Doru Costache - The Other Path

The
Other
Path
in
Science,
Theology
and
Spirituality:
Pondering
a
 Fourteenth
Century
Byzantine
Model
 Revd
Dr
Doru
Costache
 St
Andrew’s
Greek
Orthodox
Theological
College
 (A
Member
Institute
of
the
Sydney
College
of
Divinity)



 My
paper,
‘The
Other
Path
in
Science,
Theology
and
Spirituality’,
endeavours
to
explore
the
 parameters
of
a
medieval
paradigm,
more
precisely
the
cultural
framework
as
represented
by
 the
fourteenth
century
Byzantium.
In
my
views,
the
long
and
painful
antagonism
between
 science
and
theology,
together
with
the
disinterest
in
the
path
of
spiritual
becoming
–
so
 characteristic
to
modern
times
–
could
have
been
easily
avoided
if
the
Byzantine
approach
 were
seriously
considered
in
the
West.
My
goal,
therefore,
is
to
point
out
the
relevance
of
the
 Byzantine
solution
(as
illustrated
by
its
fourteenth
century
representatives)
to
our
present
 efforts
to
bridge
the
gap
between
science,
theology
and
spirituality.
 [Slide
2]
 The
discourse
unfolds
in
four
stages.
First,
I
lay
a
broader
context,
addressing
the
current
 conflicting
views
with
reference
to
the
significance
of
medieval
culture
and
briefly
analysing
 the
causes
that
led
to
the
split
between
science
and
theology.
Emphasis
is
placed
on
some
 basic
features
pertaining
to
the
Renaissance
and
the
role
played
by
the
Byzantine
migrants
 as
catalysts
of
the
Renaissance
phenomenon.
Second,
my
paper
explores
the
main
trends
 and
representatives
of
Byzantine
scholarship
in
the
fourteenth
century,
pointing
out
the
 weaknesses
and
strengths
of
this
cultural
framework.
A
brief
discussion
of
the
reasons
why
 many
Byzantine
scholars
were
marginalised
and
exiled
by
their
compatriots
will
serve
as
a
 bridge
to
the
third
part,
dealing
with
the
fascinating
synthesis
of
science,
theology
and
 spirituality
achieved
by
St
Gregory
Palamas.
Fourth,
I
try
to
highlight
the
wisdom
of
this
 synthesis
and
its
relevance
to
our
current
endeavours
to
bring
together
science,
theology
and
 spirituality.
 [Slide
3]
 (1)
Setting
a
context
 It
is
well
established
that
in
regards
to
the
significance
of
medieval
culture
basically
there
are
 two
conflicting
views,
namely
the
warfare
theory
(represented
in
the
nineteenth
century
by
 e.g.
Andrew
White)
and
the
alliance
theory
(represented
in
the
twentieth
century
by
e.g.
 Pierre
Duhem).
The
first
approach
takes
medieval
theology
as
an
obstacle
for
the
 development
of
sciences
whereas
the
second
considers
theology
a
“necessary
condition”
for
 the
development
of
sciences1.
 [Slide
4]


























































 1
Cf.
David
C.
Lindberg,
‘Medieval
Science
and
Religion’,
in
Gary
B.
Ferngren
(ed.),
Science
and


Religion:
A
Historical
Introduction
(Baltimore
&
London:
The
Johns
Hopkins
University
Press,
2002)
578.





