Abstract
I approach this venture of figuring out the correct terminology to understand reality through the prism of two distinctive Russian Orthodox theologians, Pavel Florensky (1882–1937) and Sergius Bulgakov (1871–1944). The lens I apply mainly to their works is their respective understanding of cosmology, that is, ontology and epistemology. Therefore, I concur with Grenz to abandon the term ‘onto-theology’ and qualify the inverse as a Trinitarian theo-ontology. This honours the intimate connection between knowing and being, and prevents the bifurcation between fidelity and rationality. Mutatis mutandis, the same applies to ‘eco-theology’. This inversion reminds one of Hans-Urs von Balthasar, who bartered the concept of an aesthetic theology for theological aesthetics. Turning this question around would advance our dialogue with the sciences as the common denominator of the discourse is rather nature (creation) discerned from an acknowledged a priori (as all cognition do). In other words, the term theo-ecology is proposed.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: The purpose study is not ecological but rather an asyndetic use of the terminology about the science and religion dialogue, with reference to the nomenclature of ecology and theology. All observation terms and sentences are theory-laden. Religion can be viewed as a linguistic framework that shapes the entirety of life and thought. Truth claims should focus on the grammar (or rules of the game) and not the lexicon when expressive symbolism is employed.
Highlights
Everything we can describe at all could be otherwise
John Zizioulas, in his chapter in the above-mentioned publication, contends the following, which is the pivotal point of this paper and is highly influenced by Orthodox theology: Relational ontology contains in its very nature a dimension of transcendence, an openness of being, pointing to a beyond the self, to seeking communion with the Other, an eschatological orientation – at all levels of otherness, from the most elementary to the absolute one. (Polkinghorne 2010: loc.1 1933–1934)
The Faithlife Study Bible has it correctly when saying: ‘[w]hile faith is more than intellectual assent, it necessarily involves a declaration, a promise, and a person’ (Roberts 2016). Both Augustine and Anselm misinterpreted the meaning of faith and belief, and relegated ‘the intimate connection between knowing and being in faithful relation in the biblical witness, and eventually to the bifurcation between fidelity and rationality’ (Shultz 2006:497). This interpretation exactly is the reason why Polkinghorne should place a bi-directional arrow between epistemology and ontology
Summary
Everything we can describe at all could be otherwise. There is no order of things a priori. (Wittgenstein, Tractatus 5.634). The Faithlife Study Bible has it correctly when saying: ‘[w]hile faith is more than intellectual assent, it necessarily involves a declaration, a promise, and a person’ (Roberts 2016) Both Augustine and Anselm misinterpreted the meaning of faith and belief (despite working with the Vulgate, which has a better translation than the Septuagint), and relegated ‘the intimate connection between knowing and being in faithful relation in the biblical witness, and eventually to the bifurcation between fidelity and rationality’ (Shultz 2006:497). This interpretation exactly is the reason why Polkinghorne should place a bi-directional arrow between epistemology and ontology. This is ‘ecology’ in the real sense of the word: an inner relation of human and nature and a synthesis of the individual and the collective
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
