Religious knowledge of the world and man. Types of knowledge (religious, scientific, philosophical, artistic, worldly, practical, social). Presentation: "Types of cognitive activity. Social science"

religious consciousness- one of the ancient forms of world awareness and regulation human activity. It is based on belief in supernatural powers and worship of them.

The history of mankind has known a great many different types and variants of religions: from paganism, with belief in a large number of gods, to religions recognizing a single god. However, each religion includes three required elements: mythological - belief in the real existence of certain supernatural, miraculous powers; emotional - religious feelings arising under the influence of faith; normative - religious requirements.

The essence of religion lies in the fact that believers perform certain actions in order to win over supernatural forces and, with their help, avert various disasters from themselves and other people, to receive some benefit.

In recent years, in the spiritual life of Ukraine, there have been profound changes in views on the role of religion in social life. The word "religion" until recently, translated from Latin, was interpreted as "belief in the existence of supernatural forces", "an object of worship", "piety". Now religion is often interpreted as “careful reflection”, “rereading”, “unification”, here they also add: “conscientiousness”, “piety”, “conscientiousness”, “piety”.

The student should know what the activities of missionaries of non-traditional religions are. As a rule, the recipes of these religious functionaries, on the one hand, are simple and accessible, on the other hand, they offer "here and now" projects for a radical reorganization of the world. The activity of these missionaries, although it sometimes seems strange and intrusive, is in essence not much different from the practice of modern management, but more remotely from the practice of peddlers who carried their sacks around their homes and villages. Stopping people on the streets, in transport, in residential buildings, these missionaries actually advertise goods and services, although their goods are very specific.

37. The problem of knowledge in philosophy: object and subject

When studying the first question "Knowledge as a Philosophical Problem" it should be understood that the study of the essence of knowledge is one of the main tasks of philosophy. The theory of knowledge (epistemology) is the most important section of many philosophical systems and sometimes its main component.

Cognition- it is a set of processes by which a person receives, processes and uses information about the world and about himself.

Cognitive activity is ultimately aimed at meeting the historically emerging material and spiritual needs and interests of people, and in this regard, is inextricably linked with the expedient practical activities. The latter is a historical prerequisite, the basis and the most important goal of knowledge.

Those specific things, phenomena, processes, to which the cognitive activity of people is directly directed, are usually called object of knowledge . The one who carries out cognitive activity is called subject of knowledge .

The subject can be a single individual, social group(for example, the community of scientists) or society as a whole. From here knowledge- this is a specific interaction between the subject and the object, the main purpose of which is to provide, in accordance with the needs of the subject, models and programs that control the development of the object.

Thus, epistemology studies a special type of relationship between subject and object - cognitive. “Relations of knowledge” include three components: subject, object and content of knowledge (knowledge). To understand the essence of cognition, one should analyze the relationship between: 1) the subject receiving knowledge and the source of knowledge (object); 2) between the subject and knowledge; 3) between knowledge and object.

In the first case, the task is to explain how the transition from the source to the "consumer" is possible. To do this, it is necessary to theoretically explain how the content of cognizable things and phenomena is transferred to the human head and transformed in it into the content of knowledge.

When considering the second of the above types of relations, a set of questions arises related, on the one hand, to the development by a person of ready-made knowledge arrays available in culture (in books, tables, cassettes, computers, etc.) On the other hand, with assessment by the subject of certain knowledge, their depth, adequacy, assimilation, completeness, sufficiency for solving certain problems.

As for the relationship between knowledge and the object, it leads to the problem of the reliability of knowledge, truth and its criteria.

The solution of epistemological problems in philosophy is based on the following principles.

The principle of objectivity. He claims that the object of cognition (things, natural and social phenomena, sign structures) exists outside and independently of the subject and the process of cognition itself. This implies a methodological requirement - things and phenomena must be known objectively, i.e. as they are in themselves. A person should not bring anything from himself into the results of cognition.

Knowability principle. He argues that reality must be known as it is. This principle is a conclusion from the entire history of knowledge and practice of mankind. A person is able to adequately, with the fullness necessary in each specific case, to know the natural and social being. There are no fundamental boundaries on the path of the subject's endless movement towards a more adequate and exhaustive comprehension of reality.

Reflection principle. This principle is inextricably linked with the concept of reflection, which expresses the essence of the materialistic understanding of cognition. The first condition for the scientific understanding and explanation of cognition is the recognition of its reflective nature. The principle of reflection can be formulated as follows: cognition of an object is the process of its reflection in the human head.

In the epistemological concepts of past eras, reflection was considered: firstly, as a passive process, similar to a mirror reflection; secondly, as a process based on mechanical causality (the appearance of images is determined by the impact on the sense organs of specific causes); thirdly, as an exhaustive description of the method and specific mechanisms for the formation of objectively true knowledge. All this led to the interpretation of various forms of knowledge in the spirit of metaphysical and contemplative approaches.

Preserving the rational that was in the understanding of the principle of reflection in the past, modern epistemology puts a qualitatively new content into this principle. Currently, reflection is understood as a universal property of matter and is defined as the ability of material phenomena, objects, systems to reproduce in their properties the features of other phenomena, objects, systems in the process of interaction with the latter.

The principle of the subject's creative activity in cognition . Spiritual-theoretical and spiritual-practical exploration of the world by a person includes not only reflective activity associated with obtaining information about the world and oneself, but also various forms of creativity, the construction of new objective realities of the “world of culture”.

The introduction of the principle of practice and creative activity of the subject into the solution of epistemological problems allows us to understand the true nature of the subject and object of cognition, on the one hand, and the specific mechanism of their relationship in the structure of the cognitive act, on the other hand, at a qualitatively new level.

In epistemology subject there is not only a system that receives, stores and processes information (like any living system). The subject is, first of all, a socio-historical phenomenon endowed with consciousness, capable of goal-setting, objective, creatively transforming activity. From this point of view, the subject of knowledge is not only an individual, but also a social group, layer, society in a particular historical era.

Modern epistemology also approaches the examination of an object in a qualitatively new way. For the subject it is not indifferent whether something actual is an object of knowledge or not. From an epistemological point of view, this distinction is of special interest.

In connection with what has been said, it is possible to formulate a general pattern of knowledge, which says that the degree of subject mastering of reality in the practice of people isolates the set of dimensions of the object, which acts in each given era as the basis for its reflection in the minds of people. A person comes into contact with objects (things, phenomena, processes) of natural and social existence, in all their infinite complexity. Encouraged to activity by his material and spiritual needs, setting certain goals, he always takes them as a kind of “partial object”, or “object”.

Subject and object as opposite sides form a contradictory relationship. The subject cannot influence the object otherwise than in an objective way. This means that he must have at his disposal the material mediators of his influences on the cognized object - hands, tools, measuring instruments, chemical reagents, etc. The progress of knowledge would be impossible without the constant expansion and complication of this “world of intermediaries”. In the same way, the mechanism of the object's influence on the subject presupposes its own system of intermediaries - direct sensory information, various sign systems, and, above all, human language.

The main cognitive relation is the relation “image - object”. In the broad sense of the word way one can name that state of consciousness, which in one way or another is connected with an object. In relation to the object, three types of images can be distinguished: 1) images-knowledge, reflecting objective reality; 2) images-projects, which are mental structures that must be or can be put into practice; 3) images-values ​​expressing the needs and ideals of the subject.

“In Him (in God) we live, and move, and have our being, as some of your poets said: we are His kind and” ().

Introduction. - Natural ways of knowing God. – The significance of artistic creativity for the religious thought of the middle-educated classes. – Meaningful And e artistic creativity for philosophers and theologians. - Philosophical prerequisites for the knowledge of God. – 1. Artistic creativity as an interpretation of nature and the Divine in terms of the human spirit. - Conditions for artistic creation. - Intuition and sympathetic understanding of the inner life of nature. - The isomorphism of the soul of the artist with the soul of every person. – The ability of plastic reproduction of nature and spirit. - The artist as the leader of the knowledge of God. – 2. Artistic creativity as a kind of natural Divine revelation. – Opinions on this subject of Orthodox theologians. – Historical-philosophical, archaeological and dogmatic data. - The teaching of St. Scripture and St. fathers. – The epistemological legal capacity of artistic creation as a postulate of Christian theism.

Natural knowledge of God has many ways and forms. As they said in ancient times: “all roads lead to Rome”, so we could say: “all paths of human thought will lead to God” of a conscientious seeker of truth. A metaphysician, reflecting on the essence and foundations of the universe, comes to the recognition and confession of the highest fundamental principle and primary cause - God; the natural scientist, delving into the expediency of the organic and inorganic processes of nature, recognizes in them the hand of the Creator and Provider; the historian, contemplating the fate of peoples and human opinions and teachings, will come to the same confession; the moralist, seeking the foundations of conscience, finds them in God. Let aesthetics also be allowed to add its voice to this chorus of natural testimonies about God.