1


For
instance,
illustrating
the
first
approach
yet
without
mentioning
the
role
of
theology,
John
 Gribbin2
states
that
nothing
really
happened
in
science
after
the
ancient
Greek
science
until
 Copernicus,
throughout
a
period
of
“fifteen
centuries
of
stagnation”.
On
the
other
side
of
the
 spectre,
David
C.
Lindberg3
maintains
that
within
the
Middle
Ages
can
be
found
“the
roots,
the
 sources,
of
modern
scientific
disciplines
and
practices”.
Without
any
doubt,
the
various
and
 conflicting
understandings
of
the
medieval
legacy
are
still
very
much
present
today.
 [Slide
5]
 Beyond
such
paradoxes
of
perception,
at
least
during
the
last
century
there
have
emerged,
 along
with
more
nuanced
understandings,
a
range
of
new
trends
(such
as
the
 multidisciplinary,
interdisciplinary
and
transdisciplinary
approaches)
whose
explicit
goal
is
to
 build
a
comprehensive
and
holistic
framework.
Within
such
a
framework,
not
only
the
various
 scientific
fields
can
creatively
interact,
but
also
the
sciences
and
other
domains
of
the
human
 knowledge
and
expression
(like
theology,
philosophy
and
the
arts).
There
is
no
time
now
to
 elaborate
on
these
aspects.
 What
should
be
noted,
however,
is
that
against
these
new
trends
stand
a
series
of
internal
 obstacles,
pertaining
to
the
western
mindset,
the
very
matrix
of
modern
sciences.
I
refer
here
 to
a
range
of
famous
oppositions
such
as
matter
vs.
spirit
or
visible
vs.
invisible,
which
 constitute
the
ideological
building-blocks
of
the
western
framework.
Built
as
they
are
upon
 such
slippery
foundation,
modern
sciences
cannot
escape
from
being
influenced
by,
and
in
 turn
contributing
to,
this
culture
of
oppositions.
It
would
be
a
truism
to
reiterate
here
in
detail
 how
modern
sciences
are
thought
of
as
representing
a
naturalistic
standpoint
with
no
 reference
to
what
lays
beyond
the
“natural”
realm.
 [Slide
6]
 Thus,
in
order
to
ensure
the
success
of
current
undertakings
in
regards
to
bridging
between
 science,
theology
and
spirituality,
one
has
to
be
fully
aware
of
the
western
roots
of
the
various
 problems
we
face.
The
ultimate
source
of
these
problems
seems
indeed
to
be
the
scholastic
 division
between
natural
and
supernatural.
This
opposition
originally
contributed
to
the
 dissociation
of
theology
and
spirituality,
leading
to
the
transformation
of
theology
into
a
 science
(or
the
queen
of
all
sciences)
and
to
the
marginalisation
of
spirituality
(considered
as
 belonging
with
the
“illogical”
realm
of
affectivity).
The
same
opposition
furthermore
led,
and
 perhaps
indirectly,
to
the
split
and
warfare
between
science,
as
a
privileged
field
of
 exploration
of
the
natural
domain,
and
theology,
as
a
philosophical
and
logical
exercise
 whose
object
is
constituted
by
the
supernatural.
I
have
indicated
elsewhere
that
this
 background
has
no
relevance
whatsoever
to
the
Byzantine
framework
and
the
tradition
of
the
 Orthodox
Church4.
 [Slide
7]


























































 2
Cf.
Science:
A
History
1543-2001
(London:
Penguin
Books,
2003)
4.
 3
Cf.
‘Medieval
Science
and
Religion’,
in
Gary
B.
Ferngren
(ed.),
Science
and
Religion:
A
Historical


Introduction
(Baltimore
&
London:
The
Johns
Hopkins
University
Press,
2002)
58.


4
Cf.
Doru
Costache,
‘Irelevanţa
Controversei
Creaţionism
vs.
Evoluţionism
pentru
Tradiţia
Bisericii


Ortodoxe:
Deconstrucţie
Logică
şi
Teologică
a
unui
Mit
Modern’,
Noua
reprezentare
a
lumii:
Studii
 interdisciplinare
3
(Bucureşti:
XXI
Eonul
dogmatic,
2004)
51-67.





2


Getting
closer
to
the
topic
and
period
of
interest
here,
along
with
these
traditional
western
 roots
of
the
conflict
should
be
likewise
noted
the
revival
of
Platonism
and
other
dualistic
 systems
during
the
Renaissance.
Endorsing
the
culture
of
oppositions,
the
Platonic
 propensities
of
many
Renaissance
scholars
has
greatly
added
to
the
existing
problems,
 widening
the
chasm
between
natural
and
supernatural.
Beyond
the
equally
fascinating
 interest
they
displayed
for
the
occult,
these
scholars
have
precipitated
the
further
 estrangement
of
science
and
theology.

 [Slide
8]
 For
what
is
worth,
it
is
certain
that
after
centuries
of
preeminence
of
the
religious
perspective
 due
to
the
phenomenon
of
the
Renaissance
we
live
now
in
an
era
dominated
by
science5.
 The
supernaturalist
paradigm
of
the
western
Middle
Ages
has
been
replaced
in
modern
times
 by
the
naturalist
paradigm.
 [Slide
9]
 Given
the
above,
more
precisely
given
the
western
parameters
of
the
issues
concerning
the
 rapports
between
science,
theology
and
spirituality,
why
would
anyone
be
interested
in
 fourteenth
century
Byzantium?
In
fact,
the
legitimate
pride
of
the
west
notwithstanding6,
the
 Renaissance
cannot
be
thought
of
without
considering
the
impact
of
the
Byzantine
migrants,
 intellectuals
and
Platonists7,
to
the
west,
little
before
the
fall
of
Constantinople.
These
 migrants
of
the
fifteenth
century
were
the
inheritors
of
a
culture
that
was
highly
illustrated
by
 the
Byzantine
scholars
of
the
previous
century.
 [Slide
10]
 Perceptively,
Claude
Allègre8
notes
that
the
Byzantine
migration
to
Italy
(caused
by
the
 Turkish
invasion)
brought
to
the
west
the
flexible
attitude
of
the
Orthodox
clergy,
which
far
 from
posing
obstacles
against
science
encouraged
its
development.
I
shall
soon
return
to
this
 very
significant
aspect.
 [Slide
11]
 For
the
time
being,
it
is
worth
noting
just
in
passing
the
crucial
role
played
by
a
series
of
 Byzantine
scholars9,
some
of
them
marginalised
in
their
homelands
and
who
found
refuge
in
 Italy.
Thus,
Manuel
Chrysolaras
(d.
1415)
was
the
first
true
teacher
of
classical
Greek
in
the
 west,
activating
in
Florence.
Also
in
Florence,
George
Gemistus
Plethon
(d.
1464),
the
last
 philosopher
produced
by
the
Byzantine
culture,
has
contributed
to
the
foundation
of
the
local
 Platonic
Academy.



























































