Fundamental science and the Orthodox Church. Science and religion

Russian Orthodox Church under persecution enlightenment of culture and science.

Astronomy

The concept of many worlds and the heliocentric system of the world were criticized.

In 1740, on the initiative of M. Lomonosov, Fontenelle’s book “Conversation about the Many Worlds” was published.

The book, in their opinion, should have been “taken away everywhere and sent to the Synod,” and the Academy of Sciences should have been prohibited from publishing “both about the many worlds and about everything else that is contrary to the holy faith.”

In 1743, at the request of censorship, the astronomical calendar published by the Academy of Sciences was confiscated, in which spiritual censorship found information about planets “prone to seducing the people.”

In 1756, Moscow University wanted to publish Alexander Pope’s poem “An Essay on Man,” translated by Lomonosov’s student under the latter’s direction. In this book, the author spoke out against medieval scientific views on the structure of the universe, which caused sharp attacks from spiritual censors, who found in the book “the malicious ideas of Copernicus about the multitude of worlds, contrary to the Holy Scriptures,” and the book was banned. The Moscow Metropolitan Ambrose undertook to “correct” the book, who remade Pope’s poem, replacing the verses that spoke of the many worlds and the Copernican system with his own poems. The book was published in this distorted form in 1757.

In 1757, the Synod demanded to “suspend” the scientific activity of Lomonosov, who called “not to particularly criticize science in sermons,” to burn his works, and to send Lomonosov to the Synod “for admonition and correction.” The Synod's demand was not fulfilled.

In 1764, the scientific and artistic journal organized by Lomonosov at the Academy of Sciences, “Monthly Works for the Benefit and Entertainment of Employees,” was closed, which published articles on astronomy that were “contrary to the holy faith and disagree with honest morals.”

The Russian clergy criticized the heliocentric system of the world until the beginning of the 20th century. Until 1815, with the approval of the censorship, a school textbook “The Destruction of the Copernican System” was published, in which the author called the heliocentric system a “false philosophical system” and an “outrageous opinion.” The last work, which criticized heliocentric system, was the book by priest Job Nemtsev, published in 1914, “The circle of the earth is motionless, but the sun moves.” The author “refuted” the Copernican system with quotations from the Bible and the works of the Church Fathers.

In 1886, at the insistence of the clergy, the book of the famous French astronomer Camille Flammarion, “The World Before the Creation of Man,” was banned, which “refuted” the biblical teaching about the creation of man and undermined religious foundations.

Biology

The Russian Orthodox Church fought against evolutionary teaching from the moment of its appearance.

In 1873, the work of the German philosopher and naturalist Ernest Haeckel, “The Natural History of the Universe,” was banned, in which the author developed a materialist doctrine of the universe and, as spiritual censors believed, mocked the biblical stories about the origin of the world and man.

In 1879-1880, Haeckel’s book “The History of the Tribal Development of Organisms” was banned and burned.

Charles Darwin's teachings, which undermined the foundations of religion, were met with great hostility. Darwin's works were persecuted and destroyed. The priests, fighting against Darwin's teachings, spoke out against Darwinism in their sermons, published articles in magazines, books, called Darwin's teachings "blasphemous" and tried to prove its "unscientificness", accused Darwin of destroying morality.

In 1890, S. Albert’s book “Charles Darwin and His Teachings,” which spiritual censors called “a catechism of materialistic negation of religious ideas,” was banned and destroyed.

In 1895, Charles Darwin’s book “The Descent of Man and Sexual Selection” was banned for its “materialistic nature.”

In 1902, the entire circulation of Haeckel’s book “World Riddles” was burned, since in the book “the idea of ​​the animal origin of man was a red thread.” For “impudent attacks against the highest objects of Christian veneration,” this book was blacklisted back in 1916.

In the modern church there are views that are open to interpretation Old Testament compatible with evolutionary teaching.. The church does not have a single view on the origin of life and man.

Medicine

In 1866, “for presenting the most extreme materialistic views,” the book of the outstanding Russian physiologist and thinker I.M. Sechenov, “Reflexes of the Brain,” which exposed religious ideas about man and his soul, was seized.

St. Petersburg Metropolitan Isidore asked the Synod to exile Sechenov “for humility and correction” to Solovetsky Monastery“for impudent, soul-destroying and harmful teaching.” Subsequently, the arrest on the book was lifted, but until 1894 it was listed on the list of books prohibited for storage in libraries. The author of the book was listed as “unreliable” and was forbidden to give lectures to the people.

In 1819, all the exhibits of the anatomical cabinet of Kazan University were buried, due to the fact that it was “disgusting and disgusting” to use “the creation and likeness of the creator of man on anatomical preparations.”

Story

Spiritual censorship destroyed works on the history of religion that did not correspond to the views of the hierarchs of the Church.

In 1842, N. I. Kostomarov’s dissertation “On the causes and nature of the Union in Western Russia" Archbishop Innokenty (Borisov) found in the book “many impudent expressions about eastern church and its patriarchs." The archbishop's opinion was supported by the Minister of Education S.S. Uvarov. As a result, all copies of the dissertation that were able to be collected were burned. In 1997, Innokenty (Borisov) was canonized as a locally revered saint of the Odessa diocese of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.

In March 1879, all 580 copies of George Finlay’s book “Byzantine History from 716 to 1453”, in which “thoughts directed against certain teachings of the Orthodox Church” were found, were destroyed.