A student of the laws and conditions of artistic creativity can easily notice that these conditions are most conducive to the poet becoming a guide to the universal consciousness of religious truth. A good poet, no less than a philosopher, can do good service to the church. Philosophical and strictly scientific defense and substantiation of the general truths of religion are not always accessible to the middle educated classes. Meanwhile, the need for natural reinforcement of one's religious faith exists for them too, for the waves of modern unbelief and denial often shake their conscience with their blows. How to be so hesitant? To engage in a deep and serious study of philosophy, natural science and ethics? Yes, that would be the surest and surest remedy; but there can be no doubt that this will be completely beyond the power of the needy and will only frighten him with its impracticability. It is in such and such cases that it will be very useful for him to clarify for himself the significance for the religious knowledge of poets and artists. Let him get acquainted with these luminaries of intuitive thinking, keeping in mind their importance along with philosophers and scientists - and he can be sure that where years of hard and intense mental labor would be required from his amateur activity, several good artists of good direction.

But it is not only useful for the middle-educated classes to know the indicated significance of artistic creativity. Finding out this meaning is also necessary for people who are philosophically and theologically educated.

It is known that modern philosophical thought often suffers greatly from the instability of its basic principles, the shakiness and unreliability of methods, the paucity of conclusions and distrust of one's own strengths; - we say this, of course, not about all modern philosophical trends, but we mean mainly representatives of the so-called relativism, which is so widespread both abroad and here in Russia. The natural consequence of this state of affairs is religious skepticism: the futility of the philosophical search for higher truth sometimes pushes a person to doubt its very existence. In philosophical speculation, such people see only a special kind of poetry (Lange), and consider religious ideas as a product of a kind of artistic fiction, representing only the idealization of human nature (Feuerbach, Renan). It would be timely for such thinkers to recall two truths: 1) that in addition to methodical, philosophical knowledge, which often chooses in its search for truth such paths that do not lead it to the desired goal, there is another, direct or intuitive, which has lived from time immemorial. and humanity lives, - knowledge that existed before science and philosophy and turned out, according to the teachings of the Apostle Paul, sufficient for conviction in the most general and basic religious truths (; ); – 2) that if in philosophical and religious knowledge there are many features that make it related to artistic creativity, then this does not in the least undermine its reliability, because artistic creativity, under certain conditions, has full legal capacity.

There is, however, along with philosophical directions of a relativistic or skeptical kind, and a sound philosophy capable of reaching lasting results and developing in full accord with religious truth. The main toners of such a philosophy here in Russia, and for the most part also abroad, are figures of higher theological education. And they, as we have said, need to clearly understand for themselves the relation of artistic creativity to religious knowledge; knowing this relationship, they can often supplement their argument with data from a field that they would otherwise easily ignore and thus acquire an extra criterion for testing their conclusions.

So, the task of our study will be to determine the significance of artistic creativity as an aid in philosophical inquiry and substantiation of religious truth. This means, we repeat, is much less reliable and durable than strictly methodical, philosophical or scientific research; to a thinker wishing to engage in the search for the foundations of natural knowledge of God, we would in no case recommend replacing them with philosophical work: it can only serve as a natural and useful addition to it.

A philosophical study of the foundations of natural knowledge of God shows us that the latter, for its authenticity, needs the recognition of certain epistemological, ontological and metaphysical premises. These premises are: a) the reality of the external world; b) objective knowledge of the category of causality; c) the real meaning of the idea of ​​expediency (epistemological premises); d) cosmomorphism of the cognizing subject; e) human theomorphism (ontological premises), and f) the reality of the moral world order (metaphysical premises). In order for artistic creativity to serve the cause of natural knowledge of God, it is necessary that it, in one way or another, give an affirmation of the truth of these premises. And indeed, we can discover in the most subjective conditions of artistic creativity the actual embodiment of both the metaphysical and both ontological principles that form the real condition for the cognizability of the Divine. And then, from the outside, it can be shown that the legal capacity of creativity and intuition in the matter of knowing God is a postulate of religious consciousness. We will look at the case from each of these sides.

I.

Cognition of the Divine is possible only from the world and man, reflecting in themselves the perfection of their Creator. If the difficulty of philosophical knowledge of God is generated by the insufficiency and incompleteness of our scientific understanding of nature and man, then, obviously, a poet can be a guide to the knowledge of the Divine only if he perfectly possesses the ability to penetrate and reproduce both the life of nature and the life of the human spirit. This image should be so lively and effective in order to wrest from a person that same involuntary cry of feeling, which, according to Victor Hugo, is usually the most sincere and truthful confession of the Divine:

But since we can also understand nature, only by measuring it with the norms of our spirit, it is necessary that the poet could spiritualize nature, make her tell us “alive, plain language”, - “with the voice of the heart”, that is, he could translate the broadcast of nature about the glory of God into the language of our feelings; – only under this condition and it is possible that –

“A healthy heart will reflect the world and the Creator in itself,” as Schiller says. Thus, for the very possibility of a poet becoming, as Guyot puts it, "a priest of the masses" and "introducing something irrefutable into our minds", three things are necessary: ​​1) a flair and sympathetic understanding of nature, 2) isomorphism or affinity of the soul of the artist with the soul of everyone man and 3) the ability to plastically reproduce one and the other in homogeneous forms, mainly in the forms of the human spirit. All three of these properties have always distinguished the best artists.

1) Intuition and sympathetic understanding of the inner life of nature is such a necessary moment in the knowledge of God that without it the heavens do not at all tell the glory of God:

"Where is your deity? I call on nature

Only if the poet has a living image of the world in his chest can he show people God in nature.

“And in the spirit of the singer, as if in pure glass,

The whole world reflected blooming:

He is mature, which has come true on earth from time immemorial,

That the age conceals the coming;

He sat in the ancient council of the gods,

And he listened to the secret movements of creation.

Light and perfectly able to develop

A picture of a luxurious life

And turn into a temple with the power of art

Earthly dwelling of the fatherland;

Does he enter a hut, does he enter a deserted

With him the gods and the whole divine paradise"

This sensitive understanding of nature in poets is very strongly developed, and they themselves consider it the first condition for successful creativity. Goethe says, "that he would be blind and with seeing eyes, and any study would be a vain work if he did not carry the whole world inside himself in advance" The poet, by the power of his imagination, is able to reproduce a whole image, which has never even been seen, while we, ordinary people, often incorrectly simply remember even what we see. “Like Cuvier, to say E., when he comprehended the meaning of animal organization, he could determine from one bone which animal it belonged to and build his entire figure on it, - this is exactly how a brilliant artist works: he recognizes a lion by a claw, as he put it Phidias, i.e., according to the individual features of the landscape, immediately draws the image of the whole, which turns out to be completely consistent with reality. So Schiller in his tragedy "William Tell" depicted Switzerland according to the sketches of Goethe and John Müller, and in his picture there was not a single alien feature, nothing essential in Alpine nature was omitted, and the whole circumference and setting are in complete harmony with the action. Also Goethe's famous songs: "Wanderer" and "Have you matured the land" were written before he saw Italy.

The poet reveals the same deep understanding of historical reality. Shakespeare, from reading Plutarch's biographies and the English Chronicle, recognized some historical features that served him as a guide to understanding the history of the times of Caesar, Charles V, Henry III, and, according to his own inner contemplation, compiled a living image of these times, with amazing fidelity of details to the whole.

Gogol can serve as the best proof that it depends precisely on poetic talent, and not on any other reasons. When the creative power began to fade in his soul, which happened shortly after he published the first part of Dead Souls, he tried in vain to make up for this deficiency by studying Russia; he even announced a general call for Russian people of all ranks to write and send him their confessions and observational notes, and there were many sympathetic answers to this cry, but all the information collected in this way was of no use. The pale chapters of the 2nd part of Dead Souls convince us that without creative power, no amount of information helps in poetry.

And the artists themselves in this correct understanding of reality see their peculiarity in comparison with ordinary people. “I strive,” said George Elliot, “only to represent correctly the people and things that are reflected in my mind; I consider myself obliged to show you this reflection as it is in me, as sincerely as if I were in the witness box, making my testimony under oath. Some writers on the psychology of creativity tried to give a physiological explanation for this property of artists and talked about the special development of their memory. So they think - French writer Paul Cyrio and after him ours - Boborykin .

Without entering into a discussion of this opinion, we note that in this case it also confirms our idea. – Pupils of the painting school at first, as you know, are taught for a very long time to “look”, that is, simply to truthfully notice what is in reality. Here opens a curious fact, noticed by the artists - that ordinary people, for the most part, do not know how to look at all! “Many people do not see,” says Théophile Gauthier. - For example, out of 25 persons who enter here, there are not three who distinguish the color of paper! Here, for example, X; he will not see whether this table is round or square ... All my dignity is that I am a person for whom the visible world exists ".

It was this sensitivity of the artist to reality that gave Schiller the right to say:

“Nature and genius have been and will be in close union:

What he promises you, she will faithfully fulfill!