 5
Cf.
Claude
Allègre,
Dieu
face
à
la
science
(Paris:
Fayard,
1997)
7-8.
 6
Frederick
Copleston
maintains
that
the
signs
of
the
Renaissance
have
been
manifested
as
early
as


the
twelfth
century;
cf.
his
A
History
of
Philosophy,
vol.
3:
Late
Medieval
and
Renaissance
Philosophy
 (London
&
New
York:
Continuum,
2003)
207.


7
Cf.
David
Bradshaw,
Aristotle
East
and
West:
Metaphysics
and
the
Division
of
Christendom


(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
2004)
263.


8
Cf.
Dieu
face
à
la
science
(Paris:
Fayard,
1997)
218.
 9
Cf.
Frederick
Copleston,
A
History
of
Philosophy,
vol.
3:
Late
Medieval
and
Renaissance
Philosophy


(London
&
New
York:
Continuum,
2003)
207-11.





3


[Slide
12]
 Similar
Platonic
views
were
defended
by
the
controversial
John
(Cardinal)
Bessarion
of
 Trebizond
(d.
1472),
a
Byzantine
convert
to
the
Latin
Church.
Last
but
not
the
least,
John
 Argyropoulos
(d.
1486)
worked
as
a
teacher
of
the
Greek
language
both
in
Florence
and
 Rome.
 [Slide
13]
 Contemplating
the
role
played
by
the
medieval
Greek
scholars
as
catalysts
of
the
western
 Renaissance,
why
then
wouldn’t
anyone
be
interested
in
fourteenth
century
Byzantium?
Is
 there
a
history
behind
their
mindset
and
attitude?
What
made
these
men
be
so
open
minded
 with
reference
to
the
classical
culture
which
they
promoted
so
assiduously?
 [Slide
14]
 These
questions
lead
us
to
the
story
that
is
never
told:
far
from
constituting
an
obstacle
 against
the
progress
of
free
thinking
and
the
development
of
science,
Byzantium
displayed
a
 very
different
unfolding
of
the
rapports
between
science
and
theology.
For
me,
precisely
this
 different
history
is
relevant
to
the
current
quest
for
an
interdisciplinary
and
transdisciplinary
 articulation
of
the
fields.
 [Slide
15]
 (2)
Scholars
and
representatives
of
tradition
in
fourteenth
century
Byzantium
 I
shall
begin
the
presentation
of
the
Byzantine
cultural
environment
by
evoking
an
emblematic
 event10.
In
1330,
Barlaam
the
Calabrian
(d.
1348),
a
Greek
monk
from
southern
Italy,
went
to
 Thessaloniki
and
Constantinople
in
an
attempt
to
demonstrate
that
–
beyond
the
doctrinal
 issues
arising
between
east
and
west
–
the
“Barbarians”
(Westerners)
were
capable
of
 philosophy,
mathematics
and
science.
 [Slide
16]
 His
efforts
were
however
ridiculed
by
the
noted
Byzantine
scholar
Nikephoros
Gregoras
(d.
 1360),
who
alleged
in
turn
that
the
“Barbarians”
remained
Aristotelians
whilst
the
Byzantines
 were
much
more
advanced
than
that.
 [Slide
17]
 It
does
not
matter
here
how
right
or
wrong
Gregoras
was
in
his
line
of
argumentation;
 likewise,
it
is
not
important
how
well
informed
or
misinformed
he
was
with
reference
to
the
 west.
What
matters
is
the
awareness
he
expressed
that
after
centuries
of
cultural
and
 civilisational
development,
although
still
in
love
with
Aristotle,
the
Byzantines
moved
beyond
 any
servile
approach
to
the
Stagirite’s
philosophical
and
scientific
legacy.
If
this
was
the
case,
 then
to
what
extent
remain
valid
the
numerous
and
repeated
allegations
that
Byzantium
and
 the
Orthodox
Church
have
contributed
to
the
decline
of
civilisation?
Indeed,
there
can
be
 acknowledged
a
slow
and
inexorable
process
of
decline
of
the
scientific
spirit
and
 inquisitiveness,
but
this
phenomenon
of
degradation
had
its
beginning
already
in
late
 antiquity.
Nevertheless,
although
perhaps
nothing
occurred
in
Byzantium
as
significant
as
the


























































 10
Cf.
Basil
N.
Tatakis,
Christian
Philosophy
in
the
Patristic
and
Byzantine
Tradition,
trans.
by
G.D.


Dragas
(Rollinsford:
Orthodox
Research
Institute,
2007)
156-7.





