Orthodoxy and reason

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

This question is related somewhat to those discussed in the 'God vs Logic' thread, but because I am interested in hearing about a slightly different emphasis, I am starting a new thread in the hope others may find this interesting.

The question came to me this morning, as I was thinking about what God really is on my way to work. We are told He is the Creator of the visible universe, and that there also exists a noetic realm, also His creation. We are also told that He exists as three consubstantial Persons united in a relationship of love. But here I stumbled: how is God´s Word a Person? How can a Spirit be a Person? What does this mean?

Obviously, I am not writing to doubt the central teachings of our faith. However, I am a man, with a mind, and a sense of reason or logic (not the same, I realise), that requires some kind of appeasement or satisfaction, whatever that is, in order to feel that I am being at least to some extent true to my whole self, which includes the faculty of reason.

So to get to my question, it is this:

What is the place of reason in Orthodox theology? To what extent can our reason be used to conceive or indeed even comprehend Divine reality?

I am aware that the immediate answer to this may be that man has faculties other than, and superior in operation and importance to, his reason. But I would like to hear more regarding those faculties and their relation to our reason. A subsequent question is therefore also:

How do Orthodox Christians come to terms with believing in things they don´t understand? How can we believe in God, saints, miracles, a spiritual realm, and really be sincere to our faculty of reason and our sensory experience (again, I realise these are also not the same)?

I apologise for the many questions, but look forward to discussing this with those interested in responding,

ICXC
Byron

[Eugene]

Dear Byron,

I'm a physicist, and modern physics tells me that an electron is simultaneously a particle and a wave, it can exist simulataneously in every point of the universe, our universe is multi-dimentional sphere, it says that time in a black hole is completely discontinued from time in our universe - matter in the black hole exists after eternity in out univerce, and many other ridiculous things. This all doesn't make any sence to me, however this is all true and experimentally proven. My reasoning and common sence can not grasp, imagine or understand those things any more, I can only beleive in it. But yet I can use those concepts of modern physics in my work - I don't understand them, but the theory works in practice. So our reasoning can't even understand things at micro- or mega-level of material nature, no wonder it can not understand realities of the spiritual world which is beyond the material universe.

In Christ,
Evgeny

[Antonios Spartan]

The bandwith of light that we can visisbly see with our human eyes are a tiny fraction of the wavelenths of "energy" or light that is around us at any given time. The way I see it (no pun intended), is that our human reason can also only "recognize" a tiny fragment of the Truth that is all around us. By various tools and methods such as infrared and ultraviolet light detectors, we can expand our "sight". Similarly, by prayer and fasting and the attainment or virtues, we surpass human reason and come to the knowledge of Truth, that is, as close as we possibly can. Thus, human reason is sight, but only incomplete sight.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Fr.Columban Scull, OSB]

how is God´s Word a Person? How can a Spirit be a Person? What does this mean?

Perhaps we can understand that all people are "in-spirited"; that is, it is quality of human existence to be animated by spirit. Thus your problem is one of category (person assumes spirit). The "Word"[Gk. Logos] is fully God because of God's perfection in the expression of himself as human from his perfect Divine will.

Peace,
Columban

[Antonios Spartan]

My humble understanding about the Persons of God is this (though I hope someone can correct me if I am wrong):

God is Trinity, Undivided.

Similar to someone making a verbal statement. Though different things are required to speak a certain sentence (like having a thought, moving the mouth, and breathing out the words), the message has only one true meaning.

Similarly, the Father is the Source, the Son is the Word, and the Spirit is the Breath. Thus, the Trinity is expressed in Creation. Persons, or unique individual Parts of the One God.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Antonios, Evgeny, Fr Columban,

Thank you for your responses. It seems that you are each saying, in a different way, that human reason is limited in its ability to comprehend both spiritual and material reality. I tend to agree, yet still I am left wondering what the Orthodox understanding of the purpose of the faculty of reason is. Did God merely equip us with it in order to help us get by in managing everyday life? Or does it have a "higher function"? Is it of any use at all in approaching the holy?

Fr Columban, could you explain what you mean by "a problem of category (person assumes spirit)"? You seem to be suggesting that the Word only became a Person when the Logos was incarnated, but I'm sure you can't be saying that.

ICXC
Byron

[Fr.Columban Scull, OSB]

Dear Byron,

Please forgive me for by lack of clarity. I'm not sure I have the skill to remedy the situation, but I will try.

When the Logoswas incarnated God became manifesed as human person in Jesus the Christ who now is the manifestation of the Son; the Word (Son) exists, coeternal and coequal, and consubstantial with the Father. Thus, the Spirit did not become a person, but dwelt as the full person of God manifested as Jesus. The key, it seems to me, is using "manifested" rather than "became". To become is to undergo a change in essential substance, to be manifested is to simply exhibit one's nature in a specific way.

Clearly, it seems I am in way over my head. I defer now to the many on this message board whom I've grieved with my ignorance.

Pray that I might live this live this mystery more effectively than I can explain it.

Pax, my brother,
Columban+

[Antonios Spartan]

Dear Byron,

This is from the book "A Study of Gregory Palamas" by John Meyendorff":

"Palamas admits the genuine character of natural knowledge; but the difference between it and revealed wisdom is that, by itself, it cannot produce slavation. To Barlaam's assertions about a 'single knowledge', common to Christians and Hellenes, and seeking the same end, Palamas answers by stressing the reality of two forms of knowledge having distince ends and based...on two different organs of perception. 'It is perhaps not totally false to say that profane philosophy by itself introduces us to a knowledge of beings... But that is not the knowledge of beings and the wisdom which God has directly granted to the Prophets and the Apostles'. Moreover, and most importantly, 'that which is true in external wisdom is not necessary, and does not lead to salvation'; one could know nothing of the sciences and nonetheless attain eternal life.
[...]
'In the field of knowledge and doctrine, saving perfection lies in accord of thought with the Prophets,the Apostles and all the Fathers through whom the Holy Spirit has certainly spoken of God and of his creatures. Whereas those things which the Spirit has omitted and which have been disovered by others, are useless to the salvation of the soul, even if they are true; for the teaching of the Spirit does not leave out what is needful. That is why we cast no blame on those who disagree about things which the Spirit disregards, and why we do not say that those who have wider knowledge in this field have attained blessedness.'

