Electronic access of the journal Science and Religion. Religion and Science

When with title page magazine "Science and Religion" the word "atheistic" has disappeared? How was Victor Pelevin's story first published? He tells the RG correspondent about this and much more Chief Editor publications Olga Brushlinskaya.

Olga Timofeevna, in the journal "Science and Religion" does science no longer fight religion?

Olga Brushlinskaya: Even when it was an atheist publication, there was no struggle. The editor-in-chief crossed out the words “front”, “struggle”, “ideological enemy”. The magazine had a goal - to convince as many people as possible that the atheistic worldview is correct, necessary, and practical. As it was sung, “Having thrown away fairy tales about miracles, having taken away the heavens from the gods, ordinary Soviet people are creating miracles everywhere.” But in the late 1980s, the word “atheist” disappeared from our title page. We began to give the reader more knowledge about religion, about non-materialistic theories of the universe. We were the first to publish Carlos Castaneda in Russian; before that, his texts were published in samizdat. They talked about Helena Blavatsky, Helena Ivanovna Roerich. But without screams and sobs, not as bearers of religious truths, but as representatives of culture.

Then the magazine changed its position: many people came to understand that science and religion are not necessarily hostile. By the way, many religious scientists are known... And religious worldview, setting a special state of mind and soul, helped many of them discover new things.

What period in the life of the magazine was particularly interesting?

Olga Brushlinskaya: Second half of the 1980s. Our circulation then reached 980 thousand copies. Isaac Asimov granted us the right to be the first to publish a philosophical work about the Bible. Richard Bach, author of the cult "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" - the first publication of his "The One". He said that publication in Russian magazine with almost a million copies in circulation does him credit. In our country, for the first time, the then unknown Victor Pelevin published a wonderful miniature “The Sorcerer Ignat and the People”. Everyone came to us and played chess. His miniature was published by accident. During the layout, a small “basement” remained, and we went to the editor-in-chief with a proposal to “plug” the hole with Pelevin’s “charming story.” The editor-in-chief did not express joy, but allowed it.

In it " Golden time“We published both esotericism and Russian religious philosophers, about whom little was known in Russia.

After all, Averintsev and Gasparov were published by you.

Olga Brushlinskaya: This is one of the most vivid impressions! In the early 1990s, I suddenly learned that our classic, translator of ancient Roman and Greek literature, Mikhail Leonovich Gasparov, could not publish a book of essays, “Entertaining Greece.” I called him: our magazine is ready to be published. And then I called Sergei Sergeevich Averintsev in Vienna with a request to write a preface to his friend’s publication. And Sergei Sergeevich sends it to us with the words that if he had read this book at the age of 14, he would have become a different person. The publication brought the magazine many new subscribers. Venediktov (he was an admirer of Gasparov) invited editor-in-chief Pravotorov and me to Echo of Moscow and talked with us live about the magazine.

Among our favorite writers is Larisa Vasilyeva, author of the famous books about “Kremlin Wives” and “...Children.” She gave us the right to first publish her wonderful story about Evdokia of Moscow, the wife of Dmitry Donskoy. Now we are publishing her version of the disappearance of Emperor Alexander I.

Many consider our times to be the era of the triumph of anti-science or pseudo-science. There are also many strange things in religious views. How does the magazine try to maintain high culture in both topics?

Olga Brushlinskaya: We are true to our traditions. We follow the principle of freedom of conscience; all our publications are maintained in the spirit of tolerance and respect for representatives of all religions and cultures. Of course we have more materials according to Orthodoxy, and this is because we live in a country where 80 percent of the population call themselves Orthodox. We respect Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism - traditional Russian religions. But when representatives of pseudo-religious sects come to us and offer “any money” for us to print their materials, we categorically refuse. As for science, we are not an organ of the Academy of Sciences, and sometimes we allow ourselves to write about parascientific things that have not yet been accepted by “official” science. But, as one academician said, the divide between science and religion is not something forever defined, it is a changing channel.

And do you print horoscopes?

Olga Brushlinskaya: Well, this is more like a game with people’s habits. For example, with the habit of taking into account the Lunar calendar.

What was the most important thing you learned from the journal Science and Religion?