Also, in 1879, 5,000 copies of the “Public Calendar” published by the Academy of Sciences were destroyed because of an article about the medieval Inquisition.

The scientist-historian, professor at Moscow University T. N. Granovsky, who was accused of harmful influence on the students, since he did not mention in his lectures the role of divine providence in the historical process.

Philosophy

As E.F. Grekulov notes, the spiritual departments fought with particular hostility against the ideas and books of French materialist philosophers who exposed the reactionary essence of religion. From the 80s of the 18th century until the 20th century, the ecclesiastical department published literature in which it criticized the ideas of Voltaire and materialist philosophers, and sought the confiscation and burning of their works.

Under Catherine II, a number of works by J.-J. were banned for “unsatisfactory religious concepts.” Rousseau (“Reflections on the Greatness of God, His Providence and Man,” “Confession,” etc.), Diderot’s works were banned for “presenting a dangerous theory of materialism.”

In 1830, spiritual censorship for the presence of ideas “against Christian morality, government and religion” banned Holbach’s “Dinner Talks.” Another book of Holbach, “The System of Nature,” considered the “bible of materialism,” was set on fire by Catholic inquisitors back in 1770, and since then it has been repeatedly banned in Russia. In 1898, fearing the “hellish” effect of this book, which, according to spiritual censors, destroyed the basic principles of religion, the spiritual authorities insisted on its destruction.

In 1860, the work of the outstanding German philosopher Feuerbach, “The History of New Philosophy from Bacon to Spinoza,” was banned.

In 1868, Voltaire’s book “Philosophy of History” was destroyed, in which spiritual censors found “a mockery of the truths and a refutation of the Holy Scriptures.”

In 1871, Helvetius’s book “On Man, His Spiritual Powers and Education” was banned for “a completely materialistic view of education.”

In 1874, at the request of the Synod, the Russian edition of T. Hobbes’s book “Leviathan, or on the essence, form and power of the state”, which was recognized as “contrary to the Holy Scriptures and the Orthodox Church,” was completely destroyed.

In 1890, Voltaire’s “Satirical and Philosophical Dialogues” were destroyed, and in 1893, his poetic works, in which “anti-religious tendencies” were found.

The works of the Russian writer and philosopher A. I. Herzen, in which he exposed the reactionary essence of the Orthodox Church and its defense of the autocracy and landowners, were under censorship ban. In 1893, spiritual censorship did not allow the publication of Herzen’s works, the reason for which was “A. I. Herzen’s atheism and his social ideas.” Representatives of the spiritual department in the brochures they published called Herzen “an apostate and an enemy of the Christian faith, an opponent of Orthodoxy.”

In 1888, a ban was imposed on the work of F. Engels “Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of German classical philosophy.”

In 1914, Engels’ work “The Principles of Communism” was banned, and in 1915, the work “From Classical Idealism to Dialectical Materialism” was declared “blasphemous”; the entire circulation of this book was destroyed.

Geology

Spiritual censorship up to late XIX hampered the development geological science. According to Metropolitan Philaret (canonized in 1994), scientific geology refutes biblical cosmogony and therefore “cannot be tolerated.”

In 1850, V. Gutzeit’s article “On the fossils of the Kursk province” was not allowed to be published, since it explained the “universe” “according to the concepts of some geologists who did not at all agree with the cosmogony of Moses.”

In March 1858, in connection with the actions of the Moscow Metropolitan Philaret against the unfolding geological work, Prince V.F. Odoevsky addressed a letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod Tolstoy: “Russia has already suffered enough troubles and losses from the terrible persecution of geology, by whose grace we have no daily bread, that is coal... while all this persecution is based simply on ignorance of the subject.”

After Roulier published lectures on geology in the Moskovskie Vedomosti newspaper in 1859, the author was forbidden to give public lectures and was required to redo the work in such a way that the reader could “agree with the first chapter of the book of Genesis” on the geological facts. The persecution of the scientist led to his premature death.

In 1866, books on geology, considered “harmful and nihilistic,” were removed from the libraries of a number of educational institutions.

In 1893, G. H. Getchinson’s book “Autobiography of the Earth, a publicly available essay on historical geology” was withdrawn from distribution and destroyed. Spiritual censorship argued its decision by saying that the author did not coordinate his views with church teaching on the creation of the world, and therefore the book “undermines the foundations of religion.”

Pedagogy

In the second half of the 19th century, to strengthen the influence of the clergy in the field of educating the people, a wide network of parochial schools was organized, which were supposed to educate children in the spirit of devotion to the autocracy and the Orthodox Church. In the program of parochial schools, the main place was occupied by church subjects - the Law of God, the Church Slavonic language, church singing, and divine services. Rejecting the textbooks of progressive teachers - K. D. Ushinsky, I. A. Khudyakov, V. P. Vakhterov, since they, according to the reviews of spiritual censors, interfered with the development of religious feelings, anti-scientific textbooks compiled in a religious-monarchist spirit were used. The spiritual authorities had a negative opinion about secular primary schools, calling them “an instrument of corruption of the people.”

The clergy resisted the attempts of advanced teachers to give children the rudiments of a scientific understanding instead of a religious interpretation of natural phenomena. The clergy wrote denunciations against teachers and sought their dismissal. Representatives of the church said: It would be better for the children to remain dark people, but good Christians and faithful sons of the king and the fatherland, than to be literate, but filled with the poison of the revolution.