In dealing with this problem Palamas is not considering profane sciences in general, but a definite system of thought, that of the Greek philosophers... St. Paul proclaims that the wisdom of the Greek philosophers 'has been turned to folly' (Rom I:21). 'The wisdom to which this misfortune has not occured,' Palamas comments, 'has therefore not been turned to folly. How could this not be so, since it has succeeded in attaining the end naturally proper to it, and since it has turned towards God, the Cause of nature? Such wisdom of the pious and venerable men among us, the wisdom which has truly the courage to reject evil, to choose what is profitable, to draw men to Church of God, and harmoniously to conform with the wisdom of the Spirit. For my part, I believe that it holds the truth'. As for Hellenic wisdom, it is not in its aspect as natural wisdom that is has been 'turned to folly', but 'in so far as it does not come from God'. 'The intelligence which discovered it, as intelligence, came from God, but the wisdom itself, in so far as it has strayed from its proper end which is knowledge of God, should not be considered as wisdom.'"

-------------------

My feeble attempts at understanding this (and I could very easily be wrong), is that it is part of our nature to reason and rationalize. However, before the Fall, it was only a minor part of the human experience and when used, its purpose was in gaining deeper knowledge of God and communicating with Him. Adam did not rely on this particular faculty of thought to come to the Truth: in fact, it was when we rationalized whether he should eat from the Tree of Knowledge that led him to be decieved.

Thus, the faculty of reason is part of our nature, it is a gift from God, but it is not the way to come to the knowledge of God.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Antonios Spartan]

Dear Fr. Columban,

When you say "Thus, the Spirit did not become a person, but dwelt as the full person of God manifested as Jesus", this I believe is not what Orthodoxy teaches. The Spirit as One of the Trinity, was One of the Persons from before the Incarnation. The Spirit, being co-eternal with the Father and the Son, was always a distinct Hypostasis. The Word became man but it didn't change the Person of the Holy Spirit. This is my understanding, though I may very easily be wrong, and I pray that you forgive me if I am.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Fr.Columban Scull, OSB]

Dear Byron,

Yes, exactly. The Son is coeteternal, always existing as one with God as a person of the Trinity. Always as a person, but in time as a human person---distinct from the personhood of the Trinity which is eternal. Thank you for your kind patience with a non-Orthodox believer; I still have so much to learn and having to write it, though rough it may be, helps me to go deeper into my faith. Thank you, my brother.

Columban+

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Thank you Fr Columban for your clarification. I also found, together with Antonios, the suggestion of the Spirit manifesting as Jesus an unfamiliar concept. Also, your comment in your last post about the Trinity being eternal, in contrast to Jesus being in time as a human person, may be perfectly correct, but then I wonder: what about our Lord´s Ascencion? Perhaps Antonios can help clarify this, but I have the impression that Jesus ascended bodily to heaven, thereby glorifying the human body. This would mean that the human Jesus, or more precisely the theanthropic Christ, is eternal, and not only in time. I may be showing here that I missed Theology 101, so please forgive my struggles to "theologise", and please correct me if I´m mistaken here.

Antonios, thank you for the quotation. If I understand it correctly, St Gregory believed in two kinds of knowledge, and even two seperate organs for the acquisition of each. I am still confused, however, by the fact that reason is argued to be a God-given faculty, and, in your own words "its purpose was in gaining deeper knowledge of God and communicating with Him" before the Fall. This sounds, far from a "minor" part of our experience, to be one of great importance. It also begs the question, if Adam used his reason initially to such a great purpose, how he could be deceived by the serpent into using it otherwise. Surely God does not give us anything useless or indeed harmful! Granted that the misuse of reason is evident everywhere (e.g. bomb design), but if the reason is purified and working 'according to nature', then what does it do? Then what is it for?

Please forgive the persistence of my questioning. I am helped along greatly in my thinking on this by your posts.

ICXC
Byron

[Antonios Spartan]

Byron and Fr. Columban,

I believe it is I who am in over my head! My knowledge of theology is extremely rudimentary and I am learning everyday (thanks to the Scriptures, the Fathers, and forums like these). I think its important I begin with such a disclaimer before I pretend to know more than I think I know.

Regarding the human person of Christ, I agree with you that the human body was glorified by Christ. 'God became man so that man may become God'. That is the old Orthodox adage. God had 'emptied' himself to a human being, as St. Paul alludes to. However, to understand what God emptied himself into, we must look at the first human, namely Adam. Before the Fall, Adam was in the image and likeness of God, with a body, soul, and spirit and with a rationalizing mind with free will (God's greatest gift). His body was in the natural state as it was created, that is, it felt no pain, no hunger, no disease, etc. He had the potential for eternal life this way. It was after the Fall when the body was corrupted.

In the Incarnation, the Second Person of the Trinity took on this fallen nature, but it did not take away from His Divine nature (thus having two natures). The human aspect of Jesus hungered, thirst, and felt pain, but not His Divine nature. With the Ressurrection and Ascencion, Jesus restituted the two natures and glorified the fallen human body back to its original natural state (ie, the Second Adam). Thus, the risen Christ is eternal, not only as One of the Trinity, but as the risen Christ who ate with the Apostles and offered his hands to Thomas.

In response to your excellent question regarding the "reason for reason", if you will, I also find it to be a very thought provoking and intriguing question. If I try to place myself in Adam's shoes (though before the Fall, I doubt he wore any!), I don't think I would care much about rationalizing or reasoning. I would be in constant communication with God. His Grace would be surrounding me. I would have no worries or troubles. Life would not be so complicated. What would I need reasoning for? What would I have to rationalize about? I could if I wanted to; after all, I was given the greatest gift possible- that is, free will. I could question God and wonder why He made the sky blue. I could even try to figure out why the trees have leaves. In fact, I could even design a complex science of arithmetic and geometry, and develop scientific methods to validate hypothesis on why things are the way the are. Or, I could use that free will and instead choose to be enlightened by the light of God, basking in His Glory, and attaining more and more to His likeness. God gave me the choice.

Satan took advantage of this and led Adam to make the wrong choice. It was the same greatest gift that God gave (free will) that gave Adam the ability to reject God. When you say "Surely God does not give us anything useless or indeed harmful", you are right, if we use it the right way! Free will and reason- if we use it to love one another or to find ways to help one another, than it is useful and helpful. Bombs were originally made to aid in construction, it is our fallen selves that use it soley for destruction.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Anthony]

Thank you, Antonios, for this very nice exposition. One might certainly contrast "wondering at" the blue sky with "wondering why" the sky is blue. But I am not sure that even the sense of "wondering why" should be straightforwardly identified with doubt. I can also think of it in terms of the impulse behind (for example) a child's desire to learn, which does not necessarily show self-sufficiency or a resistance to being taught, often rather the opposite. Granted children too are subject to original sin, but this is perhaps as near as I can come to visualizing the place of unfallen reason; having the appetite to be fed by "the spiritual milk of the Word".