Olga Brushlinskaya: I came to the magazine 44 years ago and was shocked by the kind of people that “club” in the editorial office. Yuri Koryakin, Igor Guberman, Fazil Iskander came. Kamil Ikramov headed the literature department. Vladimir Tendryakov, unfortunately now forgotten, was a member of the editorial board, and we published his story “Apostolic Mission” for the first time. The conversations between the young hero of his story and his father would be useful even now. And not every priest would answer that hero’s questions. And then one day Kamil Ikramov told me stern words: “If you are going to work in the department of Islam, you must know it at least at the level of a madrasah (Muslim secondary educational institution)". I began going to seminars at the Institute of Oriental Studies, then an elite scientific institution. After some time, I was appointed head of the Islam department, although according to the rules it had to be headed by a man, preferably with a Muslim surname. But for me in the Central Committee of the party, where we claimed they made an exception.

And one of the most interesting moments in my editorial work. One day a woman came to us, as they say, from the street, without recommendations, with... a translation of the Koran. Professional reaction: another crazy one. But I started reading the text. And after reading it, I convinced the boss that it was worth publishing. Now this is a well-known translation of the meanings of the Koran by Valeria Porokhova.

Who is your reader today?

Olga Brushlinskaya: Based on the results of a recent survey, I know that the magazine is read by the whole family: grandparents, and grandchildren in school. Most of the magazine's readers live in the provinces. I would define the reader this way: an intellectual who has retained, to put it pompously, “spiritual thirst.”

From the editor:

On May 5, Olga Brushlinskaya, editor-in-chief of the journal Science and Religion, celebrates her birthday. She came to work here in 1970 as a traveling correspondent, and has been running the publication for the last seven years. This year marks the magazine's 55th anniversary.

Academician V. GINZBURG

ATHEISTS, MILITATORY ATHETICS, BELIEVERS IN GOD, PROFESSIONALS OF RELIGION - TO WHICH OF THESE CATEGORIES DO THE READERS OF "SCIENCE AND LIFE" BELONG?

In the preface to the six books “On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres,” addressed to Pope Paul III, Nicolaus Copernicus wrote in 1535:

Painting by Nikolai Ge. To the question: “What is truth?” asked by Pilate, Jesus remained silent...

Raphael's fresco "The School of Athens". The thinkers of antiquity - Plato and Aristotle - are engaged in a philosophical debate: where is the true center of the World, in heaven or on Earth?

Over the years, the magazine regularly addressed issues of religion and atheism. In the headings “From the history of religions” and “How many religions are there on Earth” (see “Science and Life” No. 7, 8, 1990; No. 2, 3, 6-8, 1993; No. 1, 3, 5, 7, 1994) covered the history of the emergence of the main religions of the world; Archpriest Alexander Men spoke about the formation of Orthodoxy in Rus' (see “Science and Life” No. 4, 12, 1990). The pages of the magazine also included an appeal from the St. Tikhon’s Theological Institute with an appeal to talk about the life and fate of those who suffered for their faith in the years Soviet power(see "Science and Life" No. 12, 1993).

In its publications, the magazine also dealt with issues of the relationship between science and religion. The fate of Roger Bacon was not easy (see "Science and Life" No. 11, 1974), tragic - Giordano Bruno (see "Science and Life" No. 3, 1986). A rather paradoxical point of view on issues of faith and atheism was defended by Doctor of Chemical Sciences L. Blumenfeld (see “Science and Life” No. 10, 1989).

Today, after many years of persecution of religion and infringement of the rights of believers, the state is returning to religious denominations the churches and monasteries that were once taken from them. But the current relationship between church and state often causes concern and anxiety, as evidenced by articles and notes that appear from time to time in newspapers and magazines.

Academician Vitaly Lazarevich Ginzburg, a famous theoretical physicist and member of the editorial board of the journal Science and Life, expressed his opinion on this issue, and invites readers to answer the questions of a short questionnaire.

Russia is going through a difficult period of transition from the Soviet-Bolshevik system to something else. Apparently, this “other” is a society similar to that existing in countries with market economy and a democratic form of government. One of the most important conditions for democracy is ensuring freedom of conscience, in particular the right of citizens to be atheists or believe in God without any fear. At the same time, the state remains secular, that is, any religious organizations (churches) are completely separated from the state. And although the Constitution Russian Federation meets these requirements, they, unfortunately, are not met. Before our eyes, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) is merging with the state, in fact, it is being restored to the rights it had under the tsarist regime. State television broadcasts sermons and various religious programs. Priests appeared in the army, buildings are “blessed,” “holy” water is sprinkled at various official events, and huge amounts of money are spent on church needs. The explosion of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was undoubtedly a manifestation of Bolshevik barbarism. However, in conditions when a significant part of the population not only lives from hand to mouth, but also cannot buy many medicines, spending millions, or rather billions of rubles on the restoration of this temple seems to me unacceptable.