IN parochial schools the priests instilled in the children that Darwin's theory was heretical, since it contradicted the Bible, and that Darwin himself was an apostate who rebelled against the Holy Scriptures. Priest-teachers forbade the use teaching aids- maps of geography, zoology, even a globe, since school should develop not the mind, but the heart and religiosity.

Literature

The hatred of the ecclesiastical department was caused by the activities of the outstanding Russian educator N.I. Novikov (1744-1818), who published many books in all branches of knowledge in a short period of time. The books sharply criticized religious fanaticism and superstition. According to the denunciation of the archpriest of the Moscow Archangel Cathedral, Peter Alekseev, the books published by Novikov were confiscated, and he himself was arrested and imprisoned for 15 years in the Shlisselburg fortress for his opposition to the autocracy, active educational activities and criticism of religion and the church.

The outstanding Russian writer A. N. Radishchev (1749-1802), author of the famous “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow,” was also persecuted by the spiritual authorities. Being a materialist, Radishchev believed that matter and nature exist forever, that they can neither be destroyed nor created. His views on the unity of soul and body, criticism of religious views on the immortality of the soul, condemnation of royal despotism and religious superstitions were found “contrary to the law of God, the Ten Commandments, the Holy Scriptures, Orthodoxy and civil law.” Radishchev's book was destroyed, and he, as a “rebel worse than Pugachev,” was sentenced to death, which was replaced by 10 years of hard labor. And even a hundred years after Radishchev’s death, this book was condemned by the church: in 1903, spiritual censors found that it was still dangerous for religion and the church, that it undermined the authority of secular and spiritual authorities, and therefore destroyed the entire printed edition.

In the 1830s, at the request of the Holy Synod, 5,000 copies of the Pentateuch of Moses, translated into Russian and published by the Bible Society, were burned. However, 30 years later, Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) recalled this event with regret: “It is impossible to remember this without deep sorrow, especially at a time when, with the spreading movement of natural reason, ignorance of the objects of faith would humiliate it in the eyes of reason...”.

In the 1840s, the list of prohibited religious reasons The books include works by G. R. Derzhavin, A. D. Kantemir, A. S. Pushkin, V. G. Belinsky, M. Chenier, V. Hugo, O. Balzac and many others.

In 1860 famous explorer folk art A. N. Afanasyev published another collection of folk tales. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod Count A.P. Tolstoy sent a letter to the minister Public Education: Regarding the published (i.e., missed by the censor Naumov) book of Mr. Afanasyev under the title: “Russian folk legends,” the highly enlightened Metropolitan Philaret addressed me with a letter in which he explained that... the names of Christ the Savior and the saints in this book were added tales that offend pious feelings, morality and decency, and that it is necessary to find a means to protect religion and morality from printed blasphemy and desecration.

As a result, the order of the Main Directorate of Censorship ordered that new editions of the book “Folk Russian Legends Collected by Afanasyev” be prohibited from reprinting, and 5,000 already printed copies were destroyed.

In 1853, when publishing the complete works of N.V. Gogol, at the request of the spiritual authorities, many passages that were found offensive to the church were excluded from his works.

In the works of M. N. Zagoskin (1830-1904), Moscow Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov) (canonized in 1994) found a “mixture” of church and secular objects, as a result the author had to thoroughly redo his works.

Metropolitan Philaret also approved the actions of the rector of the Trinity Theological Seminary, Savva, who, having learned that the seminarians had printed and handwritten works by Gogol, Lermontov, Pushkin, Belinsky and others, conducted a search at night and ordered all the selected books to be “ceremonially burned” in the courtyard of the academy in presence of teachers and students. Subsequently, Savva became the Metropolitan's assistant.

In the 60s of the 19th century, the publication of Jules Verne’s novel “Journey to the Center of the Earth” was banned, in which spiritual censors found anti-religious ideas, as well as the danger of destroying trust in the Holy Scriptures and the clergy.

In 1889, during the publication of the collected works of N. S. Leskov, spiritual censorship “torn apart” the sixth volume, which contained works from the life of the clergy. The entire circulation of the book was destroyed. N. S. Leskov called this reprisal “vile arbitrariness and autocracy on the part of every scoundrel.”

The church of Leo Tolstoy was especially persecuted.

Tolstoy’s hand rose to write such a vile slander against Russia, against its government!.. A daring, notorious atheist, like Judas the traitor... Tolstoy perverted his moral personality to the point of ugliness, to the point of disgust... Tolstoy’s bad manners from his youth and his absent-minded, idle life with adventures the summers of his youth, as can be seen from his own description of his life, were main reason his radical godlessness; acquaintance with Western atheists helped him even more to take this terrible path... oh, how terrible you are, Leo Tolstoy, spawn of vipers...

Representatives of spiritual censorship accused Maxim Gorky of placing the body rather than the spirit at the center of his works, thereby undermining the religious foundations of society.

The clergy treated the works of progressives with great hostility. foreign writers, exposing the essence of religion and the activities of its servants. Thus, the books of the outstanding German writer Heinrich Heine, “The Book of Songs,” “Gods in Exile,” and others were considered blasphemous and, at the insistence of spiritual censorship, destroyed. Even in 1904, in Heine’s complete works, many passages that “undermined” piety were excluded.

The works of such French writers as Gustave Flaubert, Anatole France, Emile Zola, Henri Barbusse and others were banned by the spiritual authorities, in whose works “blasphemous and blasphemous” thoughts and mockery of Christianity were found.