Anthony

[Owen Jones]

There is a problem with the term "human reason" just as there is a problem with the term "human nature." Classically, there was no such thing as "human reason," either in Greek philosophy or theology, because it was understood, since the discovery of reason, that it is the divine noetic faculty expressed in man. And that what makes mankind mankind is the divine presence, and the capacity for transcendence. The terms "human nature" and "human reason" is the result of the reductionist fallacy in which there is a split between divine reality and human reality, with divine reality becoming a personal opinion. Unfortunately, this reductionism has been adopted by believers whose only defense is that it is their personal faith which is unassailable. This is more a fixation than it is evidence of real faith. Also, what most believers actually are referring to when they use the term "human reason," is the capacity for logic and instrumental calculation, such as the logical steps necessary to construct something -- like a building, or a computer -- while leaving out the factor of inspiration and transcendence which is in response to the unspoken question, why build a house in the first place? Why bother building anything? The reductionistic answer to this question is always a calculation -- so people can be better off, richer, more comfortable, etc. But this does not explain the element of striving which people in the classical world all understood to be a function of divine eros, which simply gets misguided and misdirected, because God's presence does not result in the transmission of facts and information. Every answer to a why question leads to another question that transcends the last question. Faith alone cannot deal with the question of THE QUESTION.

[Antonios Spartan]

Dear Anthony,

I agree with you completely that "wondering why the sky is blue" is not neccessarily related to doubt. It is an impulse, as you stated, and its root is to find the Truth, what humans have been trying to find since the Fall. However, I don't believe Adam had much use for asking such questions, him being in Paradise. Truth was everywhere around him.
In defense of hesychasm, St. Gregory Palamas talked about the morning star:

&#34;When the day breaks, and the morning star rises in our hearts, as the Chief of the Apostles has said &#40;2 Peter I: 19&#41;, when, according to the word of the Prophet, the true man goes forth to his true work &#40;Psalm 104;23&#41; and with this light guiding him, he rises or is transported up to the eternal mountaintops; he begins, oh miracle, to see supracosmic realities, without separating himself and without being separated from the matter which has been with him from the beginning... <u>For he does not rise with the imaginary wings of his reason</u> ...but really, through the inexpressible powers of the Spirit...becoming really on earth an Angel of God, and by himself drawing to God all created things&#39;.
-----------------------

Owen, thank you for your words. In being an observer of this web site&#39;s message board for longer than as a contributor, I respect your views and have found previous posts of yours very enlightening &#40;though, I do confess, they are often too deep for me to understand!&#41; I was hoping if you could expand on a statement you made in the previous post: &#34;Unfortunately, this reductionism has been adopted by believers whose only defense is that it is their personal faith which is unassailable. This is more a fixation than it is evidence of real faith.&#34; I would argue that real faith is unassailable, though I cannot be totally sure since being a sinner, I have not come even close to real faith.

May we all drink of the &#34;spiritual milk of the Word&#34; as Anthony quoted, through the Scriptures and the Fathers, but most importantly, through our prayers.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Thank you, Antonios, for your lovely description of our ancestor Adam in Paradise. You are, I think, correct in saying that reason can be used to good or ill purpose according to our free will. Also your sense of reason as wonder, what Anthony describes as the &#34;child´s desire to learn&#34;, is probably the best motivation behind science and philosophy, and is not incompatible with deep reverence for God and His cosmos.

I wonder if there is anything in the Fathers describing Adam as a proto-scientist?

Owen, there is as usual much in your post to ponder on. You say &#34; Every answer to a why question leads to another question that transcends the last question. Faith alone cannot deal with the question of THE QUESTION.&#34; Can you perhaps explain this last sentence? Are you suggesting that faith is incompatible with, or unable to respond to, science or philosophy? Your view of &#34;human nature&#34; as a reductionistic term is interesting. You have a good way of challenging the implicit assumptions in a debate. Surely, however, theology is equally prone with science to speaking of a &#34;human&#34; and a &#34;Divine&#34; nature? Although I accept that the two are practically inseparable is there anything wrong with considering either, as long as this is done in the light of each? Perhaps I haven´t understood what you are saying here, so please forgive me if that´s the case.

ICXC
Byron

[Owen Jones]

Again, there are some problems with speaking in terms such as &#34;human nature&#34; and &#34;divine nature,&#34; except as shorthand terms. And the problem is that when we use shorthand it ends up becoming a substitute. It is the divine presence/consciousness of divine presence that makes us human, not some aggregate of stuff or processes that are independent of God. Nothing exists apart from God. We exist in God, as do all things, and processes in the cosmos, including history.

Conversely, the divine nature is what We know through analogy to what we experience in the erotic tension. &#40;Please don&#39;t confuse this term with Playboy magazine!&#41; So one cannot speak about God in the abstract, apart from our experience. The Divine nature can be talked about both abstractly and concretely, but only if there is a human person to talk about it, who has had an experience of it. So there is a real sense in which the human and divine are experiential poles of existence. Posing the issue this way should not be misinterpreted as psychological projection. Nor should we forget that God is defined by the Fathers, not so much by &#34;His nature,&#34; but as Beyond all things. There is a virtual fixation that develops in Latin Christianity on the question of &#34;nature,&#34; because of the undue influence of Aristotle &#40;and his focus on nature or substance&#41;, as if there is such a thing in and of itself. It is an attempt to objectify all intellectual/theological knowledge, apart from the experiential pole. Once this happens, it becomes easy for empirical science to crack and destroy this approach. Because God is treated as a thing, an object, the empiricistends up winning the argument, and the faitfhul tend to fall back on a purely personalized fideism in defense. Then you have the odd situation in the U.S. where faith is reduced to civil right, i.e., I have a civil right to believe what I want to believe, and even to convince you to believe what I believe, but when the debate becomes personalized in this way, secularism wins. Because the ground of the argument is entirely a secular one.