4


Aristotelian
science,
it
is
obvious
that
some
progress
was
made
in
various
areas.
Addressing
 these
aspects,
Basil
Tatakis11
points
out
the
Byzantine
contributions
to
the
development
of
 humanities,
such
as
literature,
historiography,
law.
 [Slide
18]
 From
a
different
angle,
one
might
wonder
why
sciences
were
not
prioritised
by
the
 Byzantines.
Tatakis12
gives
a
tremendous
answer:
living
and
working
within
a
culture
 perceived
as
the
embodiment
of
the
heavenly
kingdom,
the
Byzantines
channelled
their
 immediate
and
consistent
interests
toward
exploring
the
spiritual
path.
In
other
words,
they
 elaborated
within
a
hierarchical
scheme
which
prioritised
theology
and
spirituality
not
 necessarily
because
these
were
“more
truthful”
to
reality
than
the
sciences,
but
because
they
 served
the
greater
good,
the
goal
of
achieving
perfection.
I
shall
further
illustrate
this
 dimension
of
the
Byzantine
culture
by
pointing
out
a
few
elements
pertaining
to
the
Palamite
 synthesis.
 [Slide
19]
 Returning
to
the
advancements
realised
by
the
Byzantines
in
various
areas
of
expertise,
 surprisingly,
there
can
be
noted
a
series
of
very
important
developments
within
fourteenth
 century13.
They
were
interested
both
in
what
Tatakis14
designates
as
the
official
 (mathematics,
astronomy,
medicine)
and
apocryphal
(astrology,
arithmology,
alchemy)
 sciences.
 [Slide
20]
 Contrary
to
the
established
opinion,
significant
progresses
were
made
in
mathematics
and
 astronomy
through
the
works
of
scholars
like
Maximos
Planoudes
(d.
1330)
who
used
for
the
 first
time,
before
the
westerners,
the
Arabic
numbers.
 [Slide
21]
 The
already
mentioned
Nikephoros
Gregoras
perfected
the
calculus
of
eclipses
and
prepared
 the
reform
of
the
calendar
before
the
one
implemented
by
Pope
Gregory
XIII;
unfortunately,
 fearing
the
impact
on
the
masses,
his
reform
was
aborted
by
Emperor
Andronicus
II.
 [Slide
22]
 Theodore
Metochites
(d.
1332),
to
whom
I
shall
soon
return,
advocated
the
freedom
of
 astronomy
from
superstitions
and
astrology,
emphasising
the
purely
mathematical
bases
of
 this
science,
long
before
Galileo.


























































 11
Cf.
Basil
N.
Tatakis,
Christian
Philosophy
in
the
Patristic
and
Byzantine
Tradition,
trans.
by
G.D.


Dragas
(Rollinsford:
Orthodox
Research
Institute,
2007)
286-90.


12
Cf.
Christian
Philosophy
in
the
Patristic
and
Byzantine
Tradition,
trans.
by
G.D.
Dragas
(Rollinsford:


Orthodox
Research
Institute,
2007)
283-4.


13
The
following
information
is
drawn
from
Basil
N.
Tatakis,
Christian
Philosophy
in
the
Patristic
and


Byzantine
Tradition,
trans.
by
G.D.
Dragas
(Rollinsford:
Orthodox
Research
Institute,
2007)
294-5.


14
Cf.
Christian
Philosophy
in
the
Patristic
and
Byzantine
Tradition,
trans.
by
G.D.
Dragas
(Rollinsford:


Orthodox
Research
Institute,
2007)
286-90.





5


[Slide
23]
 Finally,
Theodore
Meliteniotes
(d.
after
1360)
composed
the
most
comprehensive
Byzantine
 compendium
of
astronomy,
the
Astronomical
Manual.
 [Slide
24]
 But
the
Byzantine
genius
found
its
expression
not
only
in
the
field
of
various
theoretical
 sciences.
The
Byzantines
were
quite
ingenious
and
developed
throughout
their
millennium
of
 civilisation
new
technologies,
such
as
the
‘liquid
fire’
(τὸ
ὑδρὸν
πῦρ),
the
famous
weapon
 used
by
the
imperial
navy,
a
prototype
of
the
steam
engine
and
an
advanced
astrolabe
 (Gregoras
composed
a
treatise
on
the
use
of
this
instrument),
to
mention
just
the
most
 important
among
them15.