Notes

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Grekulov E.F.. Orthodox Inquisition in Russia.
2 1 2 3 4 5 Shatsky E. Church, science and education in Russia XIX V. // Library of Ya. Krotov
3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 E. F. Grekulov. “The Orthodox Church is the enemy of enlightenment”
4 B. E. Raikov. Essays on the history of the heliocentric worldview in Russia. L.: 1947. P. 364.
5 B. E. Raikov. Essays on the history of the heliocentric worldview in Russia. L.: 1947. P. 375
6 Andrey Kuraev. Can an Orthodox Christian be an Evolutionist?
7 Materials on the revision of existing censorship and press regulations. Part I. St. Petersburg: 1870. pp. 499-505
8 V. Prokofiev. Atheism of Russian revolutionary democrats. M.: 1965. P. 88
9 Russian archive. Book 3. 1880. P. 310.
10 1 2 Dobrovolsky L.L.. Forbidden book in Russia: 1825-1904: Archival and bibliographic research. - M., 1962
11 L. M. Dobrovolsky. Russian banned book 1855-1905. L.: 1945. P. 306, dissertation.
12 L. M. Dobrovolsky. Russian banned book 1855-1905. L.: 1945. P. 311, dissertation.
13 A. Kaganova. The French bourgeois revolution and the modern Russian press // Questions of history, No. 7, 1937
14 Book News, No. 18, 1937. P. 64
15 A. Kotovich. History of spiritual censorship. St. Petersburg: 1909. P. 457
16 Questions of Philosophy, No. 9, 1958. P. 89.
17 Archival business, No. 1 (45), 1938. P. 93
18 Archival business, No. 1 (45), 1938. P. 86.
19 “The Marxist Historian”, book. 8 - 9, 1935, pp. 65 - 88.
20 Collection of opinions and reviews of Metropolitan Philaret... T. IV. P. 315.
21 M. Lemke. Essays on the history of Russian censorship. St. Petersburg: 1914. P. 267
22 Russian Archive, No. 2, 1874. pp. 22-23.
23 Russian antiquity, No. 12, 1903. P. 687.
24 M. Chaly. Belotserkovskaya gymnasium in 1862-1869. Kyiv: 1901. P. 48.
25 Literary Heritage, No. 22-24, 1935. P. 627
26 P. S. Ivashchenko. Folk school in Belarus since the end of the 19th century, dissertation, p. 54.
27 Russian Orthodoxy: milestones of history / Scientific. ed. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Prof., A. I. Klibanov. - M., 1989. - P. 480-481
28 Collection of opinions and reviews of Metropolitan Philaret, vol.IV, p.247; cit. from: Russian Orthodoxy: milestones in history, p.281
29 Russian Orthodoxy: milestones in history / Scientific. ed. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Prof., A. I. Klibanov. - M., 1989. - P. 469-470
30 Propp V. Ya. Preface // Russian folk tales in three volumes. T. 1. – M., 1957. – P. XII – XIII; Philaret’s letter, see Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna on educational and church-state issues, published under the editorship of. His Grace Sava, Archbishop of Tver and Kashin. Tom will add. St. Petersburg, 1887. – P. 527
31 A. Kotovich. Spiritual censorship in Russia. St. Petersburg, 1909, p. 559.
32 Russian Orthodoxy: milestones in history. - M., 1989. - P. 470
33 See: Bell, 1863. M., 1963, issue. 6, l. 161, p. 1329; cit. from: Russian Orthodoxy: milestones in history / Scientific. ed. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Prof., A. I. Klibanov. - M., 1989. - P. 481-482
34 “Book News”, 1937, No. 12.
35 http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/PAPERS/HISTORY/EXCOMM/IOANN.HTM Answer about. John of Kronstadt to the appeal of gr. L.N. Tolstoy to the clergy

The chairman of the Educational Committee of the Russian Orthodox Church, rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archbishop Evgeniy of Vereisky, sent a greeting to the participants of the seminar. “Throughout history, the university and the academy maintained close relations... Even in Soviet times, in the era of state atheism, graduates of Moscow University came to the Moscow Theological Academy and became brilliant teachers, improving its scientific and educational level,” noted Bishop Eugene. - In turn, representatives of the academy proved in practice that theology, church history, church law are full-fledged scientific disciplines based on the same methods as all humanitarian sciences. I am confident that with respectful and interested dialogue, secular and church scientific schools can not only find common points contact, but also to enrich each other with centuries-old achievements.”

Before the start of the seminar, a photo exhibition dedicated to Russian scientists whose fate was connected with Moscow University and the Academy of Sciences opened in the assembly hall of the Church of the Martyr Tatiana.

The rector of the church, Archpriest Vladimir Vigilyansky, recalled that 16 graduates of Moscow University were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church, and more than 45 more suffered for their faith in one way or another in the 20th century. The funeral service for the writer Nikolai Gogol was held in the Tatian Church, university professors Mikhail Pogodin and Vasily Klyuchevsky prayed here, and the Tsvetaeva sisters Marina and Anastasia were baptized. The festive choir of the temple also consisted of university professors. “Moscow University has refuted the myth of impenetrable contradictions between faith and science with its existence,” concluded Father Vladimir.