The problem with &#34;modernity&#34; is that the tensional poles of existence have been split into a knowing subject and an object of cognition. This subject/object dichotomy in &#34;epistemology&#34; has tended to undermine, if not efface altogether, the experiential pole of existence. So therefore, theology has become subordinated to the canons of empiricism and faith, even by the faithful, has become relegated to the realm of personal opinion, nothing scientific about it. But there is a science of experience, which is really what Patristic theology is all about. This understanding of experience is not &#34;personal&#34; in the modernistic sense of the term. Only a person can experience something, but it becomes paradigmatic because of -- human nature? -- yes, as long as we do not see human nature as something that exists apart from God. Unfortunately, because of the trend to split reality into a subject and an object, human nature is seen by most people today in those terms. So there are those who have a personal opinion that human nature is a constant, and those whose personal opinion is the opposite, and the result is a solipsistic view of the human that afflicts both sides, as it were.

The fact is that quite apart from what anyone believes, we all live and act in response to the erotic pull of the divine presence. WE all act as if life has a divine purpose to it. Everyone does. So the problem becomes one of awareness, or lack thereof, in other words, having a mature, fully developed consciousness of divine presence, guided and informed, not by historical data, but by the historical canons of faith and reason. Faith is the transformative element that leads, in Christianity, to a fully formed consciousness of divine prsence, but not at the expense of Reason, which is one of the tensional poles of existence that makes us &#34;human.&#34; Nor can we perfect our faith at the expense of our humanity &#40;as do the Pharisees&#41;.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I was struck by the following from Owen after the last few posts on the "mysticism" thread.


projection. Nor should we forget that God is defined by the Fathers, not so much by "His nature," but as Beyond all things. There is a virtual fixation that develops in Latin Christianity on the question of "nature," because of the undue influence of Aristotle (and his focus on nature or substance), as if there is such a thing in and of itself. It is an attempt to objectify all intellectual/theological knowledge, apart from the experiential pole. Once this happens, it becomes easy for empirical science to crack and destroy this approach. Because God is treated as a thing, an object, the empiricistends up winning the argument, and the faitfhul tend to fall back on a purely personalized fideism in defense.

The "mystical-filioque" vision I think really exemplifies the problem that Owen refers to. The filioque arises fundamentally from a fixation on defining the nature of the Holy Trinity rather than the revelatory experience of the Three Holy Persons as known from within the Church. As Owen suggests once this occurs there is a fixation on "objectifying" the Holy Trinity through definitions. Although certainly Aristotle is not the cause of this (I also would rescue poor St Augustine from the constant attempts to blame [or praise] him for this) his philosophical perspective was used as a convenient mental framework for post-schism theologians.

In Orthodox theology we are always taught in regards to the Holy Trinity to "start with the Divine Persons" not their co-essentiality. There is one other thing here though that really seems to fit into this discussion. When it comes to "defining" the Three Divine Persons the Holy Fathers always (at least to my knowledge) stop at something like, "The personal name of the unoriginate is 'Father'; of the eternally begotten, 'Son'; of what has issued, or proceeds, without generation, 'the Holy Spirit'." (St Gregory the Theologian- Fourth Theological Oration- On the Son, 19). In words we cannot go further in saying Who the Divine Persons are.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

This objectification gets us into the absurd notion that by referring to the first person of the Trinity as Father, we are somehow claiming that God is a male person. The reaction to that is, why not a female person? When nobody in his right mind every intended for the term Father to refer somehow to God having sexuality. It is a symbolic and an analogical term. Female symbolism abounds in Orthodoxy, with the Church symbolizing our spiritual mother, the architecture of the Church reinforcing this. There is no other language to use other than analogies from our condition and experience.

[Antonios Spartan]

Thank you Owen and Fr Raphael for your comments. Your words have really given me, and I imagine, everyone else interested in this thread, something to think about.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Byron Jack Gaist]

When it comes to "defining" the Three Divine Persons the Holy Fathers always (at least to my knowledge) stop at something like, "The personal name of the unoriginate is 'Father'; of the eternally begotten, 'Son'; of what has issued, or proceeds, without generation, 'the Holy Spirit'." (St Gregory the Theologian- Fourth Theological Oration- On the Son, 19). In words we cannot go further in saying Who the Divine Persons are.

...and therefore presumably we also cannot go further in defing Their nature and relationship (even though St Gregory does seem to be saying that "Father" is not just a metaphor, in Owen&#180;s sense, but a Personal NAME; and if we know the Name, then do we know something about the nature?).

I am probably in way over my head here, but it seems to me that therefore Eastern theologians are bound to come to their knowledge of God as He chooses to reveal Himself through prayer and sacramental experience, whereas theology in the post-schism West, through the introduction of credal aberrations like the filioque, permitted and encouraged the attempt to reach God via the discursive reason. Is this correct?

ICXC
Byron

[Owen Jones]

I never said that &#34;Father&#34; was a metaphor. I did say that it does not refer to God as a sexual being. It is symbolic of something that goes beyond that. That does not make it a metaphor. Big difference.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Byron wrote:


it seems to me that therefore Eastern theologians are bound to come to their knowledge of God as He chooses to reveal Himself through prayer and sacramental experience, whereas theology in the post-schism West, through the introduction of credal aberrations like the filioque, permitted and encouraged the attempt to reach God via the discursive reason. Is this correct?

In the west even the scholastics state that knowledge of things Divine comes mainly from faith. But then they also state that reason is fundamental to explain this Divine reality. So reason is given a much more active & purposeful role than we are used to.

Fundamentally however it's not that in the west there was "a program of reason" while in the east there was "a program of spirit". This oversimplifies the reality of the situation & also sees the renovated theological formulations of the west as being causes rather than signs of something deeper which is occuring in this society as it pulls away from the Patristic vision. I have been mulling for many years over what caused this change & what it means on the deeper level but I do not think I really yet understand its significance. I do however think it represents some sort of inner revolution that is occuring in western society gradually around the 10th century & in fact this is what results in the Schism. Again I do not think it is that in the west they begin a "revolution of reason." Rather I think it is closer to what Owen is getting at- that a fundamental change is occuring in how God & His providence are perceived. Although it is dangerous to generalise too much we can say that one sign of this profound change is that this Divine reality is 'definitional' or humanistic(Owen's reductionism?) rather than theological in the Orthodox sense. The stress on reason arises from this. But as I have tried to point out before the humanistic approach can become just as easily emotional & 'mystical' as rational. In the west both threads travel side by side influencing & feeding off each other.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

I believe this discussion ought to hinge on the contemporary problem of the marginalization of theology in the currrent cultural environment. Otherwise, it is a discussion of dead artifacts. Whenever I raise this issue, the response is typically, who cares what a bunch of secular intellectuals think because I have my faith and the Church is a rock, so on and so forth, and it simply doesn&#39;t matter. But it does matter. What are the origins of secularization? What, if any trends within the Church contributed to this trend in which matters of the spirit are relegated to the realm of personal feeling and opinion? A civil right to worship as one pleases, but not considered to have any valid intellectual content. One obvious result is that school children throughout the globe are either taught a mindless materialism as the ground of all things, or, conversely, a dullwitted and spiritually vacuous fundamentalism. The only person who has begun to address these questions is, ironically, a rather idiosyncratic Christian/classical philosopher, Eric Voegelin. He does a much better job of defending classical Christian thought than any Christian I have read.

