theological approach to the creation of the world. Saint Basil is not a secular theorist, but rather a great theologian. Therefore, he was not satisfied with simply presenting the opinions of scholars, but he often spoke theologically, as appears from his works. It presents necessary theological assumptions. Christian cosmology is something distinct from all other types of cosmology.
The first theological principle is that there is a difference between the Creator and creation and between the uncreated God and created nature. In his interpretation of the phrase, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” he makes some excellent observations.
Creation has a specific origin, that is, it was created at a specific time and was in fact the result of a creative principle, namely God. He talks about “a principle of the good order of visible things.”[ 18 ]. Moreover, the world “was not created spontaneously.”[ 19 ]. That is why he talks about a specific origin “so that some people do not think that it had no beginning.”[ 20 ]. The view that creation has a definite source leads us to the conclusion that visible things have a cause. “Do not imagine, O man, that what is seen has no beginning.”[ 21 ]. Moreover, this indicates that creation has a specific end. “If there is a beginning in time, do not doubt the end.”[ 22 ].
The view that the world has an origin leads us to seek this origin. The creative origin of the world is the unbeginning God. “If this world had a beginning and if it was created, ask who gave it this beginning and who the Creator was.”[ 23 ]. In fact, God, the Creator of the world, is “a blissful nature, endless goodness, the beloved of all who are gifted with reason, the most desirable beauty, the origin of beings, the source of life, the rational light, the wisdom that attains... [ 24 ]. In any case, a man who knows God should purify his body from passions.
For this reason we see that Saint Basil clearly distinguishes between the uncreated and the created, between the uninitiated and the one who has a beginning, between God and the world. This is very important so that there is no confusion between the Creator and creation.
The second theological principle is that the world was created ex nihilo, that is, not from matter that existed. The meaning that God created the world from nothing means that He did not create it from previous ideas or from existing materials. This position shakes all pagan principles related to cosmology, that is, it shakes the foundation of classical metaphysics.
Saint Basil says that all skills and arts are subsequent to matter, and have entered life because of our need. In any case, God, before making visible things, “since in his mind (nous) was his decision to create what did not exist, he conceived the world as it should be.” For this purpose, he created matter, fire, water, and air, and to bring together these dissimilar things in an indissoluble bond of familiarity in one company and harmony.” Saint Basil is faithful to this point in his other words. “Everything that was brought from nothingness into existence by the command of the Lord.
The third theological principle is that God manages the world with his uncreated powers. In other words, God did not content himself with establishing some natural laws and then leaving the world to its fate, but rather he manages it himself. This is important because it shows that God's powers are present in all of creation, but of course, creation cannot share God's essence.
The Creator’s intervention in God through his powers appears from the way in which Moses presents God’s vision of the creation of the world, as well as from the way in which Saint Basil explains it. In interpreting the verse “And the Spirit of God was upon the waters,” he says that God and His Word warmed the nature of the waters and energized them, just as a bird hatches its eggs. In interpreting the verse from the Psalm, “I weighed its pillars” (3:75 and 4:74), he says that this means the holding power of the earth, that is, the power that holds the earth together, and of course it means that everything is preserved by the power of the Creator.
Not only are all things created by God's uncreated power, but also all things are controlled by His power. The voice of God saying at creation: “Let the earth bring forth grass” shows that this command becomes the law of nature “which left to the earth the ability for us to be productive and fruitful after it.” Saint Basil gives great importance to the teaching that God’s power is present in creation, and that he believes that God’s commandment fills everything and reaches even the smallest details, since even “a fish does not refute God’s law.”
In his interpretation of the verse: “Let the earth bring forth from every living thing according to its kind,” he objects to the Manicheans who believed that the soul is present in every place on the earth and taught that this living soul was the divine word that shapes the nature of the created things.
The fourth theological principle established by Saint Basil is that the study of the world and creation is not self-serving. Since in any case, God created the world and maintains it with His uncreated power, it is necessary for man to raise his mind from the visible to the invisible, from creation to creation. In one of his sermons, he says that God gave us reason so that “from the smallest things of creation we may learn the wisdom of the artisan.” Enlightenment is sought from God, so that from what we see we understand the invisible, and from the great beauty of creation we reach a proper awareness of God. Thus, through creation we can gain a sense of God's majesty. If creation is divinized, that is, if our thinking goes beyond admiration for created things, then this constitutes making creation God, which means idolatry.
The fifth theological principle. When Saint Basil studies the phenomena that occur in nature, even the behavior of different types of animals, birds and insects, he directs his thoughts to spiritual teachings that aim to benefit man spiritually. For example, looking at the cases of the hedgehog and the ant, who endure to carry out different tasks that will be useful in difficult times, he says that this teaches a person to take precautions for the future. “So that we too should not be attached to this present life, but rather pay attention to the time to come.” Therefore, in life in this time, we prepare for the eternal reward. With this teaching, it becomes clear that the saints do not limit their lives to history, but they also extend it to the afterlife, and for the sake of accuracy, we must say that they let the afterlife organize history.
