Skip to content
Genesis, Creation, and Early Man

Science and the Holy Fathers

1. True Theology and Secular Knowledge

The attack of modern atheistic thought on Christianity has been so effective that many Orthodox Christians are defensive and feel inferior about their own Orthodox wisdom, and are very willing to admit that there is truth and wisdom to be found in modern secular knowledge about which Orthodoxy has “no opinion.”1 They thus undervalue the immeasurably rich tradition of the Holy Fathers, which gives us Christian wisdom not by any means only on narrow ecclesiastical or theological subjects, but on much else. Patristic wisdom comprises an Orthodox Christian’s whole philosophy of life, including his attitude toward modern conveniences, scientific knowledge, and other things which did not exist in their modern form in the lifetimes of the Holy Fathers of the past.

Roman Catholic theology long ago gave up trying to give the standard of wisdom to contemporary men, with the result that it is now “generally assumed” that answers to many modern questions are to be found in modern “wise men”—scientists and even philosophers.

Orthodox Christians know better than this, and must be quite careful in deciding how much to believe these “wise men.”

One area of common confusion is the interpretation of Genesis, especially in view of the “scientific” theory of evolution. It is no exaggeration to say that many even among Orthodox Christians assume that science has much to say in helping Christians to “interpret” the text of Genesis. Here we shall examine this assumption—not at first by examining directly the theory of evolution, about which of course the Holy Fathers did not speak directly, since it is a product of eighteenth and nineteenth century “Enlightenment” thought which was unheard of in earlier centuries—but chiefly by examining the attitude of the Holy Fathers toward secular knowledge on the one hand, and their principles for understanding and interpreting Genesis on the other hand (and also their interpretation of Genesis itself).

No one will dare to say that the Holy Fathers, and Orthodox Christians in general, are “against science,” that is, opposed to scientific knowledge insofar as it is actually knowledge of nature. As God is the author both of revelation and of nature, there can be no conflict whatever between theology and science, as long as each is true and remains in the sphere which belongs to it by nature. Further, those Holy Fathers who wrote commentaries on the book of Genesis did not hesitate to make use of the scientific knowledge of nature known at that time, insofar as it was applicable to the subject. Thus Fr. Michael Pomazansky, in a perceptive article comparing the Hexaemeron of St. Basil with the Talks on the Days of Creation of St. John of Kronstadt, notes that “the Hexaemeron of St. Basil to a certain degree is an encyclopedia of the knowledge of the natural sciences of his time in their positive attainments,” his intention being to show the greatness of God as it is still visible in the obvious kinds of creatures. The knowledge of the natural sciences, to be sure, is one that is constantly open to revision owing to new findings made by observation and experiment, and so it is that there one may find errors even in the writings of St. Basil and other Holy Fathers, just as there are errors in the works of everyone who writes concerning scientific facts. These errors in no way detract from the overall value of such works as the Hexaemeron, wherein scientific facts are never used as more than illustrations of principles which derive, not from knowledge of nature, but from revelation. With regard to knowledge of the facts of nature, modern works of science are of course superior to the “scientific” part of the Hexaemeron and similar works of Holy Fathers, being based as they are on more precise observations of nature. This is the one and only respect in which science can be said to be superior to or “improve” on the writings of the Holy Fathers; but this is a point which in the Holy Fathers is quite incidental to other, theological and moral teachings.

But let us distinguish quite carefully between actual scientific facts and something quite different which is today, when different kinds of knowledge are not often carefully distinguished, often confused with “fact.” Fr. Michael Pomazansky continues:

St. Basil acknowledges all the scientific facts of natural science. But he does not accept the philosophical conceptions, or the interpretations of the facts, which were contemporary to him: the mechanistic theory of the origin of the world, the teaching of the eternity and unbeginningness of the natural world [and the like]. … St. Basil the Great knew how to raise himself above the theories contemporary him concerning the basic principles of the world, and his Hexaemeron stands out as a bright and exalted system which reveals the meaning of Genesis, and reigns above the former [theories] as a bird soars above the creatures which are able to move only along the earth.2

The conceptions and theories of present-day science (such as the “theory of evolution”) are clearly of the same order as was that part of the “science” contemporary to him which St. Basil did not accept, inasmuch as it was clearly opposed to Christian revelation. We shall see in what follows whether or not the theory of evolution is an exception to this general rule that the independent philosophical speculations of non-Christians (which always have a greater or lesser appearance of “scientific fact” to support them) have no part in the Orthodox Christian worldview, which is founded on Divine revelation as interpreted and handed down by the Holy Fathers.