 [Slide
25]
 This
inventive
spirit
was
not
based
on
uneducated
guesses.
The
above
mentioned
Theodore
 Metochites
strongly
believed
that
technological
progress
is
only
possible
due
to
the
 applicability
of
theoretical
mathematics.
 [Slide
26]
 In
his
Miscellanea
Philosophica
et
Historica,
he
notes:
 I
cannot
see
any
evil
in
these
practical
applications.
No
damage
is
incurred
 by
them
on
the
value
of
theoretical
mathematics.
Indeed,
it
would
be
good
to
 seek
to
find
in
all
the
branches
of
mathematics
useful
means
for
the
life
of
 humanity16.
 This
explicit
defence
of
the
practical
outcomes
of
the
theoretical
sciences
and
mathematics
 proves
once
again
the
solidity
of
Gregoras’
statement
according
to
which
the
Byzantines
have
 moved
beyond
Aristotle.
In
light
of
the
above,
it
is
obvious
that
his
statement
does
not
simply
 allude
to
his
mistrusting
Aristotelian
logic.
It
actually
and
unequivocally
refers
to
the
 advancement
of
the
Byzantines
beyond
the
Stagirite’s
dissociation
of
theoretical
and
practical
 disciplines.
The
earlier
assertion
of
Lindberg,
that
the
roots
of
modern
sciences
should
be
 looked
for
in
the
Middle
Ages,
is
thus
substantiated.
Unfortunately,
Lindberg
altogether
 ignores
the
scientific
contributions
of
the
Byzantines,
who
anticipated
by
centuries
the
now
 common
place
that
each
science
encompasses
both
theoretical
and
practical
dimensions.
 [Slide
27]
 One
of
the
most
fascinating
aspects
pertaining
to
the
Byzantine
culture
is
that
beyond
the
 various
understandings
they
illustrated,
all
the
scholars
mentioned
above
claimed
they
were
 also
faithful
representatives
of
tradition.
For
people
acquainted
with
medieval
scholarship
 perhaps
such
claim
does
not
represent
a
surprise.
 [Slide
28]


























































 15
Cf.
Basil
N.
Tatakis,
Christian
Philosophy
in
the
Patristic
and
Byzantine
Tradition,
trans.
by
G.D.


Dragas
(Rollinsford:
Orthodox
Research
Institute,
2007)
293-4.


16
Apud
Basil
N.
Tatakis,
Christian
Philosophy
in
the
Patristic
and
Byzantine
Tradition,
trans.
by
G.D.


Dragas
(Rollinsford:
Orthodox
Research
Institute,
2007)
294.





6


Lindberg17
aptly
points
out
that
 …all
medieval
scholars
were
both
theologically
and
scientifically
informed,
 and
all
understood
that
theological
beliefs
necessarily
entailed
scientific
 consequences
and
conversely.
 [Slide
29]
 This
profile
is
excellently
embodied
by
a
scholar
whose
name
has
become
already
familiar,
 being
mentioned
a
few
times.
I
refer
here
to
Theodore
Metochites,
an
imperial
dignitary
and
 logician,
an
Aristotelian
teacher
and
a
true
sceptic,
astronomer
and
mathematician,
 benefactor
of
the
famous
church
of
Chora
and
defender
of
the
spiritual
tradition
of
the
 Byzantine
Church.
As
a
mentor
of
many
fourteenth
century
scholars
(among
whom
feature
 the
equally
famous
Nikephoros
Gregoras
and
St
Gregory
Palamas),
Metochites
exercised
a
 powerful
and
lasting
influence
upon
the
Byzantine
intellectual
milieus.
 [Slide
30]
 One
aspect
is
worth
mentioning
here,
given
its
significance
for
the
understanding
of
Palamas’
 own
scholarly
trajectory.
Although
steeped
into
Aristotelianism,
Metochites
nurtured
a
 profound
scepticism
with
reference
to
our
capacity
of
solving
the
undecidable
conundrums
of
 knowledge
by
way
of
such
logical
devices
as
the
syllogisms.
More
precisely,
he
was
 convinced
we
cannot
be
certain
of
either
the
veracity
or
the
falsity
of
our
knowledge
with
 reference
to
the
nature
of
things18.
His
attitude
is
currently
associated
with
the
ancient
school
 of
scepticism,
which
is
not
necessarily
an
unsound
assessment,
yet
by
this
attitude
he
clearly
 aligned
with
the
traditional
apophaticism
of
early
Christian
and
Byzantine
theologians.
One
 way
or
the
other,
or
rather
both
in
his
case,
it
is
clear
that
like
many
other
Byzantines
 Metochites
cultivated
a
critical
approach
to
the
Aristotelian
legacy.
What
is
nevertheless
 proper
to
his
approach
is
the
uncompromising
denial
of
the
validity,
never
questioned
before,
 of
the
logical
principles
of
non-contradiction
and
the
excluded
middle.
Beyond
their
different
 understandings,
these
aspects
can
be
likewise
found
in
the
thinking
of
his
illustrious
disciples,
 Palamas
and
Gregoras19.
These
being
considered,
it
would
not
represent
an
exaggeration
to
 count
him,
and
his
disciples,
among
the
precursors
of
the
transdisciplinary
logic
of
the
 included
middle.
 [Slide
31]
 The
lesson
of
Metochites,
and
many
other
Byzantine
scholars
of
fourteenth
century,
is
clear:
 science,
technology,
theology
and
spiritual
life
are
not
mutually
exclusive,
on
the
contrary.