However, I will not develop this topic, because the article is devoted to something else - an attempt to help readers understand what the position of atheists is and what, in fact, is meant by faith in God. The corresponding remarks seem necessary: ​​today you will not hear about atheism in the media. Moreover, they are trying to create the impression that, as one church leader said, atheists in our country can now only be found in the Red Book of Endangered Species. By the way, even a very extraordinary person A.F. Losev believed that in Soviet times the atheists were not sincere, but “flirted with the authorities” (see “Science and Life” No. 2, 2000).

In matters of faith and religion, the Bolsheviks were “militant atheists,” that is, not only atheists, but also persecutors of all faith in God. Churches were destroyed or misused, and clergy were persecuted. It would be useful for the remaining admirers of Comrade Lenin to become acquainted, for example, with his secret letter dated March 19, 1922, published only in 1990 (Izvestia of the Central Committee of the CPSU No. 4, p. 192). In this letter, in particular, it is written: “The more representatives of the reactionary clergy we can therefore shoot, the better.” The leader’s instructions were carried out - then 32 metropolitans and archbishops were shot. For some details about the monstrous persecution of the church in Soviet times, I refer you to A. Yakovlev’s book “Krestosev” (see, however, many documents on this subject have already been published in other publications). The persecution of the church, the ideology of “militant atheism” professed by the Bolsheviks, led to the fact that many even now identify disbelief in God, that is, atheism, or, in any case, associate it with the criminal Lenin-Stalin regime. In fact, identifying atheists with “militant atheists” is a pure misunderstanding or, if this is done deliberately, a vile slander. More on this below, but now it is necessary to recall the meaning of some terms.

Atheism is a belief system that rejects the existence of God, belief in God, and religious ideas. Atheism denies theism (from the Greek word "theos" - god) - religious teachings, which are based on the idea of ​​​​God as a supernatural being who created the world and controls it. Theism is the basis of most modern religions, including Christianity, Islam and Judaism. For theists, God has will and intelligence and influences all material and spiritual processes. They view everything that happens in the world as the implementation of God's providence or as its predestination. Unlike theists, deists, who also believe in the existence of God, deny his intervention in the life of society and nature. Finally, pantheists (their most famous representative is Benedict Spinoza) essentially identify God with nature. If we ignore some nuances, there is no difference between pantheism and atheism, as far as I understand. At the same time, atheism, which terminologically means the denial of theism, rejects not only theism, but also any ideas about God, including the deistic.

Atheism cannot be identified with materialism, but a materialist who considers matter to be primary and objectively existing, and not consciousness, naturally turns out to be an atheist. This is not the place to go into philosophical definitions and I will limit myself to mentioning agnosticism. When asked whether God exists, agnostics answer: I don’t know, this question cannot be answered. There are grounds for such a position, since it is impossible to prove the absence of God, just as it is impossible to prove his existence. Such statements are so-called “intuitive judgments” (see). The intuitive judgments of the materialist and the atheist are as follows: there is a Universe, a nature evolving over time. Man is a product of the evolution of life, arising naturally from non-living things. Through observations and experiments, a person learns about nature, its content and properties (for example, the structure of atoms and atomic nuclei), the laws operating in inanimate (physics) and living nature (biology). The results of knowledge of nature constitute the content of science. Science is developing all the time, understanding the world around us more and more deeply. The successes of science (meaning mainly the natural sciences) are colossal. Only in the 16th century, Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), developing the ideas of some ancient Greek astronomers, built a heliocentric picture solar system, and only at the beginning of the 17th century, less than 400 years ago, the validity of such ideas was proven by Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) and Johannes Kepler (1571-1630). But how little was known then about the world outside the solar system can be seen from the fact that even Kepler believed that there was a sphere of fixed stars, “consisting of ice or crystal.” The distance from the Earth to the Sun is 149 million kilometers; light travels this path in eight minutes. Today we have an idea of ​​the structure of the Universe on a scale of about 10 billion light years. This is one of the characteristics of the path that science has made over four centuries. If the hypothesis that all matter consists of atoms arose in ancient times, then in the 20th century it was not only confirmed, but also the structure of atoms was clarified and the existence of the atomic nucleus, protons and neutrons was proven. Finally, the concept of quarks, which make up nucleons and mesons, appeared. Yes, all the achievements of physics cannot be counted. And the successes of biology, marked by Darwin's theory in the last century and the flourishing of genetics today! The successes of science are literally breathtaking. More and more new problems are being set and solved (see “Science and Life” No. 11, 12, 1999).