On behalf of the National Research Foundation of Greece, the seminar participants were welcomed by the director of the Institute of Byzantine Studies, Professor Kriton Chrysochoidis, who noted that the relationship between science and faith is the subject of research by many modern scientists. At the same time, the autocephalous Orthodox Churches today follow different national traditions, and as a result, the relationship between science and religion in Orthodox countries can be very different. The goal of the project “Orthodoxy and Science in the World” is to trace existing problems, collect necessary information and based on it create full picture situations.

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexey Parshin emphasized that the relationship between science and faith is “not just a matter of reflection, but also a matter of split in our society, which is growing more and more.” As examples, he cited the reaction of some biologists to the defense of Russia’s first dissertation on theology, recognized by the state, and the “Letter of Ten Academicians” criticizing the teaching of the Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture in high school.

According to Academician Parshin, such an antagonism between faith and knowledge emerged in the Age of Enlightenment. Today, three main points of view on the problem can be distinguished, he believes: science and religion belong to different spheres of existence, and each should mind its own business; science and religion say different things about the same thing and therefore contradict each other; Regardless of their relationship to each other, science and religion must enter into a single, holistic worldview.

Academician Parshin also identified three main topics where there is a “dispute” between science and the Christian religion: the clash of Christian teachings about creation, incarnation and the end of the world and historical science in its present state; contradictions between the idea of ​​the creation of the world by God and evolutionary theory; the conflict between religious teachings about the emergence of the human personality at the moment of conception and the medical practice of terminating pregnancy in the detection of genetic diseases in the early stages of embryo development. These pressing issues need public discussion and reflection, the researcher believes. At the same time, he critically assessed attempts to directly “harmonize” science and theology, recalling that in history this led to renovationism.

As a positive example of the interaction between science and the religious experience of the Church, Parshin cited the founder of modern physical cosmology, Alexander Friedman, who wrote in the book “The World as Space and Time” that the first description in history of the relativity of time and space was given by Blessed Augustine in his “Confessions”. The German mathematician and creator of set theory, Georg Cantor, also quoted Augustine abundantly. At the same time, another outstanding scientist of the first half of the 20th century, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre, believed that the Holy Scriptures do not need to be supported by scientific arguments.

Another interesting example of the intersection of scientific and religious experience, Academician Parshin called liturgical circles as levels of existence (daily, weekly and annual) and various cycles in nature, where connections can be traced “from biochemical scales to processes occurring in space.”

Second speaker of the seminar, candidate philosophical sciences, Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy Nikolai Gavryushin drew attention to the fact that conflict or dialogue between science and religion often occurs within one person. “When they told us: “Science knows everything, everything began here,” we had to believe science!” Professor Gavryushin recalled his studies in the 60s, noting that he read popular scientific works “like the Bible.” However, over time, habitual scientific ideas about the world only became more complex, and more and more questions appeared. “A representative of which Higher Attestation Commission is ready to speak on behalf of all science? This is already for doctors, for people in white coats,” believes Gavryushin.

The MDA professor called not to mix scientific and religious ways of understanding the world, recalling the words of Mikhail Lomonosov: “A mathematician is unwise if he wants to measure the Divine will with a compass. The same is true of a theology teacher if he thinks that one can learn astronomy or chemistry from the Psalter.” On the other hand, great French physicist and the philosopher Blaise Pascal, in a moment of insight, wrote in his “Memorial”: “Fire! The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, but not the God of philosophers and scientists,” Gavryushin noted.

He also noted that, for example, there was no conflict between the Church Fathers and the Alexandrian scientific school, and the very concept of science changed throughout history. At the same time, there was a “drama of the Hellenization of Christian revelation”: scholarship tried to “process what it received in revelation.” And when at a certain point in time Western scientists (deeply religious, but armed with new instruments) discovered that the Universe does not correspond to the ideas of Ptolemy, the hierarchs of the Catholic Church decided to connect the form of representation of the world with the essence of the Christian faith. “The form may change, but the truth of Christ is always the same. What should be in the center should be put in the center, and what is less important should not be defended like the inquisitors,” concluded Professor Gavryushin.

Since the beginning of 2016, the National Hellenic Research Foundation of Greece (National Hellenic Research Foundation - ΕΙΕ), with the financial support of the Templeton World Charity Foundation, Inc. - TWCF, has been implementing the international scientific and educational project “Science and Orthodoxy in the World” (“Science and Orthodoxy around the World - SOW"). The project involves more than 50 scientists from Greece, Great Britain, the USA, Canada, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, the countries of the former Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, France and Australia, working both in the field of natural sciences and mathematics, and in the field of history, philosophy, pedagogy, theology.

During three years it is planned to prepare more than 45 monographs and articles in leading international magazines, create an online resource that provides access to a large number of scientific and popular science sources on the topic of the project. A number of large universities and scientific organizations, as well as Local Orthodox Churches. Conferences, seminars and open lectures are held in participating countries.

Photo by Ivan Kharlamov

In ancient times, one student enthusiastically told his teacher about how he saw a scientist. “What is he doing?” - the teacher asked his student. “He reads all the time - morning and evening, during the day and even at night,” he answered. I was silent for a bit wise teacher, as if thinking, and then asked his student: “You say that a scientist reads all the time... but... when does he think?” The student was confused and did not know what to answer.

Hieromartyr Hilarion (Trinity)

Einstein asked a Catholic priest: “How would you react if science irrefutably refuted any of the tenets of Christian teaching?” The prelate replied: “I will wait until the scientists find the error in their proof.”

