Stoyan Tanev

This article explores how Orthodox Theology (OT) and QM could benefit from each other in contributing to a fruitful interplay between theological and scientific cultures. One can refer to such interplay as a process of cultural translation which refers to the act of describing for members of one cultural community how members of another interpret the world and their experience within it. The specific focus is on the apophatic attitude to language and reality. While apophaticism has been a key characteristic of OT, it is a relatively new thing for QM. The article will specifically focus on discussing QBism – a most recent interpretation of QM – and use the discussion to illustrate how OT and QM could enrich each other by engaging in a fruitful dialogical interaction. It will also discuss a similar ongoing translation between quantum physics and the human sciences which is currently taking place with the emergence of a quantum social science.

Introduction

The title of this text refers to the role apophaticism plays in two very different contexts—Orthodox theology and quantum mechanics. Why apophaticism, why in these two specific contexts? Discussing apophaticism seems to be naturally related to theology and religion. Does it need to be? Not necessarily, since the topic has been discussed extensively, for example, in literature.

This article adopts the Analogical Comparative Theological Approach (ACTA) to explore the encounter between Orthodox theology and quantum physics. The ACTA approach integrates the intuitions of the an- alogical isomorphism and comparative theology methods by focusing on issues that are of high relevance for both theology and physics. The specific issues addressed here are the ones emerging within the context of two important debates: a) between St Gregory Palamas and Barlaam the Calabrian in the fourteenth century, and b) between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr in the twentieth century. The first debate refers to some of the key aspects of Orthodox theology and spirituality. The second debate is related to the never-ending challenges of the interpretation of quantum mechanics and the nature of physical reality. The analysis suggests that the controversial issues in the two debates are deeply rooted in disagreements about the nature of knowledge, the interplay between epistemological and ontologi- cal issues, the challenges of applying logical arguments, the role of apophaticism, the challenges of knowing and the ways these challenges affect the interpretation and sharing of human experience. The discussion of the role of apophaticism is of particular interest since it shows a common need of going beyond representation, assertion and negation by focusing on the epistemological conditions of knowledge emerging through union and participation. This need is more sharply expressed in Orthodox theology where the apophatic does not emerge as a comment on representation, but as an opportunity for participation. The fundamental presupposition of the article is that one can learn a lot about theology and quantum physics by adopting the ACTA exploratory lens to examine the potential similitudes between the ways theologians and physicists debate about their ways of knowing and the challenges of articulating their personal experience with reality. One of the key benefits of the suggested approach is its ability to examine similitudes between two so different domains of human experience – one based on Divinely revealed knowledge, the other on the proactive and dialogical human engagement with the deepest layers of physical nature. The study does not pretend to be conclusive. It should be considered as part of an ongoing reflection on the value of exploring the encounter between theology and physics.

In this paper, I discuss a recent publication by Fr John P. Manoussakis, titled ‘Created and Uncreated Light—Augustinian and Palamite Approaches’, which is the fourth chapter of his book, For the Unity of All: Contributions to the Theological Dialogue between East and West.¹ My intention is not to provide a book review but a response, or, rather, a reaction to the theological style and stance adopted by the author. In my reaction, I am not looking to engage in rhetorical polemics. I do actually sympathise with the attempt to address a highly relevant theological issue by suggesting a positive and reconciliatory interpretation of the Augustinian theology of the Old Testament theophanies. The idea of engaging in a new reading of the Bishop of Hippo’s theophanic theology by tapping into the resources of phenomenology is thought provoking. I have therefore tried to understand the logic and the grounding of Manoussakis’s argumentation. Unfortunately, I have failed to see the value of the suggested approach. I find it unsubstantiated, especially with regards to his treatment of the Orthodox position, and therefore ineffective and disappointing in terms of its potential ecumenical value. In this paper, I will try to share the reasons for my disappointment.

Introduction

John Manoussakis dedicated his book to His Holiness, Pope Francis, and His All Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, on the fiftieth anniversary of the historic encounter between their predecessors, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras. In the foreword, Patriarch Bartholomew points out that, since the historical meeting in January 1964, in Jerusalem, ‘the Orthodox Church and the Roman