“In 7 I asked “the separation of faith and reason, to the point of taking the point of view of the infidels [— is] this in itself already foreign to the Orthodox?”
You responded “Yes” in 8. I am trying to understand what exactly is foreign since the dialog method evidently is not.”
OK. What is foreign is that we are the “rational flock”. Reason, as perhaps opposed to logic, is inseparable from Faith. As for dealing with infidels by taking their pov, well that we simply wouldn’t do. In a modern context, we can see this in Orthodoxy’s participation in the WCC. We don’t accept the points of view of the heterodox and do not use their methods to advance Orthodoxy. We simply state our faith as the Church believes it to be.
But reason is still something other than faith. Boso does not say, “I abandon the faith and take up the reasoning of the infidels”, he says, “Given that I already have faith, what would the reason say?”
For example, I had a discussion with an atheist, who did not believe in the Resurrection. I could have told him “and I do — buzz off”, or I could do what I did: point out that the witness evidence for the resurrection should be acceptable as historical evidence in absence of faith. Justin likewise does not advance his position to Trypho by postulating faith but rather reasons on the level Trypho could reason back. I understand the danger of syncretism, but I fail to see it in the methodology of St. Anselm, at least this far. Maybe in the sequel we’ll see something that would smack of false ecumenism, — please point it out.