McCall RTCH785C Nesteruk Book Review:
This book, Light From The East by Alexei Nesteruk, promised to be any interesting read for me. However, I did not appreciate his extensive section on creation ex nihilo (chapter 5, pgs 118-160), for I am (currently!) not a proponent of that theological position. I was frankly put off that Nesteruk focused so much upon Western Christianity at the onset of his book (i.e. primarily Augustine and Aquinas, pgs 28-40, e.g.). I did gain some informing concepts from Nesteruk’s coverage of Augustine. The seminal reasons as outlined by Augustine has some import for my future endeavors, I reckon it true. Indeed, the seeds spoken of by Augustine to have “unfolded” over time might lend great credence to the notion of gradual creation, as understood by Theistic Evolution adherents, though I am still attempting to flesh this out (cite Augustine’s On The Trinity 3.8.13). At the time of creation, Augustine asserted, these seeds existed invisibly and potentially (i.e. spermatikoi logoi). For Augustine, creation at the onset was complete, even though these ‘seeds’ later developed and expressed themselves. Nesteruk notes, however, that the conception of ‘seeds’ belies creative evolution (34). Nesteruk notes that according to Augustine these initial ‘seeds’ contained all power and potency to develop the creation as God intended from the beginning, and that this fact promotes the notion of the stability of the species, and not the potential transformation of the species, but I still do not see this aspect of Nesteruk’s argument (ref. 34).
That being said, I still greatly enjoyed (overall) this theological approach toward science from an Eastern Orthodox position found within this book. Reasserting the import of the Church Fathers, particularly from the Eastern Church, makes one realize that science alone cannot provide knowledge regarding the essence of its objects of inquiry. Therefore, Orthodox theology only reckons science import insomuch as it makes a contribution to the progress of the human spirit (9). However, science is part of humanity’s religious duty (12). Indeed, “for the Eastern Fathers, nature was a manifestation of God, a revelation of God’s loving activity through the divine logoi in a world that is good” (39). However, “God is never totally and exhaustively revealed… [for] ‘knowledge of truth is not exhausted in its formulation” (51).
I projected, when I first approached this text, that I would find much material that would be beneficial for my budding and embryonic position of SDC; I was not disappointed. Nesteruk notes that theology, according to the Orthodox theologians, cannot be properly done without the presence of the Spirit of God (43). Moreover, Nesteruk notes that we “everywhere discern the creative energies of God”, [not only] upholding all that is, [but also] forming the innermost essence of all things” (10). This is an implicit affirmation of panentheism, to be sure. Hence, although God and nature are not the same thing, one may seek access to God through nature (27). “The transcendence of God implies God’s immanence to the world, although the being of God in himself will always be hidden and mysterious essence” (V. Lossky, Orthodox Theology, 23). Maximus the Confessor states that the being (i.e. substance) of the created world is the teacher of theology (The Ambigua 10.19, English Translation: Louth, page 113, in J. P. Migne, Patrilogiae cursus completes, 161 volumes. Paris: Migne, 1857-1866). Maximus the Confessor also states that God
“is the author of being and simultaneously an entity transcending being; He is the author of potentiality and simultaneously the ground transcending potentiality, and He is the active and inexhaustible state of all actualization. In short, He is the author of all being, potentiality, and actualization, and of every origin, intermediary state and consummation” (Two Hunderd Texts on Theology 2.39 English Translation: Louth, pages 114-115, in J. P. Migne, Patrilogiae cursus completes, 161 volumes. Paris: Migne, 1857-1866).
Nesteruk avers that the creation and the existence of the universe can be seen as enhyphostatic (interpenetrating with God?). If my understanding Nesteruk is correct, this enhyphostatic condition of the creation and the universe is due to the kenosis of the Spirit into creation (primal to SDC; ref. 115). Nesteruk cautions his readers not to extend his panentheistic understanding of creation and God into what could become pantheism, for it would be nonsense to conceive the world as interpenetrating God (116). Nesteruk foresees that too elaborate of a panentheistic scheme runs the risk of reduction to perichoresis (co-inherence) of God and the world, which would be contrary to logic and Christian tradition (116).
In discussing informational content (chapter 7), Nesteruk agrees with John Haught in that “information as such is a ‘mystery’ that science cannot comprehend through its atomizing reduction” (205). Moreover, Nesteruk agrees with Haught that “informational patterning is a metaphysical necessity for anything to exist, for it must have form, order, or pattern” (205). However, this runs contrary to my understanding of T0 at the Big Bang, for T0 at the Big Bang consisted a basketball-sized piece of unformed matter.
Nesteruk notes that Irenaeus taught that this world is ‘generate’ in that it is totally dependent upon God, and therefore inherently open to His continual creative action (17; note the implications for SDC). I also found the running discussion of the logoi of God (i.e. purpose and end) to be relevant to my future projection of SDC, but admit that I still need more refinement on my thinking in that area. However, as Nesteruk notes, through this logoi, God [the Spirit?] is present and active in the world (20). The Fathers interpreted all of science through the lenses of these logoi of God, which could be correlated (I think, anyway?) to the telos of God. Nemesius of Emesa (De natura hominis 43.63) notes that the laws of nature are providential in the sense that they indicate this logoi of God and describe how things attain favorable outcomes (22). In noting that humanity and the whole creation do participate in the energies of God, Nesteruk contends that it is through this participation that humans form the image of matter (matter is the energies of God; 105).
Nesteruk notes that Clement of Alexandria affirmed that scientific knowledge was not possible without faith in some first principles, which modern science has likewise affirmed (19). For example, modern science takes as faith that the world is rational, and that fundamental physical laws are not abrogated, etc.