By
 this
fourteenth
century
Byzantium
seems
to
perpetuate
the
legacy
of
St
Maximus
the


























































 17
David
C.
Lindberg,
‘Medieval
Science
and
Religion’,
in
Gary
B.
Ferngren
(ed.),
Science
and
Religion:


A
Historical
Introduction
(Baltimore
&
London:
The
Johns

Hopkins
University
Press,
2002)
58.


18
Cf.
Börje
Bydén,
‘“To
Every
Argument
there
is
a
Counter-Argument”:
Theodore
Metochites’
Defence


of
Scepticism
(Semeiosis
61)’.
In
K.
Ierodiakonou
(ed.),
Byzantine
Philosophy
and
its
Ancient
Sources
 (Oxford:
Clarendon
Press,
2002)
186,
207.


19
Bydén
(op.
cit.,
190)
considers
only
Gregoras
as
faithful
pupil
of
Metochites.
The
same
attitude,


however,
is
reiterated
by
Palamas
in
his
One
Hundred
and
Fifty
Chapters,
although
he
was
not
so
eager
 to
dismiss
the
validity
of
natural
sciences;
see
Topics
of
Natural
and
Theological
Science
and
on
the
 Moral
and
Ascetic
Life
1
&
354,
in
The
Philokalia,
vol.
4
(London:
Faber
&
Faber,
1995)
346,
354.





7


Confessor20,
who
strongly
believed
in
the
possibility
of
a
comprehensive
and
interactive
 framework
within
which
all
these
pieces
would
fit
and
complement
each
other
in
a
creative
 manner.
 [Slide
32]
 If
this
was
the
case,
in
other
words
if
the
sense
of
complementarity
was
so
strong,
why
then
 many
scholars
have
been
marginalised
and
condemned
by
the
Byzantines?
The
answer
to
 this
question
is
simple:
like
their
western
counterparts,
some
Byzantine
scholars
have
 manifested
overconfidence
in
the
competence
of
philosophy
(mainly,
Platonic)
and
 transgressed
the
boundaries
between
science/philosophy
and
theology/spirituality.
 [Slide
33]
 For
example,
Barlaam
the
Calabrian,
Palamas’
first
opponent,
considered
theology
as
based
 on
‘science
and
knowledge’,
therefore
depending
on
philosophy
in
order
to
achieve
its
 goals21.
Or,
for
a
man
like
Palamas,
who,
along
with
the
effort
to
better
articulating
the
fields
 of
knowledge
militated
for
their
distinctiveness
and
autonomy22,
such
affirmations
were
 outrageous.
He
points
out
with
clarity:
 [Slide
34]
 To
know
God
truly
in
so
far
as
is
possible
is
incomparably
superior
to
the
 philosophy
of
the
Greeks,
and
simply
to
know
what
place
man
has
in
relation
 to
God
surpasses
all
their
wisdom23.
 With
this
quote,
establishing
the
independence
of
theology
from
philosophy
or
any
other
field
 for
that
matter,
we
arrive
to
the
Palamite
synthesis.
 [Slide
35]
 (3)
The
Palamite
synthesis
 Given
that
in
a
recent
article24
I
have
extensively
treated
the
Palamite
synthesis,
in
the
 following
I
shall
just
briefly
mention
a
few
of
his
most
important
accomplishments,
illustrative
 of
the
Byzantine
fourteenth
century
cultural
environment.


























































 20
Cf.
Doru
Costache,’
Going
Upwards
with
Everything
You
Are:
The
Unifying
Ladder
of
St
Maximus
the


Confessor’
(in
B.
Nicolescu
&
M.
Stavinschi
(eds.),
Science
and
Orthodoxy,
a
Necessary
Dialogue.
 Bucharest:
Curtea
Veche,
2006)
135-144.