Archpriest Georgy Neyfakh

Nowadays, one can often come across a stereotypical attitude towards the Orthodox Church, as an institution that calls for an ascetic life and minimization of studies in worldly sciences and arts, denies the benefits of technological progress and any activity not directly aimed at spiritual and moral development. Minimization life guidelines, the criterion of “sufficiency”, occupation only with the most necessary and, if possible, preference for spiritual literature, church life and works of mercy over ordinary secular activities and ideas - this is how the ideals proposed by the Church are perceived in secular society.

Indeed, how else can an inexperienced reader interpret the following words of St. Hilarion, Bishop of Verei, taken out of context: “Ask a talented young seminarian why he is something Polytechnical Institute preferred the theological academy? He will say that at the academy everything is boring, scholastic, lifeless, because there is no real science. But is this really so? Is it really possible to calculate the coefficient of friction for enhanced and ordinary lubrication, to study a puzzling course on the resistance of materials, to conduct practical lessons by bending the beams - is all this really more vital, more interesting and more scientific than studying the word of God, where on every page the most painful questions of the human soul are touched upon and resolved?

The perception of the Church as not a supporter of secular science, especially fundamental science, where there is an obvious “game of the mind”, as if almost always interconnected with vanity and pride, has become more frequent in the post-perestroika period and is often used to provide some justification for the indifferent attitude of society to the deplorable situation in this area. Because of sharp decline financing in this sector of activity there is, on the one hand, a personnel imbalance with a predominance of older scientists, and on the other hand, a general reduction in the number of employees. The fundamental sector suffered the most, while scientific developments, consumer-oriented and close to his needs, sometimes on the contrary - have received some development. The reform of the Academy of Sciences carried out over the past few years also largely involves bringing scientists and consumers of their work closer together, engaging not in abstract scientific research, but in research that can and should find application in the near future.

Perhaps, to some extent, the reduction in the number of scientists compared to Soviet times can be interpreted positively. However, now the number of researchers per capita in Russia is not, as it once was, one of the highest in the world. In addition, the quality of scientific knowledge has become significantly worse due to the fact that the best scientists left science, the traditions of many schools and institutes were largely lost or even lost, and commercialization in the field of secondary and higher education began to increase.

The reform of the Academy of Sciences prompted sociologists to study ideas various groups the population about the importance, usefulness and demand for the work of scientists, and officials at various levels - to reflect on how the strengthening of the role of the Orthodox Church in the life of Russian society will affect everyone’s value system specific person and, in particular, on attitudes towards “knowledge workers”.

Unfortunately, it is difficult for a non-church person to understand the full complexity of this issue. First of all, we need to remember a kind of asymmetry between the view of the Church secular society who wants to hear explanations about scientific research, and a look at the science of the Church itself.

The Orthodox Church does not at all perceive science only in an apologetic sense as a subject of debate about the existence of God. Notable work St. Luke (Voino-Yasenetsky) “Science and Religion” is devoted not so much to the search for contradictions or correspondences between the dogmas of Christianity and scientific achievements, how much justification is there for the following thesis: “Science, clothed in the light of religion, is an inspired thought that pierces the darkness of this world with bright light.” We may recall that Galileo and Lomonosov shared faith in God and studies in science, including those related to the laws of the Universe. “Scripture does not teach us how heaven is made, it teaches us how to get there,” wrote Galileo. “The Creator gave the human race two books. In one he showed His greatness, in the other - His will. The first is this visible world, created by Him, so that man, looking at its enormity, beauty and harmony, would recognize Divine omnipotence. The second book is Holy Scripture. It shows the Creator's favor towards our salvation... Both... confirm to us not only the existence of God, but also His unspeakable benefits to us. It’s a sin to sow tares and discord among them!”

Our contemporary Max Planck echoed his physicist predecessors: “In natural science, God stands at the end of all reasoning, but in religion - at the beginning.” The opinion of scientists is consonant with the words of Theophan the Recluse: “And your studies in chemistry are not at all blowing, but only blowing... And chemistry is part of the book of God - in nature. And here it is impossible not to see God - the Wise... and the Most Incomprehensible."

On the other hand, society treats the Church as an institution that offers not only and not so much a natural scientific justification of social and physical laws, but a mystical interpretation associated with revealed truths and supernatural principles beyond the reach of to the human mind logic. However, this is not so, the Church teaches about eternal life, about the Kingdom, which is “not of this world.” However, this is not identical to passivity, denial of inquisitiveness and the desire to think - it is no coincidence that the first commandment given to the prophet in the desert teaches to love God with all your soul, with all your heart and with all my mind.

Therefore, both in the past and in the present one can find huge number believing scientists who not only connected their lives with the Church and became clergy, missionaries or spiritual writers, but also believing people living in the world and engaged in scientific work.

“Great is the work of the Lord, his will is sought in all” - was engraved on the pediment physical laboratory in Cambridge, England, and on the grave of the Cambridge scientist Newton you can read the following epitaph: “Here lies Sir Isaac Newton, who, with an almost divine power of reason, was the first to explain, using the mathematical method, the motion and shape of the planets, the paths of comets and the tides of the oceans. He investigated the differences in light rays and the various properties of colors resulting from them, which no one had previously suspected. A diligent, cunning and faithful interpreter of nature, antiquity and Holy Scripture, he affirmed with his philosophy the greatness of the Almighty Creator, and in his disposition he instilled the simplicity required by the Gospel.”