This subtle observation, of course, depends a lot on the dexterity and sharpness of external senses; and as such, it is found even in people who are devoid of any artistic talent. A clever appraiser or an experienced recorder is no worse than an artist to notice every detail - the color of the paper, the shape of the table, etc. But what gives the artist an understanding of reality is the power of sympathetic feeling. It is known that passions strongly influence the ability of external perception. It is often said about love and jealousy that they blind. But with no less right it can be said of them that they sharpen their eyesight and, in general, observation. A lover will catch every detail concerning a loved one. The jealous man, more carefully than any investigator, will note every little thing and give it a place in the chain of his conclusions. That is why artists always talk about love for nature.

“Mother nature! You are dearer to us

And Victor Hugo directly proclaims:

„….Comprendre, c'est aimer.

Les plaines où le ciel aide l'herbe à germer,

L'eau, les pres, sont autant de phrases où le sage

Voit serpenter des sens qu'il saisit au passage.. "

And this is eminently fair. Even in science, success is determined by love for the subject. This love of nature, according to the artists, is the only one capable of deciphering the language of nature. The more ardent it is, the more complete the understanding. Here is how one of the greatest poets describes this awakening of love for nature and the penetration into the inner life of nature associated with it:

"How ancient to your creation

Pygmalion knew love

And was the fire of his desire

Cold marble revived

So full of youthful passion

I embraced nature with a prayer -

And did not remain without participation,

She spoke to me

Lively, understandable language;

Then all creation was resurrected,

Everything became full of being;

I understood life in a flower, in a plant,

That this image cannot be ignored as a product of romantic exaggeration can be seen from the fact that similar feelings are able to excite, for example, the most real of the artists of our time, Emile Zola. One of his heroes, in which he personifies himself, on one summer day in the village, leaning on the grass, talks about literature. “He fell on his back, stretched out his hands into the grass, as if he wanted to enter the earth,” at first he laughed and joked, and ended with such a cry of ardent conviction: “Ah! good earth, take me common mother, the only source of life! you are eternal, immortal, where the soul of the world turns, this sop, spilling even into stones and which makes the trees our big, motionless brothers!... Yes, I want to get lost in you, I feel you under my limbs, embracing and inflaming me; you alone will be in my work, as the first force, as a means and goal, a huge ark, where all things are animated by the breath of all beings!... Isn't it stupid that each of us has a soul when there is this great soul?!” that fills the soul of the artist, Balzac calls "mother's love." If it is true that “the mother's heart is a prophet”, then it is clear what a subtle understanding of reality poets must have. Genius, says Guyot, is the power of love... A genius must be carried away by everything and everyone in order to understand everything.

2) A person can recognize the properties of the Divine in the mirror of his spirit, where the Lord imprinted his image. But this image becomes clear to the person himself, - only actually (effectively) incarnating in his spiritual life, in the system of his feelings, that is, becoming the "likeness" of God; and this is understandable: in a person who is neglectful of his moral progress, the image of God is darkened - the mirror of his spirit (cf.) is, as it were, covered with a coating of moral dust and ceases to reflect anything in itself. Only the pure in heart can see God (); and the “darkened heart”, instead of mentally changing the properties of its spirit according to ideal standards, rejecting everything corruptible and limited, and thus creating for itself an idea of ​​God that corresponds to reality, is able, on the contrary, “to change the glory of the imperishable God into an image similar to the corruptible man" ().

Therefore, it is necessary that a person be able to see the ideal grain hidden in him not through his direct, subjective (personal) experience, but through objective experience. It is necessary to show a person himself, from his best sides, which he himself may, perhaps, not be aware of. This is done by the artist: he objectifies before man the most intimate and at the same time the most exalted movements of his spirit, and in this way, so to speak, he brings to light the premises of the knowledge of God. In this regard, the activity of the artist is useful even to people with with a pure heart, - on the one hand, facilitating their self-observation, and on the other hand, giving a corrective (correction) to its empirical interpretation.

But sometimes it is not enough to reproduce pictures of the human spirit. The conclusions and inferences drawn from these pictures are essentially inductive inferences. And we know that such conclusions are generally difficult for conscious thinking. This means that in such cases one of two things turns out to be necessary - either that the work of art should affect the feeling of a person as strongly and many-sidedly as possible, and the conclusion, therefore, would be an involuntary response of the soul, or - that the artist himself prompted the desired conclusion to the person, which would have struck him with its obviousness.

Obviously, the artist, along with an understanding of nature, must also have a complete understanding of the human soul. “The artist, says Amfiteatrov, himself, as a person, bears in himself the grain and essence of man and humanity,” “according to the feelings and inclinations of his heart, he embraces the universal human.” It is at this point that we arrive at the assertion of the isomorphism of the soul of the artist with the soul of every man.

It is often said, in ordinary language: stand in my place, stand in the place of another, and indeed, without any special effort, everyone can be transferred to the external conditions in which the other person finds himself. But, according to Guyot, “the essence of a poetic and artistic genius lies in the fact that he can renounce not only the external conditions that surround us, but also the internal conditions of upbringing, circumstances of birth and moral environment, even sex, acquired virtues and shortcomings: it consists in losing one's personality and guessing in oneself, among all secondary phenomena, the primeval spark of life and will. Simplifying himself in this way, the artist transfers this life, which he feels in himself, not only into the frame where another person moves, or into the body of another, but, so to speak, into the very heart of another being. Hence the well-known rule that an artist or a poet must experience the life of his hero, and experience it not superficially, but so deeply, as if he had really entered into it. But one cannot give life except by borrowing it from one's own supply. Thus, an artist endowed with a strong imagination must have a life intense enough to animate in turn each of the faces he creates, without making any of them a mere reproduction, a copy of herself. To create by the power of one of his personality another, and an original life - such is the task that all creativity must solve.

With this ability, the artist rises above every most experienced psychologist and, moreover, an ordinary observer. “What is a poet? says Gabrielle Seile, is a sympathetically vibrating soul that strikes a chord with all sorts of human feelings that are reflected in it. The poet is a man who surrenders to all passions and expresses them as they are experienced; it is an echo repeating our internal motives (chants), but adding its powerful sonority to them.

They say: "Omne individunm ineffabile". This saying contains the recognition of the impotence of not only ordinary, but also scientific thought to penetrate into the inner sanctuary of the spirit. But the artist renounces this impotence. In this he is often ahead of science. A brilliant example of this was given by Goethe in his Werther. Werther's suicide was found unnatural, psychologically implausible, and therefore Goethe was blamed for not leading his hero to a clearer look, to a calmer feeling and a calm existence after his grief. But now the famous psychiatrist Maudsley, having examined this question, found that suicide was the inevitable and natural end of sorrows of this nature. This is the final explosion of a whole series of antecedents that are all preparing it; it is as necessary and as fatal an event as a flower whose very core has been eaten by an insect. “Suicide or insanity is the natural end of a person who is gifted with the necessary sensitivity, and whose weak will is not able to deal with the difficult trials of life,” says Maudsley. There is no need to expand on the deep psychiatric knowledge of Shakespeare, which scientists are still surprised to this day.

3) The ability to capture the inner essence of nature and the human spirit, in order to be the basis of the real rights of artists to become “priests of the masses”, interpreters of the Divine, must necessarily be combined with the ability to express both nature and spirit in such forms that would most correctly evoke those the very feelings in which implicite the inductions of the knowledge of God are contained.

If knowledge of an object is possible for philosophy only under the condition of either its identity, or at least similarity with the subject, i.e., under the condition that the forms and laws of thought are at the same time the laws and forms of the objective existence of things, then the intuitive or direct cognition, which we have recognized as essentially homogeneous with methodical cognition, is obviously also possible only under this condition. If the cosmomorphism of man is a condition for the cognition of nature, then the opposite is also true, that nature must be anthropomorphized in order to be understood. The human spirit directly knows only itself. Any other knowledge is possible insofar as it is reducible to the immediate. Hence the need for the poet to be able to express nature in terms of the human spirit.

The requirement now put forward is not only fulfilled in art, but even, as it turns out, constitutes its very essence. “The world in fantasy, says Seail, already assumes something human; but what in the world is of particular interest to man is man himself. Creativity, in his opinion, would be impossible if we did not personify, did not anthropomorphize nature. “For the imagination, we read from him, nature is not a thing, it is a face, a sympathetic being. When they imitate signs expressing a feeling, they evoke in themselves the image of this feeling and only through this do they more or less recognize it. This is a consequence of the law, by virtue of which every image strives to be realized. To understand nature, one must imitate the movements that would take place in it if it were a living human-like personality. And for this to be possible, one must be able to discover in it an analogy with man, to give a general interpretation of its phenomena according to the image of the movements of the spirit, i.e., to find something corresponding or correlated in mental life for each detail. Bacon rightly said, "Ars est homo additus naturae."