In summary, we must point out that Saint Basil explains the creation of the world mainly on the basis of the inspired teaching of Moses and his own interpretive tradition, which is the fruit of his experience. In any case, he also uses proverbs from pagan philosophers as they were formulated, sometimes giving them a broader interpretation and sometimes rejecting them. This does not happen arbitrarily, but on the basis of the theological principles we outlined above, which point to the ontology of nature, that is, to the One Creator of nature, and to how He created and maintains the world. He uses these basic theological principles in these matters without error. In addition, he accepts everything related to scientific matters as long as it does not contradict these principles. As we saw above, he is willing to accept some of the views of his time, according to which the earth produces frogs and cicadas. In any case, he gives these views a theological explanation by saying that they are not a result of the earth as if it were working automatically on its own, but rather they are a result of the power of God that has been in the earth since creation. This arrangement according to Saint Basil indicates the method that should be followed today with regard to scientific matters.
4. A contemporary example from the field of genetics
The way Orthodox theology operates, judges science, and communicates its voice can be seen from examining the issue of cloning. I want to tell a short story to show how both the scientist and theologian work in this situation.
It is well known that when we talk about cloning, we are actually referring to the transfer of genetic material (DNA) from a cell to an ovary whose genetic material has previously been removed. This new material is implanted into a third organism. It is a recent discovery that scientific research, which began with irrational animals, is about to continue with rational animals that have souls, that is, human beings. It is a discovery that horrified many theologians, and also made scientists arrogant and full of wonder in the original Greek sense of the word.
Reaction to this new way of producing living organisms, especially human ones, varies. The theologian may interpret morally, while the atheist may contemplate theological matters. I am of the opinion that this is an occasion for theologians to avoid moral interpretation and to confront these situations theologically, as the Holy Fathers of the Church did.
For example, I can mention that I read texts written by “theologians” who, in their confrontation with contemporary science on the subject of genetics and especially cloning, limit the discussion only to the subject of the normative laws that must be established for theologians’ approach to this serious issue. Of course, there is no doubt that theologians should do this. They must inform scientists of their responsibilities. But this could be at the hands of scholars who do not necessarily come from the “field” of the church, and yet they talk about the “moral-normative” laws that should be established within the research so that we do not end up with the birth of mutants and, in fact, those with fascist and racial mentalities.
In addition, just as there are theologians and clergy who interpret morally, there are also thinkers who discuss theologically. One such example is the famous Italian philosopher Umberto Acco, as he appears in one of his articles in the Italian newspaper L' Espresso entitled “A mad scientist decided to clone me.” I will present some of the opinions of this contemporary philosopher, as they express and demonstrate the possibility of theological interpretation and philosophy on this subject.
“The human being is not just genes, it is much greater,” Acho writes. Upbringing, upbringing, and the social and cultural atmosphere play a big role.” “He will have my hair, my eyes, my sick tendencies, but Umberto II will grow up on a Midwestern farm,” he writes, referring to the hypothesis that a mad scientist decided to create his counterpart. I, on the other hand, grew up in an average family, in a rural Italian town in the 1930s and 1940s. I had a Catholic upbringing in fascist Italy, and saw television for the first time at the age of twenty. What will Umberto II look like when he is my age? Definitely something different about me.” After emphasizing that cloning means a transformation in science and morality, he points out that the human race must resist “the diligent attempts of unbridled science fiction governed by a naive materialistic determinism, according to which a person’s destiny is absolutely determined by his genetic heritage... as if upbringing, atmosphere, the possibility of adversity, the upbringing of parents, and their slaps... “It has absolutely nothing to do with it.”
One finds in these views an attempt to escape the moral codes of conduct and duties into which some theologians have confined themselves in their attempt to say something about the new scientific achievement.
As a follow-up to the topic, I want to present seven theological positions on the topic of human cloning.
1. Man, according to Orthodox teaching, is a being with a soul and a body, and of course, made in the image and likeness of God. He is clearly different from animals, because he has a soul according to essence and according to power. This means that the human being cannot be considered, in any way, a “laboratory rat” nor a breathing factory of living organs ready to be transported for commercial profit. In these cases, the pinnacle of creation and the summary of the mental and sensory world is transformed into a living accessory and the emergence of the theory that man is an “instrument with a soul.”
2. Man is a creature and, therefore, is identified as a creature while God is not a creature. There is a huge difference between the created and the uncreated. This means that God creates from nothing, from matter that did not previously exist, while man can form something from the existing matter that God created. Thus, even if there are scientists who would clone humans with horrific consequences, they cannot be likened to God, because they are actually working on genetic material that already exists, and they will not create anything from nothing.
3. According to the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Church, the life-giving power of God can be found in all creation, and we can add that it is in cells and in DNA. A wealth of information regarding this truth can be found in the sermons of Saint Basil on the days of creation as well as in the works of Saint Gregory of Nyssa. So, whatever happens in creation, even when man intervenes arrogantly, it happens by God's will and by God's right.