If we touch on the narrower question of the Church’s attitude to science as a profession, then here, in addition to “ Social concept Russian Orthodox Church,” one can recall the letters of St. Theophan the Recluse to his spiritual children. “Knowledge is never an extra burden... Teaching doesn’t weigh you down. Therefore, it is not a hindrance to life. Pull it all the way. God help you!” - the saint instructed the young man. “But the question still remains unresolved: how can one read anything other than the spiritual? Through clenched teeth I tell you, barely audibly, perhaps, it’s possible - only a little and not indiscriminately... And books with human wisdom can feed the spirit,” writes St. Theophan.

It is not the pursuit of science in itself, but scientific thought, divorced from God and elevated to an absolute, that is undoubtedly dangerous and destructive. That is why one should not think that the Church calls for abandoning the achievements of progress and stopping development in all areas of knowledge. You just need to remember the parting warning of Saint Theophan: “In the form of research, try to sanctify the beginning of each science you study with the light of heavenly wisdom.”

For the interpretation of the 4th chapter of the book of Genesis, which describes the emergence of crafts (the first foundations of science) in the family of Lamech, a descendant of Cain, and not among the children of Seth, see: Georgy Neyfakh, archpriest. Harmony of Divine Creation: The Relationship between Science and Religion. M., 2005. P. 15-23.

Hilarion (Troitsky), martyr. Science and life // Without the Church there is no salvation. M., 2001. P. 289.

Feofan the Recluse, saint. Orthodoxy and science. P. 648.

His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II: “There is no need to oppose science to religion, as they liked to do under the atheistic regime”

The problem of the relationship between faith and knowledge, science and religion was one of the most discussed by the educational community last year. Interest in her was aroused open letter ten academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences to President V.V. Putin, in which they insisted that faith and scientific knowledge are incompatible. However, after reading this message, one is left with the impression that its authors, who have achieved impressive success in their fields of knowledge, are completely unfamiliar with (or deliberately ignore) the tradition of Russian religious, philosophical and theological thought.

Many Russian thinkers, starting with M.V. Lomonosov, who believed that “Science and Faith are two daughters of one great Parent and cannot come into conflict unless someone, out of his vanity, incites enmity against them,” argued that the contradiction between religion and science is imaginary, imposed by a certain kind of ideology, and not following from the essence of things. A deep analysis of the topic of the relationship between faith and scientific knowledge can be found in the works of V.I. Nesmelova, V.D. Kudryavtsev, Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov, L.P. Karsavina, A.F. Losev, Archpriest Vasily Zenkovsky and others. Of course, modern theologians also turn to it.

In particular, it was repeatedly touched upon in the articles and speeches of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus'. Below are excerpts from the words of His Holiness at the opening of the conciliar hearings of the World Russian People's Council on the topic “Faith and knowledge: problems of science and technology at the turn of the century” (1998) and from an interview given by the Patriarch on December 24, 2002 to correspondents of the newspapers Izvestia and "Companion".

From the Word of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus' at the opening of the conciliar hearings of the World Russian People's Council on the topic “Faith and knowledge: problems of science and technology at the turn of the century” (Moscow - Sergiev Posad, March 18-20, 1998)

“Science and technology are not only discoveries, formulas, inventions, more and more man-made miracles, which are truly countless. These are, first of all, people, the creators of all this wealth, so attractive and necessary, but so unsafe. The question of what motivates these people, determines their spiritual orientation, faith, ideals is very significant for us. After all, according to the word of the Holy Scripture, in the hand of God “we and our words, and all understanding and art of doing” (Wis. Sol. 7, 16).

Modern science and technology is often and rightly reproached for the fact that its development leads to results dangerous for humanity. Indeed, the possible consequences of scientific work, for example in the field genetic engineering or cloning living organisms. The results of the spread of modern computer technology, creation of global information networks. Being, apparently, an unconditional benefit, providing a person with additional degrees of freedom, new technologies can also lead to a new enslavement of people, the transformation of human consciousness and personality into an object of technological manipulation. The danger of such a development of events cannot be underestimated.

Along with this, one should recognize as completely incorrect the sometimes sounding calls for completely abandoning modern technology and limiting its development by violent external measures. Attempts to declare the entire field of scientific and technical knowledge as something fundamentally hostile to God and the Church are also erroneous.

It is impossible to abandon science and technology today, and it is not necessary. It is only important that they do not serve to build a new Tower of Babel - a global cult of consumption, and do not involve humanity in vicious circle creating and satisfying more and more immediate needs, and with their inherent means contributed to the establishment of a peaceful, decent and just life, saving people from poverty, hunger, disease, and ignorance. Science must serve the urgent needs of people: that is its purpose.

At the same time, this service should not be understood as purely utilitarian. In this high meeting it would be useful to remember what the great scientists of the past commanded today's scientists. The goal of science and the main duty of a scientist is the search for truth. Therefore, the Orthodox view on the problems of science and technology consists, in particular, in rejecting numerous attempts to put science in the service not of truth, not of the needs of a harmonious order of life, but of private selfish interests, primarily the interests of domination and profit. We know that the criterion for confidently separating the wheat from the chaff in this difficult area can be provided by faith, spiritual experience and the spiritual guidance of the Church.