The artist, according to Seail, does not know nature like a scientist in its monotonous, abstract, geometric laws; he cognizes - loving her in her diverse and living forms. Being an artist means, first of all, living with feelings, enjoying and suffering from everything: from sound, from light, from colors, from wavy lines, from any harmony and any dissonance. When such a complete responsiveness of the human heart to the phenomena of nature is established that for each of the latter there will be a permanent representative or substitute in the form of a specifically defined, purely human feeling, then only will the interpretation of nature become possible. And by creating in the souls of other people the same associations between the shades of feeling and the features of objective phenomena that have been established in his own soul, the artist makes nature understandable to other people. He, so to speak, creates here a grammar and lexicon for the language of nature, with which even an ordinary mortal will be able to understand her broadcasts. Imagine that you are given the most detailed, photographically exact description, for example, some Italian landscape at sunset; everything is indicated here - the shades of colors on the spectrometer, the temperature on the Celsius thermometer, the intensity of the light on the photometer, etc. And yet you will not feel anything when reading this detailed protocol, you will not understand life in this picture. But then the artist comes and adds only a few strokes of himself to this long description - and the picture immediately sparkled for you with the fire of life, and mute nature acquired a language ... But what did the artist do? - he only told you: “Remember how the velvet hand of your beloved caressed you, how you reveled in the aroma of her breath, how her gentle radiant gaze penetrated your soul, making every string of your heart vibrate ... So here, too, a quiet breeze gently tickles your face will be perfumed with the aroma of myrtle and lemons, and the brilliant ray of the sun, lost in the boundless blue of the sky, which hides its sharpness, at the same time caresses and permeates you. The artist here only established parallelism, correlated the elements of objective natural phenomena with the subjective elements of feeling. Here, as in understanding a foreign language, the whole task is to find appropriate own words for foreign words. When this task is completed, understanding is accomplished without hindrance. Thus, while cognizing nature, we do not “penetrate into it”, as they usually say - this is not true - but we transfer it into ourselves, from the elements of our spirit we create an image of nature. “If, says the same Seail, it was necessary to leave the spirit in order to enter nature, it would be forever closed to us.” “To animate nature, to speak to Guyot, means to get to the truth, because life is in everything, life and also effort. The desire to live, meeting now favorable conditions, now unfavorable, brings with it everywhere the germ of pleasure and pain, and we may even regret a flower. From my window I see a large rose bush: a small bud of a large white rose is half torn from the stem, only three bark fibers keep you on it. But a few drops of rain - and you blossomed. A flower without hope, you cannot be fruitful, but you are fragrant and rejoice - a sad flower that smiles before it fades!

One misunderstanding can easily arise here. Where, it will be asked, is the guarantee that artists give a real interpretation of nature, and do not establish an arbitrary analogy between her and man, which in another case can be established in a completely different form? - Such a guarantee, in our opinion, is the impossibility of unconditional arbitrariness in poetic rapprochements, experienced by the best artists and explained by literary criticism. Animation of nature is only legitimate when the artist proportions the degrees of life with which he endows her. “Poetry, says Guyot, is allowed to accelerate the evolution of nature, but not to change it ... it penetrates and flows everywhere, its level rises, however, only gradually, following the correct sewerage. In metaphors, which should be only rational metamorphoses, symbols of the universal transformation of things, the poet can skip some of the imperceptible stages of life, but cannot skip them at will ... Hence the absurdity of the mythology of savages and some romantic poets or "Parnassians" who think animate the ocean or the thunder by ascribing thoughts to them and making them reason in syllogisms." Regarding the last remark, we consider it necessary to make an explanation that the ocean and thunder cannot be animated and rationality can be attributed to them, but it is not only possible, but also necessary, to give them a spiritual meaning, instrumental. For example, we do not see any unnaturalness in the following verses by Khomyakov:

“The earth is trembling; over the air

Thunder rushes from end to end.

That is God's voice: he judges the world.

Israel, my people! pay attention!"...

If the essence of poetic creativity lies in the anthropomorphization of nature, then vice versa it is the recognition of the cosmomorphism of man. Indeed, the best poets have always pointed to this metaphysical basis for their right to personify or hypostasize the soulless. For example. Goethe, in a tone that did not allow even the possibility of a negative answer, asked:

„Ist nicht der Kern der Natur

He also owns this categorical statement: "Im Innern ist ein Vniversum ach!"

The cosmomorphism of the human spirit is professed by Sully Prudhomme, one of the most talented French poets of the present century, when he decides to interpret the fate of man by analogy with the facts of nature. This we find in him, for example, in a poem - "Les Yeux", the most sincere and sincere of all his plays:

„Bleux ou noirs, tous aimés tous beaux,

Des yeux sans nombre ont vu l'aurore;

Ils dorment au fond des tombeaux;

Et le soleil se leve encore.

Les nuits, plus douces que les jours,

Ont enchanté des yeux sans nombre;

Les etoiles brillent toujouis,

Et les yeux se sont remplis d'ombre.

Oh! qu ils aient perdu le regard,

Non, non, cela n'est pas possible!

Ils se sont tournes quelque part

Vers ce qu'on nomme l'invisible;

Et comme les astres penchants,

nous quittent, mais au ciel demeurent,

Ces prunelles ont leur couchants,

Mais il n'est pas vrai qu'elle meurent:

Bleux ou noirs, tous aimés, tous beaux,

Ouverts a quelque immense aurore,

De l'autre cote des tombeaux

The poet was led to the idea of ​​the immortality of the soul by its analogy with the sun and stars, the objects of nature. - Victor Hugo also affirms this isomorphism of spirit and nature: "Bien lire l'univers, c'est bien lire la vie", he says. And Byron expresses himself even more energetically: "Are not the mountains, waves and skies a part - of me and of my soul, as I of them?"

So, to the extent that nature is capable of telling the glory of God to those who understand the language of its broadcast, to the extent that artists can really be mediators of God-knowledge. Silent before the philosopher and the scientist, who approach it with the chisel of analysis and the hammer of criticism, nature reveals its secrets to the artist, who approaches her with an open heart and with tender appeal of love. And the artist is already retelling these revelations to people. Scientists have not yet learned how to read the book of nature, but only understand its individual words. This is similar to the kind of reading that is possible with knowledge of one alphabet and prosody of a language and without familiarity with its syntax and etymology. Abstract scientific formulas tell us nothing about the life of nature. In this case, the artist, in fact, can reveal to the scientist himself for the first time the living meaning of his formulas. Schiller tells the artists:

“What in the world of knowledge was discovered by the brave thinker,

You are conquered, revealed only through you.

All those treasures that the enlightened mind has collected,

Only from your hands the thinker himself will understand.

Lead him along the mysterious paths

On the wonderful staircase of the saint's poetry,

So that at the end of time the impulse is still alive,

Another holy inspiration

And the man fell into rapture -

Cognizing the truth in nature, the artist contemplates the Creator in the harmony of nature, and therefore can say to Him:

“My gaze contemplated Your bright face in delight,

My hearing of the harmony of your worlds listened."

Man knows God not only from nature, but also from his own spirit. We have already said that in order for a person to be able to contemplate the image of God in himself, it is necessary that the artist show the person himself from his best, ideal sides. By this, the sendings of knowledge of God will be given, and the person himself will only have to draw a conclusion. But at the same time, we pointed out the difficulty of this conclusion (its inductive nature) and the need that sometimes arises from this, so that the artist himself would make the conclusion, and the person would only agree with him with all sincerity, acknowledge his truth. This case, of course, cannot be repeated often. It can only take place in relation to very rational natures; – inductions are especially difficult for conscious thinking. But natural natures, who do not add a rational element to their aesthetic emotions, need little such prompting.

How does the artist draw these conclusions when they are needed? Here we must distinguish between two possible ways: one direct, depending on the will and intention of the artist, the other indirect, more determined by the general nature of the tasks pursued by art. In the first case, if a really talented artist consciously takes upon himself the promotion of religious ideas, he will undoubtedly have tremendous success, because art has the ability to "introduce something irrefutable into the minds." If, unfortunately, we rarely see such cases, it depends, on the one hand, on the fact that sometimes dozens of talents and even, it happens, completely mediocrity are taken for the preaching of religious ideas.