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

I have been reading a bit in the past five years or so on the issues St Gregory Palamas dealt with vs the West and believe this period and these issues affected significantly the way the Eastern Orthodox approach the intellect, and underlies some of the tension between East & West on this issue. Way over simplifying of course, but there is a tendency in Western Roman Catholicism to approach the intellect as the primary and &#34;purest&#34; way to approach God, and a certain downplaying of the &#34;heart&#34;. East tends to the opposite - the heart being more pure, and the mind being less so. Again I repeat I believe these statements of mine are very much oversimplifications!!

In reading St Gregory P, he certainly never is anti-intellectual! But he strongly defends the &#34;unlettered&#34; monks who approach God without the &#34;sophistication&#34; of the Western &#34;intellectuals&#34; who were saying that without a &#34;proper&#34; philosophical and scientific education you could not approach nor see God.

I understand St Gregory P and the hesychasts were never accepted as having valid experience of God by the West. I have read several references in both Roman Catholic & Protestant histories and theological treatises that very explicitly disparage this approach to God, and posit an intellectually-oriented &#34;way&#34; as being inherently superior. I find the Western attitude laced with pride and suspect theologically; I find the East sometimes prejudiced against the &#34;mind&#34; and disparaging of it inappropriate. I believe we are called clearly by Christ to love Him with our heart, soul, mind and strength; the entire human nature including our hearts & minds were affected by the fall, and sin, and need to be cleansed by our Lord through our baptism and charismation and redemption. No aspect of our humanity is free of the affects of sin. God became man, including taking a human mind, to redeem us totally.

My thoughts, open to others!

GG

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

Sorry, late at night, forgot my real point - I believe God wants us to use our minds, as well as our hearts, souls, and strengths, to serve and worship Him. He has captured our hearts, our minds, our imaginations, our whole being. May we serve Him, by subjecting ourselves to His Lordship.

GG

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Gilbert,

I believe that the Orthodox agreed with Galileo while in the west an inquisition tried and condemned him for heresy. I don&#39;t agree with your conclusion that you &#34;find the East sometimes prejudiced against the &#34;mind&#34; and disparaging of it inappropriate.&#34; I think that excessive and inappropriate use of the mind can lead to distortions and even absurdity or insanity. I&#39;ll quote below part of the most disturbing example that I have read of recently and can be found at this link,

http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/cardinal.htm

&#34;Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, has recently spoken of the difficulties of the Vatican in ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox Church, stating: &#39;We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist&#39;. He went on to explain his words, saying that the Vatican had expected that the Patriarchate of Constantinople played a similar role in the Orthodox world to that played by the Papacy in the Roman Catholic world. He had realized that it does not. Hence his personal revelation.

Our reply is that the Orthodox Church does really exist, but, it is true, not at all in the Roman Catholic form imagined by the Cardinal.&#34;

I don&#39;t think there is anything wrong with humble minds even when they are boggled by the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Patriarch of Alexandria. &#43; 444 A.D

&#34;He Who sits upon the sublime and heavenly Throne, now lies in a manger. And He Who cannot be touched, Who is simple, without complexity, and incorporeal, now lies subject to the hands of men. He Who has broken the bonds of sinners, is now bound by an infant&#39;s bands.&#34;

&#34;Let the heavens be glad and the earth rejoice: for the Son who is co-eternal with the Father, having his throne and like him without beginning, in his compassion and merciful love for mankind has submitted himself to emptying, according to the good pleasure and the counsel of the Father; and he has gone to dwell in a Virgin&#39;s womb that was sanctified beforehand by the Spirit, O marvel! God is come among men; he who cannot be contained is contained in a womb; the Timeless enters time; and strange wonder! His conception is without seed, his emptying is past telling; so great is this mystery! For God empties himself, takes flesh, and is fashioned as a creature, when the angel tells the pure Virgin of her conception: &#39;Hail, thou who art full of grace; the Lord who has great mercy is with thee.&#39;&#34;

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

Matthew, thank you! I love the quote at the end, and rejoice that God and His mercy is far beyond what I can ever understand! I agree with you that our minds are not infallible. That does not mean, and I am confident you agree, that they are totally fallible. Our entire human nature fell in the Garden. We continue to damage our hearts, minds, souls, bodies as we sin.

I do not at all advocate that our minds are superior to our hearts, nor that our hearts are superior to our minds. Both are made by God, were damaged in the Fall, and are now being renewed by Him as we cooperate with His healing grace.

My observation is the East tends to react to the West&#39;s over-enthusiasm for human rationality, and the West tends to react to the East&#39;s criticism of that over-enthusiasm. That&#39;s my only point!

Please forgive me if I over-simplify, and am unclear.

GG

[Anthony]

Dear Matthew,

I am glad to hear that the Orthodox took Galileo&#39;s side against the inquisition. Could you point me to a source for this information?

I hope we never tried to excommunicate Halley&#39;s comet either.

Anthony

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Anthony,

I&#39;ll try. This is an interesting subject, Galileo was sorely vexed by Papal or Latin claims of absolute authority relative to the Latin Church and it&#39;s opposition to his understandings. Galileo&#39;s sun centered theory was in conflict with Ptolemy’s theory that put the earth in the center of the universe. Ptolemy’s theory was the accepted thinking. The Roman Catholic Church provided two sources in Holy Writ to substantiate the thinking of Ptolemaeus; “at Joshua’s order, the sun stopped in mid-heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.” &#40;Js 10:13&#41; “the sun rises and the sun goes down.” &#40;Eccl 1:5&#41; Hence, problems for Galileo the accused teacher of “heresy”.

