Humanities & Social Sciences 9 (2016 9) 2150-2183 ~ ~ ~ УДК 2-11 From a Neo-Patristic Legacy of Georges Florovsky to the Radical Theological Commitment in the Dialogue with Science Alexei V. Nesteruk* University of Portsmouth, UK Lion Gate Building, Lion Terrace, Portsmouth, PO1 3HF Received 09.04.2016, received in revised form 11.07.2016, accepted 24.08.2016 The article discusses the possible ways of the dialogue between science and theology in the context of modern atheism and secularism. <...> It is argued that the dialogue cannot be symmetric and that the task of a theological critique of secularism is extended to the critical analysis of modern scientific theories in the context of existential problems of humankind, as well as of any particular person. <...> As a matter of a historical precedent one discusses an idea of a neopatristic synthesis in theology advanced by a famous Russian philosopher and theologian Fr. George Florovsky. <...> The paper discusses a possibility of extending of a neopatristic ethos towards the dialogue between theology and science. <...> One then accentuates the main problems of the dialogue such as the centrality of human person and primacy of existential faith as being the basis for a scientific creativity. <...> Any tension between theology and science is destined to disappear if they both are seen as flourishing from the same human experience of existence-communion. <...> All discussions on whether science and theology are in conflict, or in “peaceful coexistence” with each other, do not have existential implications: the problem remains and its ongoing presence points Alexei V. Nesteruk. <...> From a Neo-Patristic Legacy of Georges Florovsky to the Radical Theological Commitment. to something which is basic and unavoidable in the very human condition. <...> This result indicates that the method of conducting this dialogue at present is unsatisfactory in the sense that it does not address the major question as to what is the underlying foundation in the very distinction, difference and division between science and religion as those modes of activity and knowledge which flourish from one and the same human subjectivity. <...> But this type of questioning makes any scientific insight irrelevant simply because science is not capable of dealing with the question of its own facticity, that is the facticity of that consciousness which is the “pillar and ground” of science. <...> Theology can respond to this question from within the explicitly belief-based ground, namely faith in that the knowledge of the world represents natural revelation accessible to humanity because of God-given faculties. <...> In this sense the universe <...>