A scientist, inventor, designer is often called a “creator”, “creator”. Indeed, through their labors, things appear in the earthly world that previously did not exist in it, which just a few years ago could not even be imagined. This is a great responsibility before God and people. After all, the world has one Creator and Maker. That is why, in the midst of his labors, a scientist must remain in due humility and reverence before God, directing his efforts to, to the best of his ability, promoting the embodiment of God’s plan for the world and man. History convincingly testifies: otherwise, every scientist, no matter how talented and hardworking he may be, becomes easily vulnerable to serious spiritual illnesses - pride, conceit, false confidence in the unlimited rights of his scientific thought. The Holy Bible warns: “The knowledge of evil is not wisdom. And where is the counsel of sinners, there is no understanding” (Sir. 19:19).

Special problems are associated with the state of domestic science and technology. Russia is a great scientific power. Discoveries and inventions made in our country have become the starting points of many leading areas of world science and technology. The severe crisis that Russia has been experiencing in recent years has led to a significant weakening of its scientific and technical potential. And we must remember that if our country is in its most short time fails to restore its former power in this area, it will face serious challenges in the coming century. In the current situation, the very national-state existence of Russia turns out to be inextricably linked with the state of its science, education, high-tech and knowledge-intensive industries. So the fate of Russia these days is largely in the hands of people who are commonly called the scientific and technical intelligentsia. Not only the spiritual life of these people, but also everyday problems, state of mind, as well as patriotism, the readiness to mobilize all one’s talents and strength to serve the Fatherland - all this cannot but worry the Church.

Recently, from the rostrum of the World Russian People's Council, very relevant statements have been repeatedly heard about the importance of the spiritual influence of the Church on everyone who, in their professional duty, works with people - teachers, journalists, creative workers. Today, no less attention should be given to specialists working in the latest fields of knowledge and to the broadest scientific and technical community. People who create the most modern scientific knowledge and the latest technologies need a strong support - the spiritual tradition of Orthodoxy. This is Russia's possible response to the most difficult problems that it has already faced and which it will face in the near future.

Excerpts from an interview of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy to correspondents of the newspapers “Izvestia” and “Sobesednik” (December 24, 2002) -

Are there no contradictions between faith and scientific knowledge of the universe?

No. In any case, I don’t see these contradictions. Although, as you know, at all times, among a variety of peoples, a dispute has certainly arisen about whether mystical experience can be supported by scientific data? But this is a dispute between religion and science, but rather with the ideology of scientism - a worldview according to which science is seen as the main factor of progress in history and as the main means of solving all social problems. Adherents of scientism are accustomed to speaking on behalf of science, and there is nothing to be done about it. It seems to me that this debate cannot be concluded: some will interpret scientific discoveries as evidence of God, others as a justification for agnosticism, which, as we know, generally denies any possibility of knowing the objective world and its laws. However, this dispute in itself does not particularly affect a person’s religious choice. Faith arises and strengthens not thanks to rational arguments, but because it is given to a person by God. You can believe even after repeatedly convincing yourself of the absurdity of religion from the point of view of reason. But you can prove for yourself the existence of God, see miracles and not become a believer at the same time. Orthodoxy is not “proven, but shown” - that’s what people say about this.

Atheistic science fundamentally rejected religious ideas about the world. Now in many areas of natural science they receive dissemination of theory, confirming truths long described in the Bible. What do you think about it?

There is no need to oppose science to religion, as they liked to do under the atheistic regime. The Creator instilled in man the desire for self-knowledge and to study the surrounding reality. This desire is a great blessing. Therefore, science as knowledge and improvement of the world is assessed deeply positively by Christianity, because the creative side of the human personality is manifested in scientific activity. But the soul of a person living on earth is not the pure image of God. It is distorted by the incorrect use of the freedom given to us by the Lord, which in church language is called sin. So science, devoid of a deep moral basis, can be dangerous and destructive, leading to disasters and hopelessness. Hasn’t the past century clearly proven that it is possible to destroy not only the natural environment, but also humans? Deprive him of his past and future. And the source of true scientific creativity is in God. Thinking based on elementary logic does not allow us to perceive the real complexity and multicoloredness of the world. English writer Gilbert Keith Chesterton made a witty and convincing suggestion that science is unable to comprehend the world for the simple reason that the world is not a drawing, but an artist's drawing.

This is similar to the argument in the now forgotten debates between physicists and lyricists. Scientists' claims to inclusiveness and universalism seemed very serious to many at that time. Such ambitions still exist today. Are they dangerous?

Science simply cannot be, in its essence, the supreme legislator and judge of all human existence, especially in the spiritual field. Man is created in the image and likeness of God, and he cannot achieve the fullness of life without communication with God, without turning to Him in prayer. Spiritual experience is inaccessible to rational knowledge, and trying to evaluate it only by scientific criteria- it’s like evaluating the conclusions of exact sciences according to the criteria of beauty and spiritual poetry. In introducing a person to true knowledge, there is undoubtedly a sacred meaning of natural knowledge of God, that is, knowledge of the world, as the saints say, through the “traces of God” in the created world, through identifying and understanding the patterns of everything that surrounds us. Understanding the world around us and finding patterns in it, a physicist experiences sacred awe at the perfection of the atomic world, and an astrophysicist at the incomprehensibility of the scale of space. And it is no coincidence that many of the outstanding scientists of past centuries and today are believers. Science does not contradict faith; on the contrary, there can be no science without faith. Isn’t the assumption of an axiom in mathematics a kind of act of faith that reveals the religious nature of scientific knowledge of the world? Does faith precede knowledge or knowledge precedes faith? This problem worried St. Augustine. It continues to excite the minds of modern thinkers.