Another way is that the artist will awaken in a person those feelings that form the penultimate link in a series of inductions (=aesthetic impressions) ending with the recognition of the Divine. One can feel all the charm of an artistic image, admire those high sides of the human spirit that are embodied in it, and yet not draw the conclusion to which these impressions are only one step away. It is said of such natures that they are too "objective" in their aesthetic emotions. Their aesthetic judgments remain judgments. They require some subjective effort to merge into an inference proclaiming the confession of Deity; - they demand that the very feeling that objectifies the ideal and lofty that is in man, affirms his real correlate (that which corresponds to him in objective reality), that is, God, join. This objectifying feeling is, first of all, love. one is able to successfully dispel that epistemological fiction called solipsism, i.e., one is able to convince us that our ideas about people refer to real people. – Then, in relation to the Divine, sadness is such an objectifying feeling. Whoever has never greatly mourned about anything, who has never felt the sorrow of human existence, often forgets about God; he is able to pass by the most majestic wonders of nature, if not with indifference, then with a feeling of epicurean complacency, he will perhaps admire the beautiful, but - according to the same epicurean principle: "carpe voluptates". Such people are not very capable of strong and true love. But the one who mourned strongly and deeply, whose heart yearns for consolation, will not remain deaf to the pronouncements of the God of external nature and blind to the image of the Divine in his own soul. If he lacks natural sensitivity here, then in works of art he will find indications of the path to the Source of all consolation. The meaning of sorrows and sufferings for the knowledge of God is very clearly and vividly revealed in the Psalter, in a book that simultaneously contains both lyric poetry and Divine revelation, i.e., is doubly true. Love and sorrow are two guides to the knowledge of God. And if the artist, in addition to his two talents discussed above - the ability to understand and convey the life of nature and the ability to penetrate the innermost bends of the human heart - also has the ability to teach people to love and grieve with truly human sorrow and love, then his mission is - to be a prophet of the knowledge of God must be considered fulfilled. Do artists fulfill their mission?

As for love, one might think that this question is not even relevant, because if the artist must love the objects of his art in order to understand them, then, apparently, in ordinary people, love is also required to understand the artistic creation itself. But such an argument would not be entirely correct. The artist needs to love his subject so that he has the patience and perseverance to penetrate its meaning, which is often obscured by the mass of details that are not related to his main idea in his empirical setting. The connoisseur of art finds himself in a completely different position: the elements of reality are presented to him in such a combination that the idea clearly appears by itself; on his part, however, it is required for her to understand the imitation of those feelings that animated the artist when composing these or those details: but such imitation is far from always so strong that this feeling is enough for more than just understanding a work of art, and in this case, a certain residue would be obtained, which would then become the basis of a certain permanent mood in life. Here we meet with simple "sympathy" in its broadest sense.

It seems to us that general considerations about the properties of aesthetic emotion in the present case will not be sufficient to prove the ability of artists to lead humanity to the knowledge of God. Much more important here are some empirical indications. If we pay attention to the content of artistic works of all ages, we will see that love and suffering provide the most grateful themes for them. For example, in the literature of our time, a rare novel and a rare drama do without love. The same must be said about the lyrics. On the other hand, pessimism is such a predominant motif of modern and contemporary poetry, and attracts so many of the best artistic forces under its banner, that some literary critics even began to express the opinion that he is no longer a poet, who is not a pessimist, who does not take its subjects from the realm of human suffering. If, then, we take into account that literary figures have always been aware of their, so to speak, social mission, their duty to influence society, contributing to its spiritual ennoblement, awakening in it the best feelings - and especially clearly begin to realize this now: then we we can easily understand that they can really lead people to the knowledge of God.

Love and suffering inspire the best poets of our century - and, let us note this, they have always been the source of those religious motives that often sounded in their poetry. Regarding, for example, Lermontov, everyone already knows this: his “In a difficult moment of life”, “When the yellowing field is agitated”, “I, the Mother of God ...”, etc. are all too well known.

With Nadson, the most mournful plays are always finally resolved by prayer. Let us recall here, for example, the poem “My friend, my brother!” and “Christ! where are you Christ, crowned with flowers!”... There is no need to remind you that the works of F. M. Dostoevsky are all the essence of the poetry of suffering, leading to God. In French literature, first-class poets - Alfred de Musset, Victor Hugo, Sully Prudhomme, and others - were as much singers of love as they were of suffering. And they all have a lot of plays that have a very strong religious feeling. Here, for excerpt, are a few examples from which one can see the nature of the religious ideas of these poets. "The soul rises to heaven when you lose what you love." “In the poor soul of a person, the best thought is always unreliable, but a tear - it rolls and does not make mistakes.” “Doubt has tormented the earth; we see either too much or with too little.” “But the burden will fall from the heart when it is shed in tears.” “Comfort me, this evening, I am languishing, I need hope; I need to live until dawn." “Oh, you (Christ) knew that in this life the only good is love and the only truth is suffering.” - (Musset). “Progress must believe in God. Good cannot have a godless servant. The atheist is the bad leader of the human race." “This God, I confess, has often had to arouse doubt among the sages. So be it. But I still believe. Faith is the highest light….. The conscience that I feel in myself tells me that God has visited me. I can, reasoning falsely, place Him outside of heaven, but never outside of myself. When I listen to the voice of my heart, I hear two people talking; with my soul there are two of us: He and I. – “The seal of eternity lies on the transient; the modest flower that the thinker looks at is imbued with immensity, dark, azure and starry; we look at the fields, but we are raptured by God. The lily that you admire blooms in your heart, and your soul is adorned with roses that you look at. - "Friends! when a storm rages, my faith grows stronger. In the hurricane, I contemplate the consciousness of duty and faith in truth, which sparkle like lightning. “Oh, the essence of God is love. A person sometimes believes that God, like him, has a soul striving to become outside the world - this immense scattering dust ... I know that God is not a soul, but a heart. , the center of the love of the whole world, brings into connection with its Divine nature all the threads of all roots. His tenderness knows no difference between a worm and a seraphim; and all boundless spaces are amazed that the heart, humiliated here on earth by the priests, has as many rays as there are living beings on earth. For God - to create, to think, to think, to revive, to sow, to destroy, to act, to be and to see, to mean - to love. “If there were no one who loves, the sun would go out.” - "Man is a flying point, endowed with two wings: one wing is his thought, the other is love." "With my joy and my love I will make God manifest himself." - “No matter how impregnable you may be in the gloomy depths of your azure abyss, you stars, countless and endless reflections of God, I am not afraid of foggy heights, I have wings” (V. Hugo). - "Each of us is a follower of some word that contains a deep thought." - Nimrod says: "War"! And from the Ganges to Ilissus, swords shine and blood flows, "Love one another!" Jesus says, and this word shines for us forever in heaven, on flowers, in our renewed heart, like the radiance of infinite love. – “Most touched, I cannot give myself an account of what touched me. I, under the spell, called myself the sky and it is difficult for me to check how much truth is in all this. (Sully Prudhomme). – Already from these excerpts one can judge how much the religious understanding of modern society would advance if all these ideas really liked it. It seems to us that these ideas are so deep and meaningful that one can make a whole out of them. religious outlook. If this is true, then we must also recognize the rights of artists to be leaders in the knowledge of God.

Now it remains for us to answer only one misunderstanding, which can very easily arise in connection with the views we are developing. How to explain the phenomenon that some poets are people of little religion, while others are even completely atheists? – It seems to us that, according to our views on the essence of artistic creativity, the only correct answer would be this: if artistic creativity is the transmission and excitation of emotions, and the knowledge that we receive in this case is only a translation into a conscious form of that theoretical element, which is implicite, in an open state, is in emotions, then, obviously, the non-religiousness of these poets is explained by the fact that their creativity stops halfway: they have feelings, they know how to express them and convey them to others, but they cannot or do not want to see that epistemological nature, How are these feelings different? In other words, the poet's lack of religiosity must be explained by the imperfection of his artistic talent. From this point of view, we do not quite agree with Guyot, who says that in order to be a good poet, one must believe, have convictions. We find it necessary to reverse this attitude and say that in order to be a believer, a poet must first of all be a good, i.e., a complete poet. Guyot cites the example of Rishnen, who, in his words, "is more likely to lack conviction than talent." Po, after all, Guyot himself agrees that most of Rishnen's plays are bad - artistically. And whether they are bad because their author lacked conviction, or vice versa - he had no conviction because he was a bad poet - this is another question.

II.

So far, we have tried to substantiate the epistemological legal capacity of artistic creation in relation to religious truth from the standpoint of its natural or psychological possibility, empirical reality, and logical necessity. Now let us try metaphysically to substantiate the truth of this knowledge, i.e., to indicate the real guarantee that would allow us to consider the knowledge obtained in this way reliable. Let's try to justify our opinion from a religious point of view.

We call this justification "metaphysical" because it is based on the positive doctrine of God and His providential relationship to the world. Artists can be leaders of religious truth because they are inspired - this is the main idea of ​​all the reasoning below.

Thus, in this section of our article, we want to give our theological answer to the question we have taken.