Against this background of the successes of science, faith in God and religion (theism) look completely different than in ancient times. The existence of God and belief in him are also “intuitive judgments,” but, in fact, frozen since ancient times, or, in any case, since the formation of the corresponding religion (say, since the 7th century, when Islam arose). Belief in miracles is organically connected with religion, for example, in Christianity - with faith in the virgin birth, the resurrection of the dead, etc. At the same time, science is characterized by flexibility and the denial of miracles, that is, untested judgments. Under the influence of facts, science improves, but religion is dogmatic and fundamentally remains unchanged, if we do not talk about scholastic theological disputes, the emergence of heresies, etc. Here, of course, there is no opportunity to discuss the issues raised in detail, and we have to limit ourselves to only a number of comments.

The already mentioned identification of atheists with “militant atheists” is as unfounded as, for example, the identification of all professing Christians with inquisitors. By the way, the year 2000 marks not only the birth of Jesus Christ, but also the 400th anniversary of the burning of Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) by Christian inquisitors. But holding all Christians responsible for the activities of the Inquisition is absurd! It is quite obvious that atheism and disbelief in God do not prevent a person from remaining decent and agreeing with the known principles of ethics and morality. The opinion that “if there is no God, then everything is permitted” has only very limited foundations. In this regard, I remember an episode that happened to me about thirty years ago in England. As an atheist and in an atheistic environment in the USSR, I did not understand that there were many believers abroad, even in the scientific community. And so, while talking with a fellow physicist, I made some tactless remark of an anti-religious type. The colleague was offended by this, saying that he was a Catholic, a believer. Fortunately, I not only immediately apologized, but also said that I was not a “militant atheist”, I understood the possible positive impact of faith and brought specific example: “If I were in the role of Robinson Crusoe and I was asked to choose Friday between two candidates - a believer and an unbeliever, then I would choose the believer. For even a savage, but a believer, most likely, will not kill you at night with an ax, which cannot be said about an unbeliever ". The colleague was satisfied with this completely sincere remark. Yes, faith in God can ennoble, but not always and not everyone - just remember the Irish Catholics and Islamic fundamentalists who shed the blood of completely innocent victims even in our days.

It is appropriate to recall some of the arguments given by atheists in favor of denying the existence of God. It would seem that he could instill in people one faith, but meanwhile there are many religions. Moreover, even within one religion, say Christianity, there are many directions (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, various Protestant denominations, sects). Not all Christian denominations are on friendly terms. Isn't this strange with one God?

Second example: how can God, if he exists, allow wars, genocide, famine and disease? Theologians try to provide answers to such questions; For example, the book of Pope John Paul II is devoted to such answers (see). But even this highly educated, outstanding person, in my opinion, was unable to give any convincing answers to the questions posed.

At the same time, it is obvious that the doubt about the existence of God, reflected in the questions posed, is not yet capable of proving that God does not exist. As has already been emphasized, the problem of God and faith in him is not a mathematical theorem; there cannot be strict proofs here. Therefore, atheists and believers have difficulty understanding each other.

Even the subtitle of this article makes a distinction between believers in God and those who profess a religion. This distinction is very important. My experience shows that the question: “Do you believe in God?” - the answer is often positive, but when asked to clarify what more specifically a person believes, what he understands by God, something completely incomprehensible followed. In general, the answer often comes down to the following: in addition to nature, the entire world around us, there is also “something”, some higher or absolute Reason, a supernatural “something” that to some extent controls nature and people. Such a “believer in God” may not profess any religion, he is not a theist and is often critical of theism, does not believe in church miracles, etc. A person who professes some religion (for example, an Orthodox Christian) goes much further than a believer into some abstract deity (world Mind, or the Absolute, etc.).

