Stud East Eur Thought (2010) 62:9399 DOI 10.

1007/s11212-010-9104-0

Negative theology and science in the thought of Semyon Frank

Teresa Obolevitch

Published online: 2 February 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

n Frank (18771950) considered the Universe as the all-unity. Abstract Seme According to him, everything is a part of the all-unity, which has a divine character. God is present in the world, but his nature is incomprehensible. In this article I analyze two consequences of Franks panentheistic view of the relation between science and theology. Firstly, the limits of scientic knowledge allow recognition of the mystery of the world and the transcendence of God. Secondly, Frank claimed that nature is a trace of God and the manifestation of the absolute reality, i.e. the all-unity. As a result, both science and theology lead to the knowledge of God, although we cannot understand His essence. n Frank The absolute The unknowable Knowledge Keywords Seme Theology Science Introduction The Russian philosophers of the Silver Age considered metaphysical questions as well as the relationship between physics and metaphysics (science and theology). This state of affairs was not accidental. Some Russian thinkers were educated in vThe Father of the both philosophy and science. For example, Vladimir Solove Russian philosophystudied for 4 years in the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of the Moscow University, Nikolaj Losskij was a graduate of a similar department of the St Petersburg University, and Fr. Pavel Florensky published his rst work in Russia on set theory. Continuing this list we could argue that one of the most prominent Russian philosophers addressing the problem of the relationship of
T. Obolevitch (&) Department of Philosophy, The Pontical University of John Paul II, Kanonicza Street 9, w, Poland 31-002 Krako e-mail: atobolev@cyf-kr.edu.pl

123

94

T. Obolevitch

n Frank (18771950). In this article, I will present science and religion was Seme and analyze his position on the questions and issues mentioned above.

The concept of God Frank maintained that his idea was inspired by Plotinus, the German idealists, and especially by Nicolas of Cusa. Like these philosophers, Frank was convinced of the v existence and the organic connection of all things which hefollowing Solove termed all-unity or total unity (vseedinstvo).1 The entire empirical world is contained in the Absolute (the absolute unity). Strictly speaking, the Russian philosopher distinguished two aspects in the Absolute. First, the absolute unity in its connection with the world (the absolute ad extra) is the ontological and epistemological basis of everything (its existence and cognition). Each individual being has its primordial background in the absolute unity. Hence the absolute, unconditional being is very close to us: it is present with ultimate, absolute selfevidence in all consciousness of reality if only we have eyes to see it,2 in the act of intuition. Frank repeated repeatedly that: Abstract knowledge is possible only as a derivative product of integral intuition. () The intuition of total-unity is the primary basis of all knowledge.3 Secondly, the Absolute as such (ad intra) is totally unfathomable, ineffable, transrational, oras Frank put it in the title of his principal workthe absolute imoe).4 The Absolute has a metalogical reality is the Unknowable (Nepostiz nature, i.e., it transcends every notion and its negation.5 Speaking about God we resort to positive (i.e. eternal, Almighty, merciful etc.) or negative (uncreated, innitive etc.) descriptions, because we cannot express Him in another way. Nevertheless all our denitions of God are inadequate. God is above and before each denition and its negation. For this reason He cannot be grasped in a net of limited concepts. Thus our knowledge of God has a contradictory character: we speak of Him and simultaneously we are aware that this articulation is anthropomorphic and approximate. The only epistemological concept approved by Frank was a learned ignorance (docta ignorantia)cognition of our ignorance of God (the absolute being-for-itself): The method of philosophizing by means of a learned ignorance is a kenotic method, a method of cognitive intercourse and exhaustion. Just as a rich person who possesses a great deal of intellectual wealth can allow himself the
1

In this context Nicolas of Cusa used the similar expressions unus et omnia or omnia uniter. See Nicolai de Cusa (1932), p. 48. Frank (1983), p. 68. Frank (1995), p. 221; cf. Zenkovsky (1953), p. 868. Frank (1995), p. 221. Frank (1995); cf. Frank (1928), 195; Frank (1929), 239240.

2 3 4 5

123

Negative theology and science in the thought of Semyon Frank

95

luxury of truly acknowledging his ignorance and thereby raise himself to a higher level of knowledge.6 Frank categorically objected to a theology that pretends to grasp the ultimate truth of God. In his letter to a friend entitled On the impossibility of philosophy (1944) he remarked: A philosophy, which would at the same time be dogmatic theology (philosophy within the catechism), calls forth my greatest protest. Such a thing is absolutely impossible. Even St. Thomas did not achieve it, so we, contemporary people, cannot accomplish it either. () Long ago I have formulatedfor myselfthe following thesis: all speakers, as speakers, are liars, because for the sake of the beauty and composition of speech they must falsify and stylize reality. () Lastly, I say the same about philosophers (as they construct some completed system of the world and being, or even of God and world). () Obviously, I am philosopher enough not to claim I have searched the precise notion of God. No doubt, all our attributes have only a relative and a symbolic meaning (likewise in Thomass thought). Indeed, God is merely the unknowable!7 The task of philosophy is the rational transcendence of the limitations of the rational thought.8 As a result, Frank continued the venerable theological tradition known as negative or apophatic theology (to speak more correctly, theology stressing that God is beyond both positive and negative denition) developed by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Nicolas of Cusa, and, rst of all, the Eastern Fathers of the Church (i.e. the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maxim the Confessor and St. Gregory of Palama).9 The following sentence summarizes Franks religious conception: The Absolute is both utterly separated (according to the etymology of this word), as entirely other, and omnipresent, all-embracing, common to all.10 In Franks words, this thesis harmonizes with the Christian truth of Gods transcendence and immanence. Now we can ask: how did Frank understand the relationship between this type of theology and science? Before we answer this question, we must rst of all study some main aspects of Franks idea of science.