4. In the Orthodox Church, we talk about man as a person. This means that he is unique, free and loving. The word “person” refers to being in the image and likeness of God, and of course, this extends to the whole being. By cloning, it may be possible to create individuals who are externally similar and have the same types of reaction to specific points, as can be seen in twins. However, we are not able to abolish the person, that is, the hypostatic difference of every human being, in his own way, through love and freedom. Every human being has a distinctive hypostatic (personality) mark, a variety of degrees of love, and even self-giving, as well as the ability to freely express both positive and negative.
5. Genetics, and of course human cloning, cannot free a person from the death he was born with. Science may be able to cure some genetic diseases and prolong life, but it cannot make a person overcome death. Man's main problem, however, is neither prolonging physical life, nor delaying death, but rather overcoming it. This is the work of Orthodox theology.
6. These contemporary challenges give us the opportunity to accurately define what life and death are. In fact, this existential issue greatly shakes man. No matter how many similarities there are, physical, psychological and otherwise, and no matter how many organ transplants there are, a person will always feel an invincible need to answer these questions. Scientists cannot give precise answers. Even if they tried, their answers would be incomplete. Man asks, “Why was I created?” Why did they give birth to me without asking me? This question will become even greater when he learns that he was born through cloning and without the care and love of his mother and father. In addition, man is interested in asking about the purpose of his existence. The greatest question exists within the framework of death. Many young people ask, “Why does death exist?” Why do my loved ones die? Where do they go after death? Why should we come to life and soon after disappear, if there is no life after death? If life exists after death, then why should I die and where should I go?” Orthodox theology answers these questions while science cannot.
7. Even if the human being is cloned, he is still a creature, and has been given a specific origin, incorruptibility, and freedom. He will not necessarily work positively as happens with uncreated nature, but rather he will work negatively and will have a biological end. As a creature, he has an afterlife, but this does not happen because God wants him to be immortal through grace. In the Church, we talk about another form of cloning that science cannot provide for humans. Through the incarnation of Christ, the created united with the uncreated. Thus, every human being was given the possibility of gaining the experience of union by grace between created nature and the uncreated power of God in Jesus Christ. The saints acquired this experience, and thus became uncreated and immortal by grace. The uncreated and immortal was transplanted into them, and they gained the experience of immortal life even in this life on earth. The problem, then, is not the transplantation of physical and genetic organs, but rather the transplantation of God within a hypostasis and our person. It is this experience that gives meaning to human life. So, contemporary science, and indeed genetics, gives us the opportunity to pay attention to the eternal questions that have occupied the human spirit, since ancient Greek philosophy until today. These questions were answered by the incarnation of Christ. We must address anthropological questions of theology, divine economy, redemption, and eschatology. It is an occasion for us to direct man's search towards the deeper and more sublime matters of life.
The topic of the encounter of Orthodox theology with science is very broad and cannot be answered in the allotted time of one lecture. The fact remains that we must specifically establish the boundaries between science and orthodox theology. Scientists should not approach theological and existential topics with scientific methodology, because they bring terrible disappointment to the person who is looking for something different. Nor should theologians approach scientific truth, leaving behind the more dignified matters of spiritual life. It is impossible for the existential theological message to be secularized and carried to society. Science answers the question of what the world we see is, while theology answers the question of who is the creator of the world. Science investigates the behavior and functioning of created things.
Theology sees the power of God as controlling the world. Science attempts to cure the disease that torments man, while theology helps man overcome his creatureliness and his susceptibility to death. Science answers the question of how created things are created while theology answers the question of the purpose and purpose of creation. In any case, in the Orthodox Church we look forward to “a new heaven and a new earth” (2 Peter 3:13). Let science occupy itself with the aging earth and the aging sky. We, as theologians and seminarians, long for “the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).
Metropolitan Irotheos Vlachos
Translated into Arabic by Father Antoine Melki
About the Orthodox Heritage Magazine
[1] BBC News – Wednesday January 7th, 1998 -reported in Greek in the “Eleutherotypia” Newspaper January 8th, 1998.
[ 2 ] See the Greek Magazine Diabasi (=Passage), Nov.-Dec. 1997, pp. 5-7.
[3] Translated from the original Greek text published in Gregory Palamas: Works Vol. 2, in the series Ellenes Pateres tes Ekklesias, Thessaloniki 1987, p. 268.
[ 7 ] See Nikos Matsoukas: “The double methodology of Gregory Palamas,” in Greek, in the volume Papers of the Theological Conference in honor and memory of our Father among the Saints Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, published by the Sacred Metropolis of Thessaloniki 1986, pp. 75 onwards. [in Greek]
[8] John Romanides: Romiosyni, Published by Poumaras, Thessaloniki 1975, pp. [in Greek]
[9] See Panagiotis Christou, O Megas Basileios, Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, Thessaloniki 1978, pp. 22-23.
[10] Translated from the original Greek text of Basil the Great, Homilies on the Hexameron, published in the series Ellenes Pateres tes Ekklesias, Vol. 4, p. 28, footnote 1.
English 
Arabic 
French 
German 
Spanish 
Italian 
Russian 
Serbian 
Romanian 
Bulgarian 
Danish 
Polish 
Portuguese 
Swedish 
Turkish 
Kurdish 
Chinese 
Japanese 
Indonesian 
Hindi