In view of the above, in order to understand the situation in relation to atheism and faith, it is precisely necessary to distinguish between “believers in God” and “professing religion.” Despite the enormous achievements of science in understanding nature, there is still much we do not know. In particular, there is no clarity on the question of the origin of life and, especially, consciousness. The situation in the field of “social” sciences is clearly unsatisfactory; there is no proper understanding of the laws of economics and human behavior. Being a convinced materialist and atheist, I am confident in the progress of science and its limitless possibilities. However, I can understand those who hold different views and are inclined to believe in some higher powers, world Reason, etc. This is something like deism, but it’s not in the name. What is beyond my understanding is the religious belief in miracles, the confession of some kind of religion. Isn’t it clear that religious ideas arose at a time when man felt helpless in the face of natural phenomena and disease? Science was in its infancy, and therefore miracles seemed possible (after all, a miracle is, by definition, something that is not confirmed by scientific data or scientific analysis). Today, to believe in the resurrection of the dead, the afterlife, heaven, hell, etc. means to deny modern science. Naturally, in connection with the above, many questions arise.

Why do so many profess religion in our time?

Why are there highly educated people among these “many”?

What is the relationship between pseudoscience, such as astrology, and religion?

How does the church view science today?

I will try, albeit very briefly, to answer these questions.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the six billion people now living on Earth remain uneducated. Watching TV, using a cell phone and flying on an airplane does not mean being a civilized person. Our population in Russia, as far as I know, is more educated than in most other countries. But this education is superficial and usually has a humanitarian bias. Few people will not answer the question about the authors of “Eugene Onegin” and “War and Peace”. But ask why the seasons change (winter, spring, summer, autumn). My experience is that even people with higher education often give the wrong answer (for example, they refer to the change in the distance from the Earth to the Sun). Meanwhile, the correct answer (the inclination of the earth's axis to the ecliptic plane, in which the Sun and the Earth's orbit are located) has been known for 500 years!

The newspaper "Arguments and Facts" No. 17, April 2000, contains the answers of a number of so-called " famous people" to the question: “What is faith for you?” Fourteen people were interviewed, mostly women, including pop singer Masha Rasputina and State Duma deputy Irina Khakamada. All respondents claim that they believe in God, but what they mean by this remains Unfortunately, they were not asked about this, as well as about the reasons for the onset of spring after winter.

In the debate that occurs between atheists and believers, facts are very often distorted. Yes, myself for a long time was sure that our famous physiologist Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849-1936) was a deeply religious person. He went to church, protested against the destruction of churches, refused a chair at the Military Medical Academy in protest against the expulsion of the children of priests from among the students, etc. It would seem that he was a believer, an Orthodox man, and he was known as such among us. In fact, Pavlov “of course, was a complete atheist and could not be anything else.” This is a quote from the memoirs of M.K. Petrova, I.P. Pavlov’s closest collaborator and friend (see). She quotes him as saying: “The human mind seeks the reason for everything that happens, and when it reaches the final reason, this is God. In its desire to look for the reason, it reaches God. But I myself do not believe in God, I am an unbeliever.” Pavlov went to church “not for religious reasons, but because of pleasant contrasting experiences. Being the son of a priest, even as a child he loved this holiday (we are talking about Easter. - Author's note). He explained this love with a particularly joyful feeling holidays following Great Lent." Paul defended the church and believers out of completely understandable considerations about justice and freedom of conscience, out of protest against Bolshevik barbarism.

In general, it is absolutely clear that not only religious people go to houses of worship (churches, mosques, synagogues). They walk according to tradition, remembering loved ones, and hoping to find solace in grief. Here let me note that I myself have not only never been a “militant atheist,” but I have also envied and envy true believers. In difficult moments, faith in God can console, alleviate suffering, and make it easier to perceive thoughts of death. Moreover, persecution of religion and the introduction of bans in this area (I’m not talking about fanatical sects) are unacceptable. Reason, however, is not given to man in order to succumb to emotions and follow the lead of prejudices and dilapidated beliefs of hoary antiquity. Acquaintance with theology only strengthened my atheistic convictions, that is, the intuitive judgment that there is only nature and the laws governing it, which are cognized by reason and the science guided by it.

Returning to the topic, I would like to make a remark regarding the great Einstein (1879-1955). In the literature there were statements that Einstein was a believer, because he wrote about some kind of cosmic religion, etc. In reality, Einstein used religious terminology only in a conditional sense (see “Science and Life” No. 10, 1960). For example, he wrote: “I cannot find a better expression than “religious” to characterize the belief in the rational nature of reality... Why should I care if priests make capital by playing on this feeling? In 1929, when asked whether he believed in God, Einstein replied by telegram: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who manifests himself in the harmony of everything that exists, but not in a God who is interested in the destinies and affairs of people.” Benedict Spinoza (1612-1677) identified God with nature and was a pantheist. I, as already mentioned, do not see, in essence, a difference between pantheism and atheism, apart from the natural difference in terminology used in the 17th century and used today.