This answer will not be news to our domestic theologizing. Representatives of Russian Orthodox theological thought have repeatedly expressed this view of artistic creativity. For example, E. V. Amfiteatrov in his speech mentioned above said: “Without a special mysterious reason, we cannot explain to ourselves the emergence of ideals in the artist’s soul, which are born mostly unexpectedly and always more or less unconsciously and involuntarily. Whatever we call this reason, but, in any case, it seems to act on a person from the outside, and the only question is how it affects the soul of the artist ... Every great thought appears not as calculated and found, but is born in to the soul and opens up as something directly enlightened, something that the soul is only now considering more closely. As finds that, as it were, accidentally come across to us, we mean such thoughts, the connection of which with the circle of known and arbitrary actions was hidden from us. If everything significant, both in the intellectual and moral life, does not take place without an influence from above, then we can all the more rightly assume such an influence in the activity of fantasy that this activity, in the best and highest that it produces, is not guided by a clear consciousness. The thinker immediately affirms a great thought that suddenly flashed in his soul on reasonable grounds, and in general one can say about great artists and poets that they go to the grave, not knowing why they chose well-known images, and yet the images they choose turn out to be the only true ones. . We believe and believe that there is an omnipresent foundation of the life of all things, that in Him we live, move, and have our being, and this assurance, which is pleasing to our heart, confirms us in the thought that everything significant in our affairs is accomplished by a special Divine influence. Such a view of the course of affairs in our world is not only the most gratifying, but at the same time the only reasonable and true one. After this, isn’t it necessary to assume that even during the conception of artistic ideals, the artist’s soul, especially sensitive to beauty, is illuminated by the highest Divine power, and with this illumination, the artist instantly sees the Divine prototype of the thing hidden in his soul? This insight or inspiration is thus only an intensification and arousal of the artist's own forebodings. While others understand and accept only a fully developed artistic ideal, for an artist one divine wave is enough to extract and fully develop this ideal from his dark forebodings. Divine thoughts, as it were, penetrate into his heart of their own accord - and this is exactly what happens every time when something new and great, and at the same time universally binding both in general and in particular in the field of art, is revealed to humanity, and human consciousness expands and rises. . This is a push and message not so much from outside as from within, as if from the center of common life; it is not a mechanical transmission or ready-made tradition, but an arousal to the development of the Divine idea, and we are not passive, but active organs of it. Man's business here is that, under divine inspiration, he is able to start something, in the understanding and development of which he already acts independently. AI Vvedensky holds the same view. This view, in our opinion, has quite sufficient grounds in its favor.

In our time, artists often adopt the name "divine" as an epitheton ornas, without trying to connect with this name the real meaning indicated by its etymology. In this case, we simply follow a tradition that originates from ancient times. But antiquity, which created this epithet, connected with it a really real meaning.

The Greeks called the poet - ένθεος, θεόπνευστος, έχστατιχος. Plato in the Phaedrus speaks of the "divine madness of the poet". In Cicero we meet with the concepts - "pati Deum", "furor poeticus". Artistic inspiration the Greeks derived from Apollo. Teutonic mythology calls the singer a theologian. Our "Word about Igor's Campaign" call Bayan "prophetic". In all these cases, we are not dealing with metaphors at all. If we move from ancient times to times closer to us and turn to the testimonies of the artists themselves about the origin of their creations, as well as to the opinions of others about them, we will see that here, too, very often and again not in a metaphorical sense, the poet’s inspiration is recognized. . “It is natural for every true poet, says Guyot, to imagine himself a bit of a prophet, and is he wrong in the end?” Guyot is, strictly speaking, a nihilist; this explains the semi-skeptical character of his words; but, obviously, he has before his eyes the same facts that will force a believing person with all sincerity to recognize the hand of God on an inspired artist. For example, Gabriel Seile, a writer with an undeniably spiritualistic mindset, says: “Genius is a gift of grace, his work is like an answered prayer. Poets willingly speak of the God who inspires them, of the torments that have earned them this favor, of their delights when, seized by a stronger personality, merged with God himself (devenus le Dieu même), who dictates his thoughts to them, they do not distinguish themselves from the beauty that they create. Goethe, in a letter to Eckermann, says the following: “In religious and moral subjects they willingly allow Divine action, but in objects of knowledge and art they think to see simply earthly things, and nothing more, as a product of human forces. But try someone with purely human strength and will to produce something that could be put on a par with creations bearing the names of Mozart, Raphael and Shakespeare. This evidence, as E. V. Amfiteatrov notes, is all the more important for us because it was given by a poet who was in no way a mystic. We have already quoted Schiller's opinion. He also owns such a categorical statement: "A genius is naive, because his thoughts are Divine suggestions."

If we turn to the history of art, we will see that almost all outstanding artists in all kinds of art considered themselves Divine chosen ones, and a similar conviction was created in connoisseurs of their works. Here are some examples. Phidias, having created a statue of Olympian Zeus, himself threw himself on his knees in front of her in prayerful delight, and - adds a pious Greek legend - Zeus gave him from heaven a sign of his favor in the form of a lightning strike. Epictetus, Plotinus and Philo speak of this statue with the greatest enthusiasm, and Dion Chrysostomos felt even liberation from all the sorrows of life when looking at it. One of the critics of modern times (Curtius) says of Phidias: "this artist rose to the rank of a theologian, because his works were revelations of the Divine and ideal reflections of the national spirit." Raphael attributed his best ideas to divine inspiration; Haydn says the same about the best pieces of music. Entire legends have been created about Raphael's Sistine Madonna and Mozart's "Requiem" - as if their creation was preceded by a supernatural vision. Jean Paul positively states: “All artists during their creative work are theists; the poet is like the eye: in it all the rays are the rays of a reflecting mirror. Solger says: “It is not his personality that creates in the artist, but the idea or the Deity itself.” Baader directly attributes creativity to divine inspiration and says that "everything true, great and beautiful, which is only rethought and remade into the human race, owes its existence to such inspiration" .

If we wanted to multiply the number of judgments about artists and their own testimonies about the divine inspiration of their work, then this would not present any difficulties. We believe that the above are sufficient. And now let us ask ourselves: what value does this view have from the Orthodox-Christian, theological point of view? Here we must clarify two points for ourselves: are there any theological grounds for recognizing in general the fact of divine inspiration of artistic creativity, and what is the difference between divine inspiration and the supernatural revelation of the Divine to the Prophets, St. Apostles and other heralds of religious Christian truth?

As regards the first question, we will first of all point out one curious archaeological evidence expressing the view of the Orthodox Church on this subject. In the so-called Greek "icon-painting original", which contains; the Athonite tradition of Orthodox icon painting, in instructions regarding the location of sacred images in the temple, it is advised to place in the fourth tier - saints, martyrs, reverend and pagan poets; various saints are placed in the fifth and last tier. This phenomenon is completely inexplicable, unless we admit that the church really saw in the pagan poets the deliberate tools of God's providence, preparing natural humanity for the acceptance of the One Who is "Light in the revelation of the tongue."

Then you can also point to the well-known fact that the ancient church recognized, for example, the inspiration of the so-called. Sibylline verses. At present, in his dogmatic teaching on Grace, he distinguishes among its types the so-called. natural grace (gratia naturalis), which makes possible a union (albeit imperfect) between God and man – even outside the church (“foedus ante legem” or “foedus ante aut extra legem et eyangelium”). Hence it is also clear that the Church recognizes the possibility of a real Revelation of God to the Gentiles. But the most worthy of such revelations among them were undoubtedly their poets, artists and philosophers.

Turning specifically to the testimonies of Holy Scripture, we find almost only one indication regarding this issue, but it is very valuable. It's in Art. . The Holy Apostle Paul, in his speech before the Athenian Areopagus, said: “I found an altar on which is written: unknown god. This which you honor without knowing, I preach to you. - From one blood He made the whole human race ... so that they would seek God, if they would feel Him, and if they would not find Him, although He is not far from each of us: for we live by Him, and move and exist, like some of your poets said: we are his and his generation. So, we, being the race of God, should not think that the Divinity is like gold or silver ... In these words we distinguish the following positions: a) the preached sv. An apostle, there is the same one whom the Athenians also honor, not knowing Him; b) but they could know Him by studying the ideal properties of the human spirit, in which the Lord imprinted His Divine nature; c) this truth about the theomorphism of man was proclaimed by the Greek poets. And we believe that we do not impose St. Paul no thought alien to him, arguing that he allowed the influence of the Spirit of God even on pagan poets.

In sacred tradition we find much more evidence of this. St. Justin the Martyr made the idea of ​​“ λόγος σπερματιχος ”, acting and acting in all of humanity, both blessed and ungrateful. The idea of ​​Christianity even without the historical Christ, which subsequently inspired Tertullian to write his famous De testimonio animae natura christianae, is best revealed from its theological and philosophical side in the works of St. Justin. About his “λόγος ’e” he says: “ οΰ παυ γένος άνθρώπων μετέσχε , χαί οί μετά λόγου βιώσαντες Χριστιανοί είσιν , χάν άθεοι ενομίσθησαν οίον έν Ἐλλησι μέν Σωχράτης χαί Ή ράχλειτος χαί οί ομοιοι αυτοίς ” . In this case, we should not be embarrassed that we are actually talking about philosophers, and not about poets. To the latter, we have every right to apply everything that has been said about the former - a fortiori, for Greek philosophy, in the person of Plato and philosophers kindred to him in spirit - and only such, as you know, the apologists called guides to Christ - itself recognized the great competence in the comprehension of supersensible truth than what she had acquired for herself. And regardless, this philosophy itself is much closer to poetry than to philosophy in our sense. Her intuitive nature certainly makes her related to poetry. The revelation of the Divine in the geniuses of pagan thought, except for St. Justin was recognized by other apologists, for example. Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius and others. The same opinion is expressed by St. Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, Epiphanius of Cyprus and Gregory the Great .