I could be wrong but it seems to me that mathematics can ultimately focus on infinity, so it can point at theology so to speak by means of the use of logic, perhaps that is what happen to some degree. As we know logic does not have to just be expressed numerically, it can be articulated in a plethora of ways, for example, philosophically &#40;perhaps Owen will add or subtract some commentary&#41; and &#34;artistically&#34; which we can hear in music. In the totality of Orthodox Christianity we see correct theology, correct liturgical practices and theology in color wonderfully interwoven with liturgics by way of Orthodox iconography. If an iconographer paints void of logic or with heretical thinking a non-orthodox painting will be the result. Thought is prerequisite but prayer is more important. I cannot comment on praying without thoughts, see the Church Fathers. In heresies we can perceive distortions, it seems a prerequisite is not subscribing to them. Very sadly, even Christological relationships human/divine can be misunderstood or distorted when flawed reasoning is used, the Latin doctrine of the Immaculate Conception comes to my mind now in that regard, there are many. http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/index.shtml

I’ve digressed a little it seems.

Galileo&#39;s war with Rome was the result of Romes monopoly on wisdom. Obviously, there could not have been an inquisition by anyone who follows Christ and lives in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church for she is always guided by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. I think that Rome was following Truth as Rome sees it and not as Galileo saw it. Individuals within the Church can error, but what the Orthodox Church teaches remains truthful as she adheres to the Patristic tradition. Rome being seperated from the Orthodox Catholic Church can error irrespective of what they say. Should a scientific or mathematical truth be a source of conflict with the Church? It stands to reason that the teachings of Christ are more important to follow and are a superior to the teachings of Ptolemaeus a Gnostic and Copernicus or Galileo. I think this conclusion would be in accordance with Orthodox thought. I don&#39;t think Galileo&#39;s thinking or actions had been in oppostion to the teachings of Christ. The conflict was the result of Romes powerful imagination. I have not read everything that Irenaeus wrote, but from what I have read so far he didn&#39;t seem to be to keen on Ptolemaeus.

&#34;I intend, then, to the best of my ability, with brevity and clearness to set forth the opinions of those who are now promulgating heresy. I refer especially to the disciples of Ptolemaeus, whose school may be described as a bud from that of Valentinus.&#34;


Irenaeus in Against Heresies 1.8.5.

Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,-that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things. By him the Word was produced, and in him the whole substance of the Aeons, to which the Word himself afterwards imparted form. Since, therefore, he treats of the first origin of things, he rightly proceeds in his teaching from the beginning, that is, from God and the Word. And he expresses himself thus: &#34;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God.&#34; [John 1:1-2] Having first of all distinguished these three-God, the Beginning, and the Word-he again unites them, that he may exhibit the production of each of them, that is, of the Son and of the Word, and may at the same time show their union with one another, and with the Father. For &#34;the beginning&#34; is in the Father, and of the Father, while &#34;the Word&#34; is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, &#34;In the beginning was the Word,&#34; for He was in the Son; &#34;and the Word was with God,&#34; for He was the beginning; &#34;and the Word was God,&#34; of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. &#34;The same was in the beginning with God&#34;-this clause discloses the order of production. &#34;All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made;&#34; [John 1:3] for the Word was the author of form and beginning to all the Aeons that came into existence after Him. But &#34;what was made in Him,&#34; says John, &#34;is life.&#34; [John 1:3-4] Here again he indicated conjunction; for all things, he said, were made by Him, but in Him was life. This, then, which is in Him, is more closely connected with Him than those things which were simply made by Him, for it exists along with Him, and is developed by Him. When, again, he adds, &#34;And the life was the light of men,&#34; while thus mentioning Anthropos, he indicated also Ecclesia by that one expression, in order that, by using only one name, he might disclose their fellowship with one another, in virtue of their conjunction. For Anthropos and Ecclesia spring from Logos and Zoe. Moreover, he styled life &#40;Zoe&#41; the light of men, because they are enlightened by her, that is, formed and made manifest. This also Paul declares in these words: &#34;For whatsoever doth make manifest is light.&#34; [Eph. 5:13] Since, therefore, Zoe manifested and begat both Anthropos and Ecclesia, she is termed their light. Thus, then, did John by these words reveal both other things and the second Tetrad, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia. And still further, he also indicated the first Tetrad. For, in discoursing of the Saviour and declaring that all things beyond the Pleroma received form from Him, he says that He is the fruit of the entire Pleroma. For he styles Him a &#34;light which shineth in darkness, and which was not comprehended&#34; [John 1:5] by it, inasmuch as, when He imparted form to all those things which had their origin from passion, He was not known by it. He also styles Him Son, and Aletheia, and Zoe, and the &#34;Word made flesh, whose glory,&#34; he says, &#34;we beheld; and His glory was as that of the Only-begotten &#40;given to Him by the Father&#41;, full of grace and truth.&#34; [compare John 1:14] &#40;But what John really does say is this: &#34;And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.&#34;&#41; Thus, then, does he [according to them] distinctly set forth the first Tetrad, when he speaks of the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia. In this way, too, does John tell of the first Ogdoad, and that which is the mother of all the Aeons. For he mentions the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia, and Logos, and Zoe, and Anthropos, and Ecclesia. Such are the views of Ptolemaeus.


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

&#40;Message edited by Matthew_P on 10 March, 2005&#41;

[Anthony]

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for your reply, which I found very interesting. I agree that the controversy with Galileo shows the &#34;hybris&#34; of the Papacy, and one hopes that Christians immersed in the Orthodox tradition would not go down the same path.

Your comments on logic were interesting. Certainly there are systems of logic which do not depend on sequences of symbols, such as visual logics, and music is another good example. It hadn&#39;t occurred to me to think of liturgy in this way.

I am not well up enough on ancient cosmology or Gnosticism to get the full import of the passage from Irenaeus, but I think the Ptolemaeus being criticized there is not the same as Claudius Ptolemaeus the astronomer, after whom the Ptolemaic system is named. I would be very interested, though, to know of any texts relating to either the Fathers&#39; attitude to the Hellenistic astronomy of their day or the reaction of the Orthodox Church to the theories of Copernicus and Galileo.

In Christ,
Anthony

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Anthony,

Claudius Ptolemaeus aka Ptolemy lived around the same time as Irenaeus. Irenaeus was addressing the disciples of Ptolemaeus budding from Valentinus.