At the same time, there is no reason to believe that all highly educated people are currently non-believers or do not profess any religion. For example, the famous cosmologist Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) was even a Catholic priest. According to a survey of members of the US National Academy of Sciences published in 1998, 7% of respondents called themselves believers. Unfortunately, we do not have such information regarding members of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Now about pseudoscience and religion. A typical and, one might say, striking example of pseudoscience is astrology. About 300 years ago, astrology could not yet be called a pseudoscience, because only in the 17th century Isaac Newton (1643-1727) established the law of universal gravitation and the forces with which the planets act on objects on Earth became clear. But today even a schoolchild can find out that the influence of the planets, not to mention the stars, on people’s behavior is insignificant compared to the blow of the breeze. Numerous comparisons of horoscopes with reality have also shown that the predictions of astrologers are absolutely unrealistic, and the coincidences that sometimes occur are purely random. That's why we consider astrology a pseudoscience. The publication of astrological forecasts and the appearance of astrologers on television screens is a shame. Unfortunately, the pursuit of subscribers or ignorance forces even serious newspapers, such as Izvestia, to publish astrological forecasts (my letter on this matter, addressed to the editor of Izvestia, remained unanswered). By the way, there is an opinion that publishing astrological forecasts is innocent fun. I just can't agree with this. Those who understand that such forecasts are simply nonsense do not read them, but those who believe the forecasts can cripple their entire lives by following false advice. Therefore, I, like many others, try to explain the situation and, in particular, tried to do this in an article published in Izvestia on February 21, 1991. I mention this because I received a letter from a reader who agreed with me in his assessment of astrology, but argued that astrology is no worse than religion, and I do not write about religion out of cowardice. In fact, even today I am not afraid to defend atheistic beliefs, but then I simply forgot to answer the natural question: “Why is astrology worse than religion?”

All kinds of miracles appearing in various religious works, in particular in the Bible, contradict scientific ideas and data. In this sense, biblical miracles are on the same level as astrological speculation. However, as far as I understand, it is not miracles that are decisive in religion; many believers perceive them only as poetic allegories. The Church today, if we mean, say, the official position of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, calls for goodness, observance of well-known commandments, objects to the occult and all obscurantism, in particular astrology. This position of the church is inconsistent, but does not give grounds to fight with it, as the “militant atheists” did. The correct position is to defend freedom of conscience and demand the complete separation of church and state.

Finally, about the attitude of the church to science.

The history of this relationship is controversial. At certain stages, monasteries served as a stronghold of science, centers of its development. The most famous example is the activity of Copernicus, who was a clergyman. But the fate of Copernicanism is a striking example of the reactionary role of the church, which fought science from the standpoint of church dogma. It is well known that the church in 1633 condemned the great Galileo for his defense of science and, specifically, Copernicanism, poisoning the rest of his life. How theologians “interacted” with scientists in those days can be seen from Galileo’s letters to the Duchess of Lorraine:

“Theological professors should not arrogate to themselves the right to regulate by their decrees such professions that are not subject to their jurisdiction, for it is impossible to impose opinions on natural phenomena on a natural scientist... We preach a new teaching not in order to sow confusion in the minds, but in order to to enlighten them; not to destroy science, but to firmly substantiate it. Our opponents call everything that they cannot refute false and heretical. These hypocrites make a shield for themselves out of hypocritical religious zeal and humiliate the Holy Scriptures by using them. as a tool for achieving their personal goals... To order the professors of astronomy themselves to seek defense against their own observations and conclusions on their own, as if all this were one deception and sophistry, would mean making more than impossible demands on them; it would be like ordering them not to see what they see, not to understand what they understand, and from their research to infer exactly the opposite of what is obvious to them.”

By the way, these words sounded quite modern during almost the entire recent Soviet period, naturally, with the replacement of theologian professors with some Marxist professors and the Holy Scriptures with Marxism-Leninism.