Franks methodological principle Frank set forth his concept of scientic knowledge mainly in the essays Science and religion (1925) and Science and religion in the contemporary consciousness (1926).
6 7 8 9

Shein (1968), 16. Frank (1996a), pp. 8890. Frank (1965), p. 44.

Frank noticed that his conception correspond to the doctrine of St. Gregory of Palama about the real distinction in God an unknowable essence (ousia) and energies (energeiai) by which God manifests himself in the created world. Frank (1996b), p. 71.

10

123

96

T. Obolevitch

The Russian thinker states that science has its own method, purpose and object of research, different from the object of philosophy or theology: Science explores the world and its observable facts and does not take into consideration their connection to something other, while religion, in coming to know God, at the same time comes the world and life in their relationship to God. Hence, although religion and science refer to the same thingthe world and lifenevertheless they grasp these things from two different perspectives; consequently, they appear to be speaking about distinct things. () It seems that science investigates the inner structure of the center, the middle layer or section of being, whereas religion studies this center in its relationship to the beginning and the end, to being as whole or to its integral, primordial principle.11 Anticipating contemporary methodology, Frank remarked that in exploring the universe science should not refer to supernatural factors. However, this restriction of scientic research does not mean that science refuses to recognize the existence of the transcendental sphere: As regards authentic science it is not the case that it does not admit the interference of supernatural forces. It is just that science does not investigate these forces, leaves them out of account, as it were ignores them. () Science investigates the relationship between phenomena, that is, natural forces. It is perfectly normal that science, having its own tasks, does not complicate matters for itself by attending to the kinds of occurrences that arise when supernatural forces interfere.12 Frank admitted the principle of methodological naturalism (science should explain the world by the natural causes only). Unlike the positivists, on the other hand, the author of The Unknowable maintained that methodological naturalism does not imply metaphysical naturalism (or materialism which claims that all forces observed in the world operate like blind natural forces and thus rejects any supernatural and rational forces.13 Against the then dominant neopositivism and atheism, Frank rst of all defended theology against science and justied the use of science for theological purposes. However, let us return to the question raised above and ask: does theology (according to Frank) need science? For this purpose we will examine two aspects of Franks concept of God: (1) the negative (apophatic) aspect and (2) the panentheistic. Both of them express the truth of Gods transcendence and immanence. By taking into consideration the apophatism of Franks theological conception (or that of Eastern theology in general), we can answer the question as to the relationship of theology and science as follows: scientic knowledge is useless for theology, because it in no way does it dispute the truth of the radical otherness and
11 12 13

Frank (1925), p. 4, 6; cf. Frank (1926), 146. Frank (1925), p. 1011. Frank (1925), p. 12.

123

Negative theology and science in the thought of Semyon Frank

97

inexorability of God. It seems that paths of the negative theology and science do not cross. As a consequence, a confrontation between science and theologybe it dialogue or conictis impossible. But we can consider this question the other way round, noting the role of negative theology for science. Namely, the intensive development of science shows the limits of human knowledge and the necessity of transcending the temporal representations of the empirical world. And if knowledge of the world (in the concrete, historical stage of its development) is imperfect, what can we say about God who is absolutely Other? As Pascal wrote: There is nothing more in keeping with reason than its self-repudiation. The ultimate effort of reason is to recognize that there is an innity of things which are beyond it. It is but feeble if it does not see so far as to know this. But if natural things lie beyond it, what is there to be said of those which are supernatural?14 In other words, scientic progressthe origin of new theories, the discovery of new factsallows believers to perceive the Mystery of the world and its Creator more clearly. Franks point is that a true scientist has both great humility and courage in the cognition of reality: What is the main impulse of scientic work, of the scientic quest for knowledge and discovery? For the scientist it lies in the very mystery of being and in the sense of wonder (as Aristotle said15). () A scientist wants to penetrate reality more profoundly than an ordinary man; this means that he is aware of the hidden, inaccessible depths of being concealed from the ordinary gaze. One cannot call a scientist someone for whom the entire universe is exhausted in a direct perception, who claims to see reality as a whole lying before him on the palm of his hand and that everything can be easily known. On the contrary, a [true] scientist is one who feels the mysterious depths of being, who with Shakespeare knows: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.16 The initial and the constant foundation of scientic consciousness is the recognition of ones own ignorance which Socrates expressed in the words all I know is that I know nothing.17 According to Frank, docta ignorantia concerns transcendent reality as well as the empirical world. The encounter with the mystery of nature accentuates the truth of the apophatic theology of the Unknown God. The second aspect of Franks theological concept is the panentheistic view that the entire empirical world is rooted in the Absolute. What meaning does scientic knowledge have for this thesis? In Franks view, science explores only segments
14 15

Pascal (1910), p. 97.