21
Cf.
Basil
N.
Tatakis,
Christian
Philosophy
in
the
Patristic
and
Byzantine
Tradition,
trans.
by
G.D.


Dragas
(Rollinsford:
Orthodox
Research
Institute,
2007)
157;
Katerina
Ierodiakonou,
‘The
Anti-Logical
 Movement
in
the
Fourteenth
Century’,
in
K.
Ierodiakonou
(ed.),
Byzantine
Philosophy
and
its
Ancient
 Sources
(Oxford:
Clarendon
Press,
2002)
228.


22
Cf.
Doru
Costache,
‘Queen
of
the
Sciences?
Theology
and
Natural
Knowledge
in
St
Gregory


Palamas’
One
Hundred
and
Fifty
Chapters’,
Transdisciplinarity
in
Science
and
Religion
3
(Bucharest:
 Curtea
Veche,
2008)
40-1.


23
Topics
of
Natural
and
Theological
Science
and
on
the
Moral
and
Ascetic
Life
26,
in
The
Philokalia,


vol.
4
(London:
Faber
&
Faber,
1995)
356.





8


St
Gregory
Palamas
(ca
1296-1359)
remains
in
the
memory
of
the
Orthodox
Church
as
a
 spiritual
author,
noted
theologian
and
a
polymath.
Indeed,
his
efforts
to
integrate
science,
 theology
and
spiritual
life
within
a
hierarchical
scheme
that
anticipates
the
transdisciplinary
 vision,
are
less
known
or
less
appreciated
within
the
Church.
Nevertheless,
these
efforts
are
 very
relevant
to
our
interests
in
finding
the
appropriate
ways
for
bridging
between
the
fields.
 [Slide
36]
 Following
in
the
footsteps
of
St
Basil
the
Great
(d.
379)
and
the
already
mentioned
St
 Maximus
the
Confessor,
Palamas
made
consistent
use
of
the
Aristotelian
term
“energy”
 (ἐνέργεια),
achieving
its
theological
integration.
In
my
article
I
provided
numerous
examples
of
 his
expert
and
creative
use
of
many
other
elements
pertaining
to
the
Aristotelian
science
and
 other
sources25.
 [Slide
37]
 Very
interesting
is
that
he
privileging
natural
explanations
of
cosmic
phenomena
against
the
 mythological
‘world
soul’
advocated
by
some
‘Platonising’
scholars26.
 [Slide
38]
 Likewise,
it
is
worth
mentioning
here
his
courageous
integration
of
scientific
elements
within
a
 scripturally
based
worldview,
a
demarche
that
places
him
within
the
fall
of
fame
of
the
most
 creative
Christian
contributors
to
the
conversations
in
science
and
theology.
 [Slide
39]
 Of
particular
interest
is
Palamas’
attitude
in
regards
to
logic.
Although
it
made
an
integral
part
 of
the
educational
curriculum
since
the
ninth
century
and
St
Photios
the
Great,
many
 fourteenth
century
Byzantines
either
feared
Aristotelian
logic
or
just
distrusted
it
(e.g.
 Metochites,
Gregoras).
Both
Barlaam
and
Palamas
were
however
in
favour
of
logic27.
 [Slide
40]
 There
was,
however,
a
significant
difference:
whereas
Barlaam
remained
truthful
to
Aristotle,
 Palamas
‘misused’
Aristotelian
logic
by
ignoring
the
principle
of
non-contradiction
(the
 excluded
middle),
like
his
mentor,
Theodore
Metochites28.

































































































































































 24
Cf.
Doru
Costache,
‘Queen
of
the
Sciences?
Theology
and
Natural
Knowledge
in
St
Gregory


Palamas’
One
Hundred
and
Fifty
Chapters’,
Transdisciplinarity
in
Science
and
Religion
3
(Bucharest:
 Curtea
Veche,
2008)
27-46.


25
Cf.
Doru
Costache,
‘Queen
of
the
Sciences?’
36-40.
 26
Cf.
Doru
Costache,
‘Queen
of
the
Sciences?’
32.
 27
Katerina
Ierodiakonou,
‘The
Anti-Logical
Movement
in
the
Fourteenth
Century’,
in
K.
Ierodiakonou


(ed.),
Byzantine
Philosophy
and
its
Ancient
Sources
(Oxford:
Clarendon
Press,
2002)
219-20,
224;
 Börje
Bydén,
‘“To
Every
Argument
there
is
a
Counter-Argument”:
Theodore
Metochites’
Defence
of
 Scepticism
(Semeiosis
61)’,
in
K.
Ierodiakonou
(ed.),
Byzantine
Philosophy
and
its
Ancient
Sources
 (Oxford:
Clarendon
Press,
2002)
190.


