In the last 20 years I authored or co-authored a couple of things on religion and science, theology and science, orthodox theology and science, and so on. Truthful to my evolution in the last six years, I am signing off from such a view. Especially in Romania, virtually all theology and science - related body of work starts from the strong assumption that theological dogma is, in a form or another, an absolute given, while somehow science must `illuminate' the `eternal truth' , attempting to offer validity, or claiming to establish an added bonus or certification of validity to said `absolute'. Such an approach seems to me deeply and fundamentally flawed. Even if there may have been occasionally some interesting points here and there, I am gladly forfeiting them all so that they will not leave any room for potential misunderstandings. Here and now I am explicitly distancing myself from whatever I wrote at the `theology/science' interface.
At this point in time, it seems to me that the right approach would be that of an agnostic/atheist who considers religion/theology a phenomenon that is real - but in the sense of it being a natural (or nature-based) phenomenon that is serious enough to warrant a natural explanation, simulations, network-based analyses, neurological, many-body, etc. Paradoxically, such natural-based insights may offer illuminations that are more rewarding than the whole `make theology great again through (improperly) associating it with science' paradigm I am signing off from.