Cf. Aristotle, Metaphisics, 982b, trans. by W.D. Ross: For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at rst began to philosophize (T.O.).
16 17

W. Shakespeare, Hamlet, act 1, scene 5 (T.O.). Frank (1925), pp. 1920.

123

98

T. Obolevitch

of the world and lays open new, earlier, unknown segments. Investigation of the world is the manifestation of the ultimate reality. The limitations of human cognition of nature do put in question the truth that the cosmos as a whole and each individual thing is a trace, an image and a symbol of the absolute unity.18 By discovering these traces we approach Godnot in some concept or other, because He cannot be conceptualized, but through awareness of His presence and permanent action. Science, to be sure, does not speak about God, but can lead us to Him through its ndings.19 For many great scientists, the motivation for doing science was of a theological nature: to know better Gods creation, to glorify God through their work. For example, Newton did not consider it to be anti-scientic to include a theological discussion in his Mathematical principles of natural philosophy, and Cantor saw set theory to be a path leading to the Absolute.20 In Franks essay Religion and science we read the following sentence: If someone admits science and considers its conditions, he is logically obliged to acknowledge the fundamental religious belief of the presence of higher spiritual, and rational, roots of being.21 Like the Eastern Fathers of the Church, Frank perceived the cosmos as a living book (a text or even hyper-text), the face of God.22 We must add that Frank often gavecontrary to his own declarations about the methodological difference science and theologyexamples of conrmation of theological truth by scientic data. I do not intend to analyze this question23 in this article. It is notable that the Russian philosopher, especially in his early period, had a tended to so-called integral knowledge, i.e. knowledge which opens the horizons for ever new hope and faith which is conrmed and veried by knowledge.24 We can interpret this conrming of faith by knowledge as an attempt to nd the common point of meeting of theology and science. In Franks opinion, both lead to the acknowledgment of the Mystery and Logos of the world.

References
Drozdek, Frank, S. Frank, S. Frank, S. Frank, S.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A. (2006). Frank on beauty. Idea, 18, 109119. (1925). Religiya i nauka. Berlin: Evraziyskoye knizhnoye izdatelstvo. (1926). Religiya i nauka v sovremennom soznaniyi, Put, (4):145156. (1928). Erkenntnis und Sein. Logos, 17, 165195. (1929). Erkenntnis und Sein. Logos, 18, 231261.

Cf. Frank (1983), p. 221. Drozdek (2006), 119. Drozdek (2006), 118. Frank (1925), pp. 1819. Shmaliy (2005), 540. See Obolevitch (2006), pp. 269273, 283288. Frank (1996c), p. 581.

123

Negative theology and science in the thought of Semyon Frank

99

Frank, S. (1965). Reality and man: an essay on the metaphysics of human nature, Translated by Natalie Duddington. London: Faber and Faber. Frank, S. (1983). The unknowable: an ontological introduction to the philosophy of religion, Translated by Boris Jakim. Athens: Ohio University Press. Frank, S. (1995). Predmet znaniya. In idem, Predmet znaniya, Dusha cheloveka. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. Frank, S. (1996a). O nevozmozhnosti losoyi (pismo k drugu). In idem, Russkoye mirovozzreniye, pp. 8895. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. Frank, S. (1996b). Absolutnoye. Translated by A. Vlaskin, A. Yermichev. In idem, Russkoye mirovozzreniye, pp. 5872. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. Frank, S. (1996c). Znaniye i vera. In idem, Russkoye mirovozzreniye, pp. 578582. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. Nicolai de Cusa (1932). De docta ignorantia. In idem, Opera omnia (vol. 1). Lipsiae: In Aedibus Felicis Meiner. li Wodzimierza S. Soowjowa i Obolevitch, T. (2006). Problematyczny konkordyzm. Wiara i wiedza w mys w Krako w: Biblos/OBI. Siemiona L. Franka. Tarno Pascal, B. (1910). Thoughts. Translated by William F. Trotter. In idem, Thoughts, Letter, Minor Works, pp. 7322. New York: P.F. Collier & Son. Shein, L. J. (1968). The Concept of the Unfathomable (Nepostizhimoe) in S.L. Franks Epistemology. Canadian Slavic Studies, 2(1), 1427. Shmaliy, V. (2005). Cosmology of the cappadocian fathers: a contribution to dialogue between science and theology today. Faith and Philosophy, 22(5), 528542. Zenkovsky, V. (1953). A History of Russian Philosophy (vol. 2). Translated by George L. Kline. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.

123