In addition to such direct evidence, teachers can ancient church find also indirect indications of the possibility of a supernatural revelation of the Deity among the pagans. So, for example, Clement of Alexandria claims that all pious people are capable of prophecy. The same is said by St. Martin, Pope of Rome. But piety, as a strong specifically religious feeling, was undoubtedly an outstanding feature of pagan poets and artists. And Holy Scripture teaches that it is also possible outside the Church of Christ (cf. ; . sq.).

Referring to the comparison of the revelation of the Divine in the spirit of the artist with the revelation received by the prophets and St. Apostles, we must say that they cannot be completely equated with each other. God-inspired sacred writers broadcast to us one pure adequate truth, which will forever remain an ideal, to which natural knowledge of God only gradually and as historical development approaching . In Holy Scripture we have a pure ray of Divine truth, and in works of art we have a ray reflected and refracted many times over. Therefore, artists are sometimes able to err themselves in religious matters, and mislead others. For example, we said that many very strong artistic talents gravitate towards pantheism, and there are cases when a poet even becomes under the banner of atheism... Therefore, we repeat, it is impossible to equate the divine inspiration of poets and artists with the divine inspiration of the prophets and Apostles. It is possible to draw only some parallel between them; but at the same time one must always keep in mind the enormous differences.

German explorer mutual relations and art, Portig, collected and pointed out the parallels and differences between geniuses and Apostles. Here are some of them: a) both herald something new, transcending the boundaries of knowledge available to science and ordinary experience; b) both are relative values: only the products of all geniuses together form art in its entirety and give a complete and comprehensive understanding of the truth; on the other hand, each of the Apostles revealed only some of the mysteries of the Divine life; - the fullness of revelation is given only in Jesus Christ; c) both of them, having become organs of the Holy Spirit, did not cease to be human beings, with all human weaknesses; in particular, artists are sometimes capable of falling very low morally; of the apostles, of course, this cannot be said; d) both in the disclosure of their ideas did not obey the conditions of ordinary work - direct enlightenment of the spirit makes all sorts of methodological methods superfluous for them. These are similarities. And here are the differences: a) a genius needs an extremely large power of imagination; for the Apostles, this is by no means a necessary quality, because they did not have to create an image of the truth, but only retell what the Holy Spirit revealed to them; that is why many apostolic writings are completely devoid of artistic pleasantness and are distinguished by the extreme simplicity of the external form of expression; God reveals himself to artists only by arousing their natural powers and abilities, but to the Apostles he also reveals such mysteries that no natural mind will ever be able to discover; b) an artist need not be religiously born to be creative; for the Apostles it is necessary; c) a genius discovers God in his creations; The apostles also constantly carry Him in their hearts; therefore d) the genius also lives for mankind, in fact, in his creations, which are subject to both artistic criticism and even amendments; As for the Apostles, for Christians their very personality is important, which acquires an already indisputable authority, as a living bearer of the Holy Spirit.

These explanations achieve two goals: on the one hand, they prevent our religious feelings from being embarrassed by the recognition of the divine inspiration of artistic creativity, and on the other hand, they nevertheless reinforce our idea of ​​such divine inspiration from a new side.

In conclusion, we consider it necessary to add to all the above considerations that, delving into the very essence of Christian theism, we find here new confirmations of our view of artistic creativity. At the very creation of man, the Lord, according to the belief of the Church, set him one of the main life goals of knowing God. St. Vasplius the Great writes: “You are a well-organized vessel, having received being from God: glorify your Creator. For for this alone you were created, to be a worthy instrument of the glory of God; and this whole world is for you like a living book, which preaches the glory of God, and proclaims to you, who have understanding, the hidden and invisible majesty of God, so that you may know the God of truth. Keep firmly in your memory what I said. St. Gregory the Theologian says: “It was necessary that the worship of God should not be limited to those on high, but there were also some worshipers below, and everything was filled with the glory of God (because everything is God’s): for this a man is created, honored by the handwork and image of God.” St. John Chrysostom: “God gave us sight, mouth and hearing so that all our members serve Him, so that we both say what is pleasing to Him and do it, unceasing songs are sung to Him, thanksgiving is sent to Him.” St.: “Someone justly said: this is for the generation of Esma (), for the Creator gave us from his affinity, that is, a rational nature, so that we would look for that Divine, which is not far from the only one of us (-27) and o which we live and move and are.” – Here are the passages from the Church Fathers that are considered to express the Church's view of the purpose of God's creation of man. In all of them we see that the knowledge of God, and hence the glorification of God, is indicated as the most important, and, so to speak, the main goal. All other goals (man's own bliss, domination over creatures, etc.) come after this one. And the Apostle Paul, as we have seen, does not mention any other purpose of the creation of people, except for that one, “that they should seek God.”

If we turn now to those places of the Holy Scriptures, which speak of the knowledge of God (. ; . ; ; ; ; Hex. 33:18–20; ; Art.), we will see that almost all of them speak of the impotence of natural wisdom and that the knowledge of God is the fruit of God's hidden wisdom. Such wisdom differs essentially from natural wisdom; it is given by the Spirit of God only to those people who can be called spiritual (πνευματιχοί ), who, that is, live not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit.

Religious Knowledge of Creation

Knowledge of Creation (genesis, and after the Incarnation of the Savior - and kinesis) is a vast section of church tradition, the assimilation of which, due to the general rationalization of education and the vastness of information arrays that fall upon modern man, is significantly more difficult.

In Orthodoxy, the knowledge of creation and man after the Revelation of God in the Person of Jesus Christ, revealed in patristic theology, is theoretically completed theologically in the main provisions. The holistic truth about the universe is currently represented by the Orthodox worldview, which involves the knowledge of the Truth in the form of mastering it as a whole-life assimilation, with the involvement in the knowledge of all the forces of the soul - faith, reason, will - with the goal of what is called salvation in Orthodoxy. This is an ideal model for all knowledge, education and upbringing of a person. This model is realized in the family as a “small church”, in Orthodox school, other church educational institutions and, in the most perfect form, in the Church as the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 4:12).

In practice, this model is implemented in different ways - due to the fact that not everyone is able to make the knowledge of God their whole-life goal, on the other hand, the mentioned powers of the soul are expressed differently in each human person, to the point that faith in God is replaced by disbelief, reason becomes an idol with a claim to be able to answer all possible questions of knowledge, and the will acquires autonomy (“I want”), characteristic of the self-affirming “I” of a fallen person.

Even in such an extreme case, the universal belief remains that the world is cognizable, has its inherent laws of development, which can be cognized by discursive thinking, but only in part, since only in part the forces of the soul are involved in cognition, which cognizes integral truth. This is the path of science, through faith in the almighty mind, knowing God's creation.

From this it follows that the perfect religious knowledge of the world and man is not essentially the opposite of scientific knowledge, which is only partly knowledge, as if through a “dull glass” (1 Cor. 13:12). The true relationship between religious knowledge and science can be expressed in the following words: “For all the complexity of the relationship with Christianity, it [science] contributes to the achievement of maturity of Christian thought and a better understanding of the hidden logoosity of the world, which is also important for the inner maturity of a person in the matter of his salvation.” In other words, the role of the true sciences is important because science can contribute to a whole-life search for the Truth about the world and man, actualize all the “tools” of God-knowledge - the will, reason and faith in the Creator of the world and man.

Protestant understanding of the relationship between religion and science

Orthodox, that is, generally accepted and consistent with patristic Tradition, attitude towards scientific knowledge of the world is practically absent at the present time. This was discussed in the first section. Domestic theologians and scientists live with ideas about antagonism, incompatibility between religion and science, different areas of application of science and theology, and so on. Scientists discuss stereotypes in discussions about evolution, the relationship between the postulates of faith, evolutionism, creationism and natural science, but it is difficult to clearly identify among the many opinions the key issues that, despite these stereotypes and contradictory postulates, could form the basis of a dialogue. To some extent, they are responsible Orthodox theologians, which are characterized by their own stereotypes and even misconceptions, at least in relation to perception scientific knowledge.

Creative search and work in this direction is necessary due to the fact that it is easy to come from the belief in the incompatibility of religious and scientific knowledge of the world to “Protestant paradigms”, which, for example, are studied in detail and set forth in I. Barbour’s book “Religion and Science: History and modernity."