One thing more should be said about the distinction in the very nature and quality of theological knowledge and scientific knowledge. The former proceeds from God’s revelation and is judged according to its faithfulness to that revelation, and it leads the soul up to its Source; while scientific knowledge proceeds from the facts of the physical world and it has no purpose but to be faithful to the facts. One need only read the commentaries on Genesis of St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. John of Kronstadt, or any of the Holy Fathers, to see how these Holy Fathers constantly use the knowledge which is available to them, whether theological knowledge of God’s doings or just scientific knowledge of God’s creatures, to draw the reader’s mental gaze up to the Creator, offer moral instruction, and the like: but never to rest content with the mere abstract knowledge of things. …

We shall have occasion later on to remember the distinctions between secular and theological knowledge. For now let it be sufficient for us to know that secular knowledge can teach us nothing about God’s revelation that is not contained in that revelation itself; if it attempts to do so it is trying to measure the Divine by human reasoning. In particular, those who think to “interpret” parts of Genesis by means of the evolutionary theory must be prepared to find clear, theological evidence of that theory in God’s revelation.

2. Science and Christian Philosophy

The Russian philosopher Ivan V. Kireyevsky (1806-1856), a disciple of Elder Macarius of Optina, wrote:

The sciences in their essential part, i.e., as knowledge, belong equally to the pagan and Christian world and are distinguished only by their philosophical side. [Roman] Catholicism could not give them this philosophical side of Christianity because she did not possess it herself in pure form. And so we see that the sciences, as the inheritance of paganism, have flourished powerfully in Europe, but have ended in atheism, as an inevitable consequence of their one-sided development. … Christian philosophy alone can give to the sciences a correct foundation.3

In Russia (as opposed to the West),

all the Greek Holy Fathers, not excluding the most profound thinkers, were translated and read, and copied, and studied in the quiet of our monasteries, these holy embryos of the universities which did not exist. Isaac of Syria, the most profound thinker of all the philosophical writers, remains to this time in copies of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. And these monasteries were in living, unceasing contact with the people.4

This is the foundation of true enlightenment.

The sciences now have gone far astray, their knowledge twisted, because they have no Christian foundation; thinking to make their own foundation they have stumbled over their own unconscious presuppositions and have stupidly assumed the prejudices of the “spirit of the age.” Present-day sciences exist in a state of “learned ignorance,” a mass of details in a context of stupidity. Contemporary science exists in a state of philosophical barbarism, a true Dark Ages of knowledge. Only true Christianity can give it true philosophy.

3. Distinguishing Materialistic Fantasies from Scientific Truth

Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov (1807-1867) teaches that, for true philosophy today, one must know both true Christianity and true science; without this, one can’t distinguish materialistic fantasies from scientific truth. He writes:

It is to be desired that some Orthodox Christian, having studied the applied sciences, would then study the fundamentals of the asceticism of the Orthodox Church, and bequeath to mankind a true philosophy, founded upon precise knowledge and not upon arbitrary hypotheses. The Greek sage Plato forbade the exercise of philosophy without the prerequisite study of mathematics. This is a true view of the matter. Without a prerequisite study of mathematics, together with the other sciences based upon it, and without the active and grace-filled knowledge of Christianity, it is impossible in our time to set forth a correct philosophical system. Many who consider themselves adepts in philosophy but are unacquainted with mathematics and the natural sciences, upon encountering arbitrary fantasies and hypotheses in the works of materialists, will not be able in any way to differentiate them from knowledge derived from science itself, and will not be able in any way to give a satisfactory response to and evaluation of the most absurd ravings of any kind of dreamer. Very often they are attracted to these ravings to the point of delusion, having taken chemistry as evident truth.5

4. Science as a Lower Form of Knowledge

The Orthodox Christian is not “against science.” But he expects from science only that knowledge which it is capable of giving, by its very nature—not theology, not a philosophy of life. Yet in our time of intellectual confusion, when “science” has achieved such prestige in the popular mind as to be synonymous with knowledge itself, it happens all too often that scientists presume to teach that which they did not learn by means of science at all; such scientists, in fact, talk like theologians and philosophers.

Modern science thinks it is “knowledge” par excellence, and before its prestige Orthodox believers waver, often apologizing for believing what seems “unscientific,” remaining content with the pietism or “religious feeling” which is the place where the scientific establishment allows faith today.

But true Orthodox Christianity is quite different. It is not bound up with any current of modern thought; it is a knowledge superior to science, and it certainly need not apologize to a lower form of knowledge.

We know God created the world in “measure, number, and weight” (Wisdom 11:20); but God has not revealed to man the details of His ordered creation, and those who pry into the “mystery of nature” find out only an infinitesimal part of the mysteries which come from God’s infinite wisdom. Modern science has proved that fallen man is not capable of using well what knowledge he has obtained.