The brilliant development of science that has taken place since then has dealt a crushing blow to the claims of the Church to dictate its dogmas to science. Today, this is out of the question in civilized countries (however, in the USA, quite loud voices of creationists are still heard, denying evolution and preaching the divine creation of the world, that is, literally following the Bible). These days the church has been “rebuilt.” The content of this restructuring is especially clearly reflected in the last (thirteenth) encyclical of Pope John Paul II, “Faith and Reason” (“Fides et ratio”), published on October 15, 1998 (see). This encyclical begins:

“Faith and reason are, as it were, two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth, for God Himself put in the minds of people the desire to know the truth, as well as to know Himself, so that people, knowing and loving Him, could find completeness truths about ourselves."

There are 108 points in the encyclical, this is a whole book ( Russian edition has one and a half hundred pages), and, of course, there can be no question of its presentation here. I tried to do the latter very briefly in the article “Reason and Faith” (see), which to a certain extent served as an atheist’s response to the Pope’s message. But a few comments are still in order.

The meaning of the encyclical and, obviously, modern politics The Catholic Church, as far as I understand, is like this. Yes, the role of science (reason) is recognized, but this is only one “wing”. The second “wing” is faith, and without it it is impossible to know the truth; we also need “supernatural help of grace.” Both paths - scientific and religious - are not opposed: “The truth that God revealed to us in Jesus Christ does not contradict the truths that can be comprehended as a result of philosophical reflection. On the contrary, these two ways of knowledge lead to the fullness of truth. The unity of truth is the basic postulate of the human mind , expressed in the law of contradiction. Revelation convinces us of this unity, indicating that God the Creator is also the God of the history of salvation, one and the same God, who is the basis of the knowability and rationality of the natural order of things, on which scientists rely with confidence, is revealed and how. Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ."

As far as I can judge, the representative of the Anglican Church John Polkinghorne and the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II adhere to similar positions: science is recognized, but spiritual experience and the leadership of the church cannot be dispensed with, because “the truth revealed to us in Revelation is at the same time a truth that must be realized in the light of reason" (see). And elsewhere: “The mind, deprived of the help of Revelation, is doomed to wander in circuitous ways, with the result that it is in danger of losing sight of the final goal.” “Revelation” in religion is the transmission to people of “truths” emanating from God; in Orthodoxy and Catholicism, the types of Revelation are primarily “sacred scripture” (the Bible) and “sacred tradition” (a certain set of religious provisions). I will not continue, because, while recognizing the great historical and artistic value of the Bible, I am unable to attach any sacred meaning to it. I also do not see any positive role of Revelation in the knowledge of truth. There is an impassable gulf here between atheists and those professing religion.

"Science and Life" is one of the oldest popular science magazines in Russia. There was a time when millions read it, but today’s circulation of more than 30 thousand is not small by today’s standards. As a member of the editorial board of the magazine, I am convinced that Science and Life cannot ignore the issue of atheism and faith, which is very relevant today in our society. Therefore, with this article I tried to give impetus to the discussion of this topic. It seems to me that the best form for such a discussion, at least at first, is to contact readers with an invitation to respond to the questionnaire posted. Having received answers, and also, probably, letters from readers, the editors will be able to place material on the pages of the magazine that will be interesting to many readers.

LITERATURE

1. Yakovlev A. Cross sowing. - M: Vagrius, 2000, p. 188.

2. Feinberg E. L. Science, art and religion// Questions of philosophy. - 1997, No. 7, p. 54.

3. Pope John Paul II. Cross the threshold of hope. - M: Truth and Life, 1995.

4. Petrova M.K. From memories of academician I.P. Pavlov// Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 1995, No. 11, p. 1016.

5. John Paul II. Faith and reason. Franciscan Publishing House. - M., 1999. [Russian translation.]

6. Ginzburg V.L. Reason and Faith// Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences 69 -1999, No. 6, p. 546; reprinted in the magazine " Common sense", 1999, No. 1 (13), p. 51.

INQUIRY BUREAU

In 1914, an anonymous survey of 1,000 American scientists was conducted to determine whether they believed in God. 58% believed. Of the 400 “most prominent” scientists (the survey report does not say by what criteria they were selected), about 70% are believers. The same poll in 1934 gave 67% and 85% respectively. 1996 survey - 60.7% do not believe or doubt it. In 1998, members of the US National Academy of Sciences were surveyed (this is certainly the largest) - a total of 517 people, but only a little more than 50% responded to the questionnaire sent out.

They do not believe in God and the immortality of the soul (2nd digit):

Among biologists 65.2% and 69%.