28
Cf.
Katerina
Ierodiakonou,
‘The
Anti-Logical
Movement
in
the
Fourteenth
Century’,
in
K.
Ierodiakonou


(ed.),
Byzantine
Philosophy
and
its
Ancient
Sources
(Oxford:
Clarendon
Press,
2002)
233.





9


[Slide
41]
 Precisely
because
he
elaborated
within
an
inclusive
logic
was
Palamas
capable
of
 maintaining
the
distinct
validity,
and
autonomy,
of
science
and
theology.
There
was
no
doubt
 in
this
regard:
whilst
science
deals
with
the
laws
of
nature,
theology
deals
with
spiritual
 matters29.
 [Slide
42]
 In
a
more
nuanced
way,
St
Gregory
followed
a
hierarchical
approach
which
ascribed
each
 domain
its
proper
area
together
with
acknowledging
their
specific
contributions
to
the
wellbeing
and
progress
of
humanity.
Thus,
he
worked
with
a
tripartite
scheme,
were
science
 explores
the
world
and
leads
to
technological
inventions;
theology
interprets
reality
within
the
 parameters
of
the
Christian
mindset;
and
spirituality
is
the
privileged
path
toward
personal
 transformation30.
 [Slide
43]
 In
light
of
the
above
it
becomes
emphatically
obvious
that
someone
anchored
in
the
spiritual
 life
and
theology
can
be
also
a
practical
person
and
a
contributor
to
the
progress
of
 knowledge
and
science.
The
aspect
is
aptly
pointed
out
by
Tatakis31:
 …generally
speaking,
mysticism,
at
its
best
moments,
does
not
deny
 knowledge,
the
outer
knowledge.
What
it
denies
is
that
this
knowledge
leads
 to
the
roots,
to
theory
and
to
the
deification
of
man.
For
this
great
enterprise,
 it
summons
the
whole
man,
contracts
the
antinomies
and,
with
Hesychasm,
 gives
primacy
to
the
heart.
The
mind
can
find
itself
only
if
it
is
baptised
in
the
 heart.

 [Slide
44]
 (4)
Wisdom
for
today
 The
Palamite
model,
and
the
whole
landscape
of
fourteenth
Byzantine
scholarship,
illustrates
 a
holistic
understanding
of
the
human
journey.
For
the
Byzantines,
it
was
never
a
matter
of
 antagonism
between
science
and
theology
or
technology
and
spiritual
life.
Once
more,
I
am
 firmly
convinced
that
they
had
the
tremendous
intuition
of
a
generous
transdisciplinary
vision,
 to
which
they
remained
faithful
and
within
which
they
consistently
created.
It
is
true,
having
 science
as
a
starting
point
of
a
process
that
leads
through
theology
to
the
culminant
 experience
of
the
spiritual
life,
the
hierarchical
scheme
presented
earlier
can
deceive.
In
fact,
 for
them
tackling
science,
theology
and
spiritual
life
was
not
a
matter
of
validity
or
superiority.
 The
scheme
cannot
be
accurately
understood
if
we
ignore
the
transformative
goals
to
be
 found
behind
any
other
Byzantine
demarche.
 [Slide
45]


























































 29
Cf.
Topics
of
Natural
and
Theological
Science
and
on
the
Moral
and
Ascetic
Life
20,
in
The
Philokalia,


vol.
4
(London:
Faber
&
Faber,
1995)
354.
 30
Cf.
Doru
Costache,
‘Queen
of
the
Sciences?’
41-2.
 31
Basil
N.
Tatakis,
Christian
Philosophy
in
the
Patristic
and
Byzantine
Tradition
(Rollinsford:
Orthodox


Research
Institute,
2007)
165.





10


Thus,
there
is
no
theological
validation/invalidation
of
science.
Likewise,
there
is
no
scientific
 validation/invalidation
of
theology.
Science
and
theology
can
complement
each
other,
 however,
within
the
broader
picture
of
the
human
spiritual
becoming.
 [Slide
46]
 The
west
has
always
manifested
disinterest
in
knowing
and
understanding
the
Byzantine
 message,
both
in
the
late
Middle
Ages,
during
the
Renaissance
and
today32.
Nevertheless,
 learning
from
the
traditional
Byzantines
(not
only
from
the
secular
Byzantine
scholars)
would
 have
spared
the
west
the
painful
modern
schism
between
science
and
religion.
 [Slide
47]
 In
summary,
the
fourteenth
century
Byzantine
lesson
is
the
quest
for
edifying
a
holistic
culture
 open
both
to
the
scientific
undertakings
and
the
transformative
goals
of
spirituality.
We
could
 learn,
if
it
is
not
too
late,
from
the
wisdom
of
this
lesson.
 


























































 32
Cf.
David
Bradshaw,
Aristotle
East
and
West:
Metaphysics
and
the
Division
of
Christendom


(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
2004)
263-4.





11