I think it is accurate to say that Ptolemy the Greek astronomer was a &#34;disciple&#34; of Valentinus a Gnostic, hence Ptolemaeus the astronomer was a Gnostic. It seems to me that the Ptolemaeus being criticized by Irenaeus is Claudius Ptolemaeus the astronomer.

http://www.wordlookup.net/pt/ptolemy.html

Above is a bit of information on Ptolemaeus, you may read at the end of the text;

&#40;Ptolemy was a disciple of the Gnostic Valentinus, known to us for writing a letter to a wealthy Christian lady named Flora, trying to convert her to the Valentinian faith.&#41;

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Anthony]

Dear Matthew,

You may be right; but I think the sentence you quote may be a separate entry, hence the bold type &#40;in the original&#41;. You might also like to look at the following link, which says that they were distinct, although certainly they lived about the same time.

Ptolemy the Gnostic (http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/ptolemy__gnostic)

In Christ,
Anthony

[Anthony]

Sorry, the above link appears not to work. The text is originally from the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy_%28gnostic%29).

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Anthony,

You may be right, I&#39;m not sure, I could be confused and I prefer not to be. I tend to think I&#39;m wrong, I wouldn&#39;t be very suprised.

Perhaps Matthew Steenberg or others here who are very knowledgable in Gnosticism and Irenaeus could make the matter clear.

The link you have provided is not working over here, so I can&#39;t check the link out.

Thanks.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Anthony,

Thanks for clearing that up for me. My apologies, I made several very incorrect assumptions it seems. By all means I trust Wikipedia more than my thinking. There goes a few ideas in my head. Disregard my comments on Irenaeus and the misidentified Ptolemaeus. Ptolemy the astronomer was not in heresy?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

&#40;Message edited by Matthew_P on 11 March, 2005&#41;

[Anthony]

Dear Matthew,

I was also going to suggest leaving the Ptolemy question to Dr Steenberg rather than relying on my hit-or-miss Google searches! But be that as it may, I think your deeper point about the reaction of churches to science as reflecting Christian humility or unchristian pride is an important one, and I would like to follow it up.

I would like to stress here that I am not taking &#34;rational&#34; here in the sense of autonomous reason as in the western reason versus revelation debate. Rather I mean something like the Greek word &#34;logikos&#34;, which I think covers a whole range of meanings between logical and spiritual. But I would say that when I first encountered Orthodoxy, one of the things that hit me like a breath of fresh air was the rationality, in this sense, of the Greek Fathers and those Orthodox I came in contact with. Thinking of the embarrassing corners the Papacy backed itself into over Galileo and others, I would be very interested to learn more about how the Orthodox Church has reacted to scientific questions, both in ancient and modern times.

In talking about rationality I do not want to get out of my depth here. Actually when I joined Monachos I made a resolution not to get involved in doctrinal threads but to leave them to people who are more theologically educated. As you see, I have been drawn in despite myself. But I stress my questions are very naive ones, and I hope if I am talking out of turn I will be corrected.

In Christ,
Anthony

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Anthony,

I don&#39;t think you are talking out of turn we are all naive in comparison to all the &#34;knowledge&#34; that people learn. I think you are correct on the Ptolemy question and bringing my errors to my attention is appreciated particularly as it was done in a very charitable way. Having said that we share the same interest in how the Orthodox Church reacted and responds to science, it&#39;s a very big question. So I think we have to look at how Orthodox Christians react as well. I think a simple but practical ancient example would be Saint Basil bringing Doctors into a Monastery &#34;Hospital&#34; to help the sick. One can&#39;t help but to notice the good use of reason in Orthodox Patristic text as you have. I tend to believe with humility in short, which apparently can also be seen as being a stationary posture. Your question seems to depend on the opinions of men and who one listens to and how they interpret or perceive behavior. I&#39;ll wait for some commentary from other participants if they would be willing to help us out.

Here is one such example.

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/4_ch13.htm

§ 135. Literary Character of the Early Middle Ages.

The prevailing character of this period in sacred learning is a faithful traditionalism which saved the remains of the ancient classical and Christian literature, and transferred them to a new soil. The six centuries which intervene between the downfall of the West Roman Empire &#40;476&#41; and the age of Hildebrand &#40;1049–1085&#41;, are a period of transition from an effete heathen to a new Christian civilization, and from patristic to scholastic theology. It was a period of darkness with the signs of approaching daylight. The fathers were dead, and the schoolmen were not yet born. The best that could be done was to preserve the inheritance of the past for the benefit of the future. The productive power was exhausted, and gave way to imitation and compilation. Literary industry took the place of independent investigation.

The Greek church kept up the connection with classical and patristic learning, and adhered closely to the teaching of the Nicene fathers and the seven oecumenical councils. The Latin church bowed before the authority of St. Augustin and St. Jerome. The East had more learning; the West had more practical energy, which showed itself chiefly in the missionary field. The Greek church, with her head turned towards the past, tenaciously maintains to this day the doctrinal position of the eighth century; the Latin church, looking to the future, passed through a deep night of ignorance, but gathered new strength from new blood. The Greek church presents ancient Christianity at rest; while the Latin church of the middle ages is Christianity in motion towards the modern era.

§ 136. Learning in the Eastern Church.

The Eastern church had the advantage over the Western in the knowledge of the Greek language, which gave her direct access to the Greek Testament, the Greek classics, and the Greek fathers; but, on the other hand, she had to suffer from the Mohammedan invasions, and from the intrigues and intermeddling of a despotic court.

The most flourishing seats of patristic learning, Alexandria and Antioch, were lost by the conquests of Islam. The immense library at Alexandria was burned by order of Omar &#40;638&#41;, who reasoned: &#34;If these writings of the Greeks agree with the book of God &#40;the Koran&#41;, they are useless and need not be preserved; if they disagree, they are pernicious and ought to be destroyed.&#34;766 In the eighth century, however, the Saracens themselves began to cultivate learning, to translate Greek authors, to collect large libraries in Bagdad, Cairo, and Cordova. The age of Arabic learning continued about five hundred years, till the irruption of the Moguls. It had a stimulating effect upon the scholarship of the church, especially upon the development of scholastic philosophy, through the writings of Averroës of Cordova &#40;d. 1198&#41;, the translator and commentator of Aristotle.