But modern science is not only knowledge. It has divorced itself from revelation, and therefore placed itself at the disposal of heretical, un-Christian and anti-Christian theories and philosophies. Often these conflict with revelation because they enter the realm open only to theology.

So it is with the doctrine of the first man. God has not revealed many details of the first state of His creation, but [what He has revealed] is sufficient to judge the philosophical-religious speculations of evolutionists. The Orthodox doctrine of creation has not been known in the West; the Roman Catholic doctrine is quite different.

5. An Alien System of Thought

There is much confusion about evolution. Some say, “Orthodox Christians have no quarrel with evolution,” or they use the one phrase “God-guided evolution.” This understanding of evolution is rather primitive: assuming it is a “scientific fact” on the level of heliocentrism. In fact those opposed to evolution are often compared to the Roman Catholic Church against Galileo, and even Orthodox Christians are rather afraid to be found “naive” or be left behind the intellectual currents or fashions of the age.

But the whole doctrine of evolution is rather more complex than a single “scientific fact” or even “hypothesis.” And it is a doctrine-a belief involving many spheres of thought and by no means just science; and it is sufficiently coherent to be able to speak of it as a more or less coherent doctrine. We shall find it to be a whole distinctive approach to reality, with its own distinctive philosophical and theological presuppositions and deductions. In theology, in particular, it offers a conscious alternative to Orthodox Christianity on a number of key dogmas.

6. The Lack of Philosophical Culture among Orthodox Christians

The misunderstanding of evolution on the part of some Orthodox Christians comes from a want of philosophical culture:

  1. They do not have a critical approach to scientific “findings” (although, in full harmony with the modern spirit, they do have a critical approach to Scripture) and do not understand the nature of scientific “evidence” which supposedly supports evolution, nor do they know how to distinguish between fact and philosophy. They are unnecessarily awed by scientific “experts” and do not take the necessary trouble to investigate the question themselves.

  2. They do not understand the philosophical “spirit of the age” which gave rise to evolution, and therefore they naively accept the “scientific fact” of evolution, but reject the finished philosophy of evolution as in Teilhard de Chardin. They do not see that these are one whole; without the philosophy, there would never have been the “fact” of evolution.

  3. They do not understand the philosophy of the Holy Fathers—their whole outlook on nature and on specific questions such as the natures of individual things.

“The Fathers said nothing about evolution”—this is used by many Orthodox as an excuse for actually believing whatever one wants or whatever “science” says on this subject.

But our attitude to the Fathers must be more serious and more profound than this. Being faithful to the Fathers does not mean merely being ready to quote them or feel “free” to think as one pleases if no quotes are available. Rather, it means entering into their thought, which is the thought of the Church of Christ, and having a coherent philosophy of life derived from our life in the Church in harmony with the thought of the Fathers.

And the Fathers did have a philosophy, indeed a theology, which encompasses the question of evolution and makes it absolutely clear what the Orthodox Christian must think about this question. “Evolution” is not a “heresy,” any more than Buddhism is a “heresy”; but it includes, implies and presupposes so many errors and false views as to be totally incompatible with Orthodox Christianity. Most Orthodox believers have not thought deeply on this question, and so in their carelessness they think it is somehow “possible” to accept evolution. The rest of this study will attempt to clarify this issue, to make Orthodox Christians aware of the implications of Orthodox theology and the philosophy of the Holy Fathers, which have a very clear view of the chief questions raised by evolution for Christian believers.

Footnotes

  1. See Editor’s Note, Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Vision, 2nd ed., p. 501:
    This chapter has been taken from among the miscellaneous notes of Fr. Seraphim found after his repose. Each section represents a separate set of notes. We have chosen and arranged those notes which provide the best introduction to the chapters that follow. Other miscellaneous notes of Fr. Seraphim may be found in part 5. ↩

  2. Fr. Michael Pomazansky, “Besedy na shestodnev” sv. Vasiliya Velikago i besedy o dnyakh” tvoreniya o. loanna Kronshtadtskago” (Talks on the six days by St Basil the Great and talks on the days of creation by St. John of Kronstadt), Pravoslavny put’ (The Orthodox way) annual, 1958, pp. 39, 41. ↩

  3. I. V. Kireyevsky, Polnoye sobraniye sochineniy (Complete collected works), vol. 1, pp. 118-19. ↩

  4. Ibid., p. 119. ↩

  5. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Sochineniya Episkopa Ignatiya Bryanchaninova (The works of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov), vol. 3, p. 125. ↩