Reflections on philosophical, scientific and theological dimensions of interfacing

Translated from Russian/ Перевод с русского языка

A critical review of the outcomes of the International Conference

"REFLECTIONS ON PHILOSOPHICAL, SCIENTIFIC AND THEOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS OF INTERFACING"

November 17-18, 2011, St. Petersburg

The International conference on "Reflections on Philosophical, Scientific and Theological Dimensions of Interfacing" which took place on 17-18 November 2011 in the form of three round tables once again have set for the participants the task of disclosure of inter-disciplinary problems in the dialogue between science and faith. However, the current debate of theologians, scientists and philosophers showed the difference between the theological and philosophical hermeneutics, the science and scientific worldveiw; between the deep ontological and factual reasons for the apparent exclusion of philosophy in the discussion of theological and scientific issues. However, this difference cannot be considered as a negative result of the conference.

Before the conference the presentation of the Russian translation of the classic treatise by F. Brentano "On the Ambiguity of Existence According to Aristotle" during which, along with the revival of Aristotelianism in Germany in the XIX century it was told about another important event: the birth of a new view on the ontology, including the revival of the status of ontology as an a priori science, and the emergence of new projects of ontology. In addition to the philosophical, theological themes were presented and raised in connection with Brentano. Thus, a bridge was set to the subject of the round table discussions.

At the opening of the conference it has been told about the work of scientists, philosophers and theologians at the international Russian-American project "Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Science, Religion and Culture: Preparation of the Leaders of the XXI Century", the tasks facing the participants of the project were formulated, the research results were listed that were obtained at the given time. 

The reports and discussions of the first Round Table "Hermeneutics and Theology" dealt mainly with the issues of language and terminology, the question of whether it is possible to come to an interrelated understanding of science, theology and philosophy in the texts. Or, more importantly, whether the methods of theological hermeneutics or the methods of philosophical hermeneutics are sufficient to approach a common understanding of scientific, theological or philosophical text in their interdisciplinary context, and whether they exist as such? For example, it was shown that biblical hermeneutics as a method is not available to all theologians and is variable, and that no such thing as an "opinion of the Church" in this context exist. In this sense, it proved to be problematic not only the context of multidisciplinary approach, but the overall theological context. Thereafter the methods of philosophical hermeneutics were demonstrated on the example of the works of V. V. Bibikhin aimed at creating an interdisciplinary context of philosophy, theology and science, which, however, remained largely philosophical rather than interdisciplinary. In the report, based on some studies of Heidegger, in absolute terms it was suggested an idea of distinguishing objects of theological and philosophical hermeneutics, as subjects of ontic and ontological nature. In general, the results of the reports revealed, if not the impossibility, but at least, the difficulty of coupling the methods of theological and philosophical hermeneutics.

The reports of mathematics, natural sciences and their correlation with the metaphysical questions were presented during the next Round Table "Natural Sciences and Metaphysics." Here, in particular, the problems of the "nature" of time in science and theology were addressed; ideas were expressed about the possibility of interpreting time as a system of cycles based on a number of axioms, many of which require philosophical reflection. The general causes and similar morphology of the theological and philosophical crisis of high scholasticism of the XII century and the crisis of the scientific worldview of the XX century were shown. There were speeches about the reasons for the reference of physicists to theological discourse, it was demonstrated that the "unscientific" Lamarckian theory of evolution is, however, in strict compliance with the scientific worldview, and "scientific" theory of Darwinism in some ways is inferior a little inferior to it. In general, the discussion revealed that all interpretations similar to the presented ones arise when a scientist goes beyond the narrow confines of his subject, and begins to compare the science either with the scientific worldview, or with some kind of metaphysical foundation. The reasons for this correlation remained for some time unclear, although there is a suggestion that such a correlation is "working" to create a space providing grounds for the problems of interdisciplinary character.

During the Third Round Table discussions "Ontology and phenomenology," it was shown that the philosophy "does not want to" take over the role of mediator in the construction of an interdisciplinary context, which includes science and theology, until it clarifies for itself the status of ontology. In such a situation, any philosophy of science is possible only as a particular philosophy of science. It was told about the difficulty of expressing certainty in philosophy without making it certainity, which most of all remindes a dogma. There were speaches about the new types of phenomenological discourse and underway efforts for interpretation of phenomenology as ontology, which uses mathematical apparatus of mathematics as formal ontology in the project of A. Badiou. An important contribution of A. Badiou to the philosophy was the project of desubjecting the phenomenology to be undertaken to move to the formal ontology. There was a report on the multiplication and discern of possible "ontologic" settings in the works of the phenomenologist identified by M. Geiger, due to the comparative analysis of the transcendental and non-transcendental phenomenology. It was shown that any science uses some installation - "structural Ontica" - which, however, is not explicated by scientists, and remains in the sphere of phenomenology. In contrast to the ideas presented at the first round table, there were reports on the various sources of philosophical and theological hermeneutics, proposing to touch upon the general issues of "nature" of time in the phenomenological interpretation of Husserl and pre-scholastic interpretation of St. Augustine. The fact that the "nature" of time is similarly and with similar examples solved by Augustine and Husserl, it should, in opinion of the reporting person, show that philosophy and theology may have a common discourse. The round table discussion made the participants to conclude that philosophy is too occupied by its own problems, and, therefore, the scientists or theologians have to decide themselves whether to use its context as a binder in the creation of the required multi-disciplinary context.

In conclusion, a video link took place between the participants of the round tables and New York, which was devoted to the presentation of how to form an interdisciplinary context of medieval science, medieval theology and psychology in the heyday of Islamic thought in the X-XI centuries. 

As a result of the conferences the chairmans of the round tables have attempted to formulate questions for discussion at future conferences:

Alexander Mikhailovsky – Chairman of the Round Table N 1, "Hermeneutics and Theology":

The "languages" of traditional theology and modern European science are different in origin and its conceptual apparatus. The value crisis in modern society shows that the scientific world view is limited. Guided by hermeneutical tasks, theology seeks to restore the "integral knowledge" about the world and invites the science to become an ally. But here a question arises: is there any possibility of rapprochement between the discourse of modern theology, with its concepts of "identity," "sacrament," "living God" and the discourse of contemporary scientific knowledge, both humanitarian and natural; or the experience, lying in the grounds of theology and the science, is fundamentally different and the rapprochement of disciplines would involve changing the subject and the essence of theology and modern science?

Aleksey Oskolsky – Chairman of the Roundtable of N 2, "Natural Sciences and Metaphysics":

[The speeches showed that the] conflict between science and religion is in the field of metaphysics ( of the "scientific world", "scientific world view", etc.). Is the modern European science able to continue to exist without the scientific world veiw, without coming into conflict with its own base?

Roman Gromov - Chairman of the Round Table N 3, "Ontology and phenomenology":

Is the modern philosophy able to learn and teach? Are there any significant philosophical lessons adobted by the contemporary theology and science? Or they do not need the mediation of philosophy, and the philosophy itself is a self-contained and enclosed way of thinking?

End of translated document-------

Конец перевода документа------

I, the undersigned certified translator David A. Manukyan, fluent in both Russian and English, confirm that the above is a true, accurate and complete translation of the attached document.

Я, дипломированный переводчик , владеющий русским и английским языками, подтверждаю, что выполненный мною перевод приложенного документа является правильным, точным и полным.