Among physicists, 79% and 76.3%.

The rest mostly answered “I don’t know,” but there were also a number of believers.

Of the mathematicians, 14.3% believe in God, 15% believe in the immortality of the soul.

Among biologists, 5.5% believe in God, and 7.1% believe in the immortality of the soul.

Of the physicists and astronomers, 7.5% believe in God, and 7.5% also believe in the immortality of the soul (I wonder if they are the same or different?).

"Nature" No. 6691, 1998.

QUESTIONNAIRE

What are your views regarding atheism, belief in God, religion, freedom of conscience? (cross out what is unnecessary).

1. Atheist (I deny the existence of God).

2. I believe in the existence of God:

A. I profess religion.

b. I believe in God, but I do not adhere to any religion.

3. Agnostic (I don’t know whether God exists or not).

4. I am a “militant atheist,” that is, I believe that faith in God should be fought.

5. A supporter of complete freedom of conscience (being an atheist or believing in God is a private matter for any person, there is no need to interfere with this).

6. Supporter of the complete separation of church (religion) from the state. In schools, universities, and the army, the presence of priests and the teaching of theology (theology) is unacceptable.

7. I believe that it is permissible to teach theology in schools and universities, the presence of priests in the army, the consecration of buildings and meetings, etc.

8. What, in your opinion, should be the relationship between science and religion?

The editors ask you to answer these questions. It is advisable to indicate age, gender, education, nature of work. You don't have to give your last name.

Editorial address: 101877, Moscow, Center, st. Myasnitskaya, 24.

Historical site Bagheera - secrets of history, mysteries of the universe. Secrets of great empires and ancient civilizations, the fate of disappeared treasures and biographies of people who changed the world, secrets of intelligence agencies. Chronicle of the war, description of battles and battles, reconnaissance operations of the past and present. World traditions, modern life in Russia, the unknown USSR, the main directions of culture and other related topics - everything that official science is silent about.

Study the secrets of history - it's interesting...

Currently reading

Modern researchers have not only proven that Lermontov never wrote “Farewell, unwashed Russia...”, but also named the real author of this creation. This is a little-known today, but very popular in the 19th century, writer-parodist Dmitry Minaev, who not only created a fake, but also successfully published it under the name of our poet-genius...

In the summer and autumn of 1917, there were many food riots and lynchings in Russia. But if these speeches had some kind of political and social motivation, then drunken pogroms demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the essence of freedom. First of all, freedom was seen as an opportunity to drink and hang out with impunity and for free.

Many people think that treasure is precious stones or gold hidden in time immemorial in deep recesses. But sometimes treasures look completely different and are stored somewhere among unnecessary trash. Moreover, their cost can be millions of dollars.

If the residents different countries decided to discuss the topic of World War II, they would find that their knowledge of this period of history did not match. As an example, let us cite episodes from the historical heritage of two European countries - Poland and Greece. The events described below are most likely poorly known or even completely unknown to many of our readers.

In the last two years alone, Russia has lost almost more spacecraft than aircraft. Roscosmos is not only incurring billions in losses, but is also completely undermining public faith in the power of the domestic space industry.

The most fun and beloved holiday by Russians is approaching - New Year. Decorated Christmas trees, Olivier salad and Leonid Gaidai’s comedies will soon enter every home. And, of course, one of the main symbols of the holiday - Grandfather Frost - will go to congratulate children all over the country. It seems that the fairy-tale wizard has existed since time immemorial. But meanwhile, the Russian Father Frost's history is not that long. And in the form in which we know it today, it appeared under Comrade Stalin.

Prosperous, well-fed Finland has been considered a country sympathetic to Russia for many years. And its long-term political leader Gustav Mannerheim, unlike the fifth president and war criminal Risto Ryti, is revered in our country almost as a national hero. But, in fact, Mannerheim and Ryti are birds of a feather. Only Ryuti has been much less fortunate in history...

“I read about the conflict in No. 13 of “Secrets of the 20th Century” (April 2011). You write that the USSR used not lasers against China, but Grad multiple launch rocket systems. But the fact is that in 1969 my father also took part in these hostilities. He said that the bodies of many Chinese soldiers on the battlefield were severely burned, and some were completely burned. So there were rumors among the military that they were burned with lasers. Could such weapons really exist in the Soviet Union?” Olga Anikhovskaya, Krasnoyarsk