Constantinople was the centre of the literary, activity of the Greek church during the middle ages. Here or in the immediate vicinity &#40;Chalcedon, Nicaea&#41; the oecumenical councils were held; here were the scholars, the libraries, the imperial patronage, and all the facilities for the prosecution of studies. Many a library was destroyed, but always replaced again.767 Thessalonica and Mount Athos were also important seats of learning, especially in the twelfth century.

The Latin was the official language of the Byzantine court, and Justinian, who regained, after a divorce of sixty years, the dominion of ancient Rome through the valor of Belisarius &#40;536&#41;, asserted the proud title of Emperor of the Romans, and published his code of laws in Latin. But the Greek always was and remained the language of the people, of literature, philosophy, and theology.

Classical learning revived in the ninth century under the patronage of the court. The reigns of Caesar Bardas &#40;860–866&#41;, Basilius I. the Macedonian &#40;867–886&#41;, Leo VI. the Philosopher &#40;886–911&#41;, who was himself an author, Constantine VII. Porphyrogenitus &#40;911–959&#41;, likewise an author, mark the most prosperous period of Byzantine literature. The family of the Comneni, who upheld the power of the sinking empire from 1057 to 1185, continued the literary patronage, and the Empress Eudocia and the Princess Anna Comnena cultivated the art of rhetoric and the study of philosophy.

Even during the confusion of the crusades and the disasters which overtook the empire, the love for learning continued; and when Constantinople at last fell into the hands of the Turks, Greek scholarship took refuge in the West, kindled the renaissance, and became an important factor in the preparation for the Reformation.

The Byzantine literature presents a vast mass of learning without an animating, controlling and organizing genius. &#34;The Greeks of Constantinople,&#34; says Gibbon,768 with some rhetorical exaggeration, &#34;held in their lifeless hands the riches of the fathers, without inheriting the spirit which had created and improved that sacred patrimony: they read, they praised, they compiled; but their languid souls seemed alike incapable of thought and action. In the revolution of ten centuries, not a single discovery was made to exalt the dignity or promote the happiness of mankind. Not a single idea has been added to the speculative systems of antiquity; and a succession of patient disciples became in their turn the dogmatic teachers of the next servile generation. Not a single composition of history, philosophy or literature has been saved from oblivion by the intrinsic beauties of style or sentiment, of original fancy, and even of successful imitation .... The leaders of the Greek church were humbly content to admire and copy the oracles of antiquity, nor did the schools or pulpit produce any rivals of the fame of Athanasius and Chrysostom.&#34;

The theological controversies developed dialectical skill, a love for metaphysical subtleties, and an over-estimate of theoretical orthodoxy at the expense of practical piety. The Monotheletic controversy resulted in an addition to the christological creed; the iconoclastic controversy determined the character of public worship and the relation of religion to art.

The most gifted Eastern divines were Maximus Confessor in the seventh, John of Damascus in the eighth, and Photius in the ninth century. Maximus, the hero of Monotheletism, was an acute and profound thinker, and the first to utilize the pseudo-Dyonysian philosophy in support of a mystic orthodoxy. John of Damascus, the champion of image-worship, systematized the doctrines of the orthodox fathers, especially the three great Cappadocians, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa, and produced a monumental work on theology which enjoys to this day the same authority in the Greek church as the &#34;Summa&#34; of Thomas Aquinas in the Latin. Photius, the antagonist of Pope Nicolas, was the greatest scholar of his age, who read and digested with independent judgment all ancient heathen and Christian books on philology, philosophy, theology, canon law, history, medicine, and general literature. In extent of information and fertility of pen he had a successor in Michael Psellus &#40;d. 1106&#41;.

Exegesis was cultivated by Oecumenius in the tenth, Theophylact in the eleventh, and Euthymius Zygabenus in the twelfth century. They compiled the valuable exegetical collections called &#34;Catenae.&#34;769 Simeon Metaphrastes &#40;about 900&#41; wrote legendary biographies and eulogies of one hundred and twenty-two saints. Suidas, in the eleventh century, prepared a Lexicon, which contains much valuable philological and historical information770 The Byzantine historians, Theophanes, Syncellus, Cedrenus, Leo Grammaticus, and others, describe the political and ecclesiastical events of the slowly declining empire. The most eminent scholar of the twelfth century, was Eustathius, Archbishop of Thessalonica, best known as the commentator of Homer, but deserving a high place also as a theologian, ecclesiastical ruler, and reformer of monasticism.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

&#40;Message edited by Matthew_P on 12 March, 2005&#41;

[Daniel Jeandet]

The following was copied and pasted from the Thunderbolts.info website, picture of the day archive.

Halton Arp: A Modern Day Galileo

Halton Arp is to the 21st century what Galileo was to the 17th. Both were respected scientists, popular leaders in their field. Both made observations which contradicted the accepted theories. Seventeenth century academics felt threatened by Galileo&#39;s observations and so, backed by ecclesiastical authority, they ordered him to stop looking. Twentieth century astronomers felt threatened by Arp&#39;s observations and so, backed by institutional authority, they ordered him to stop looking.

Both refused. Both published works geared to the non-specialist when specialists would no longer take note. Galileo&#39;s paper, &#34;A Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of the World&#34; , favored a heliocentric model of the solar system and undermined the accepted geocentric model. Arp&#39;s books, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, Seeing Red, and Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations, favor a steady-state model of the universe and undermine the accepted big bang model.

The Church responded by placing Galileo under house arrest: his peers would not even look through his telescope and the Church judged his books heretical. The modern astronomical community responded similarly to Arp. Observatory officials cancelled his telescope time and astronomical journals refused to publish his research.

How did these men create such a furor?

Galileo introduced a simple new concept that changed the universe as it was known then. Arp introduces a simple new concept that will change the universe as we know it now.

Seventeenth Century educators taught that the Earth was the center of the universe. The Sun, the moon, the planets and the stars revolved around it. Galileo confronted his contemporaries with a universe centered around the sun. If you had lived in Galileo&#39;s time, would you have been willing to examine his work?

Today&#39;s educators teach that the universe started from a big bang 15 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. Galaxies and quasars are scattered according to their redshift. Arp confronts us with a universe of ejected galactic families. You live in Arp&#39;s time: are you willing to examine his work?

See more about Arp&#39;s universe here:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

[Daniel Jeandet]

How interesting. After seeing all the interest in Galileo on this thread and a discussion on why he was ignored in his day and the results of his observations suppressed, I expected a lively discussion to develop after I posted the article and link on Halton Arp and the suppression of his ideas.