The author analyzes the ways of correlation of science and religion, models and paradigms, similarities and differences, based on the non-Orthodox doctrine of creation and man. Two quotes: “I believe that from an evolutionary perspective, we can view both human and divine activity in the person of Christ as a continuation and intensification of what happened before Him. We can perceive Him as a new stage of evolution and as a new stage of divine activity. Christ as a person (not just as a body) was part of an ongoing process that can be traced back through Australopithecus and early life forms to the formation of the atoms of the primeval stars.” “I believe that today, when reformulating Christology, we should take into account the meaning of the classical doctrines [the Nicene Creed, the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon], but use for its [meaning] the categories of relation and history, and not essence. As far as the human side of this relationship is concerned, we can speak of Christ as a man who, in his freedom, completely surrendered himself to God. Because of Christ's openness to God, His life became for us the manifestation of divine purposes…In other words, what was unique in the person of Christ was his relationship with God, and not his metaphysical essence” 27 .

Thus, patristic Christology is reformulated, or rather, perverted in such a way that nothing remains of the dogma about the Incarnation of the Savior - Christ, according to I. Barbour, is a man more open to God than anyone else and consubstantial with Australopithecus.

This conclusion has its origins not in the achievements of Western scientists in the study of creation, but in perverted Protestant theology. In neglect of the true sciences, one can reach the worst if one does not patiently explain that the Christian understanding of the creation of the world is not in common with Judaism and Islam. In the preface to the Almanac of the Creation Science Society, for example, it is written that Muslims "are known to share the Christian concept of the creation of the world." What the editorial board of the almanac meant by this, one can only guess. It is common knowledge that Muslims in one God deny the trinity of Persons, and consequently, the new creation in Christ.

Creation Science

Creationism (lat. - creatio - creation), as a worldview, arose simultaneously with the Revelation about the creation of the world by God. Creation science has emerged as a narrow understanding of creationism since the 1960s in a Protestant milieu (Henry Morris, John Whitcomb). Within this science there are two directions. The first - natural science - in methodology relies exclusively on modern scientific research, the results of which are used to criticize evolutionary theories. The second - "biblical creationism" - uses along with natural science and biblical prerequisites. But, “since studies in the second direction are determined by certain assumptions, they are not intended for external controversy, but are important for the development of creationism as an integral system of knowledge.”

Scientific knowledge of the world has done a lot to weaken the belief in evolution. Astronomy, physics, biology, human anatomy, information theory and other sciences reveal facts, contradictory theories universal spontaneous evolution of the inanimate and animal world. Creation science thus only uses and generalizes what is not rightfully its own.

Very important questions scientific creationists (as well as evolutionists) cannot answer. Such questions are the presence of corruption and death in the world, for God did not create death, especially if the living, that is, mortal, did not come from the inanimate. St. Basil the Great, in a conversation about whether God is the cause of evil, says: “So God did not create death, but we ourselves brought it on ourselves by crafty will.” Another most important question is what kind of nature did Jesus Christ assume in God's incarnation, human or some other, if human nature is not alien to animals? The restriction on biblical assumptions prevents the natural science branch of creation science from even raising such questions for discussion.

The main stereotype of thinking of creationist scientists is that most of them still remain within the framework of the first chapters of Genesis (genesis). It is necessary to change the stereotype - without preaching the Incarnation of the God-man and His new Creation anthropic principle, geological features of the formation of gold placers, etc., cannot but cause objections or doubts among scientists who believe in the accidental origin of the world, life and man as a derivative of animals.

The limitations related to Christology, which the apologists of creation science deliberately introduce into the “preaching” of creationism, make it an ambiguous phenomenon, an actual attempt to introduce Protestant ideas into the difficult relationship between scientists and Orthodox theologians.

The harm of this “science” lies in the fact that it is silent about the Incarnation of the Savior, the new creation and the new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), and, as a result, is an apology for the Protestant understanding of Revelation, therefore it is unacceptable for Orthodox patristic anthropology. Moreover, creation science poses a threat to trinitarian theology, because Christian scientists, not distinguishing between biblical creationism (the Bible is not only Old Testament) and creation science, speak of monotheism, uniting Judaism, Islam and Christianity in this concept.

Scientific Knowledge of Creation

Evolution as delusion

The theory of universal spontaneous (self-random) evolution, as a system of scientific explanation of the universe, is an untrue science. This conclusion follows from the internal inconsistency of this worldview, the impossibility of experimental verification of the hypotheses put forward by this “science”, the impossibility of answering many questions that the true sciences pose before the scientific knowledge of the world.

For example, the same problem of the emergence of decay in the universe. If we assume that the hypotheses about the emergence of life from the primordial soup are correct, then the division of a single-celled amoeba - asexual reproduction - is not the death of an amoeba, so life arose without such a phenomenon as death (and natural selection). The same applies to microorganisms, especially those that can form spores and are practically immortal.

When did death arise in a random evolutionary process as the basis of natural selection and a condition for the survival of the fittest? Is it possible to logically deduce from the idea of ​​random evolution the need for the death of the less fit? If we start from microbes and single-celled amoebae, then the world that has arisen by chance, which did not have decay (mortality) as its basis, must remain so. Why hasn't adaptability to the environment “bred out” the species of immortal macroorganisms?

Some evolutionists believe that aging and death have an evolutionary mechanism. The immortality of organisms is, in principle, feasible, but it is impractical in terms of maximizing the number of offspring or increasing the proportion of the corresponding genotype in subsequent generations. It is economically more profitable to invest the resources needed for this in the reproductive apparatus of organisms. Then the body, having a limited margin of safety, eventually becomes unusable and dies. However, the descendants produced during the lifetime are enough to preserve its genotype in the population. We can say that the body is a way for "selfish genes" to realize themselves and multiply. What, after all, led to the emergence of man: genes of altruism or genes of egoism, which even seem to have some kind of “self-consciousness” and use the individual as a means of their own being? The pseudo-scientific nature of such a conclusion is obvious, just as the perishability of the surrounding world (including matter and energy) is obvious for both scientists and non-scientists, but it cannot be explained logically from the random nature of the emergence of living things.

The idea of ​​self-random evolution is capable of producing only hypotheses, some of them are linked logically, but there are obvious logical gaps in the key issues, so the “theory” of universal evolution does not have a universal law, and therefore is not true knowledge.

Scientific apologetics

Natural science apologetics as a section of the main theology is at the beginning of its formation. There are reasons for this, in particular, one of them was the ban on all theology in the twentieth century in the most representative of all Orthodox churches - the Russian Church. The sciences had the opportunity to develop, but on atheistic soil and in isolation from the source of the sciences - theology. This explains the current confusion of minds both among scientists and theologians, who sometimes lack an appropriate basis for polemics with false sciences or, on the contrary, for a fruitful dialogue with true scientists.

An example is the position of the Orthodox missionary and educational center "Shestodnev". Their opinions reveal the same stereotype in thinking as that of creation scientists. Representatives of the center, remaining at the level of the biblical Old Testament cosmogony and the “Shestodnev” of St. Basil the Great, they quote Sts. Fathers, but in the context of the first two chapters of Genesis. The incarnation of the Savior - according to these articles, is not, first of all, a new creation and the principle of God's creation of the world and man, but evidence against evolution, which was especially manifested in His miraculous deeds. Especially impressive is the canonical assessment of evolutionism - a selection of anathemas from the order of the Triumph of Orthodoxy on the first week of Great Lent. The collection of articles by the center is offered as a guide for teachers and students. Orthodox anti-evolutionists need to be careful about their statements - the proclamation of anathemas is not a way to a real apologetics for the creation of the world and man by God, much less a way to achieve a holistic knowledge of the universe.

In the Six Days, St. Basil the Great, nothing is said about the creation of man and about the healing of the fall. And it could not be said, because patristic Christology developed later. The Holy Fathers did not offer something from themselves that goes beyond the framework of the Holy Fathers. Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The strongholds for Orthodox (patristic) anthropology and Christology were the creation of man in the image of God (Gen. 1, 27), the promise of a Savior by God (Gen. 3.15), leather garments (Gen. 3.21), the keys of virginity - but precisely these points are not reflected in the Orthodox anti-evolutionists, they are avoided by scientific creationists, including clergy who share the ideas of scientific creationists. The new creation in Christ is virtually ignored, leading to ecletism or Orthodox "fundamentalism" that leads away from the truth.

Natural science apologetics, firstly, is called upon to restore historical justice: the emergence of the natural sciences was associated with a new attitude to the laws of nature, which were explained as a manifestation of the Will and Intention of God. The nature of the miracle - that was one of the reasons for the emergence of natural science; Another reason could be a change in attitude towards the knowledge of God - after the works of Gregory Palamas on the knowledge of God through His actions (energies) in the world, the attitude towards nature also changed. The Creator began to be known from the creations. A miracle as an event that contradicts the laws of nature not only did not contradict the sciences, but caused their appearance by indicating that these laws must exist. God, as the Creator of laws, can temporarily cancel their action - this is the nature of a miracle. Such an understanding of the miracle was contained in the works of almost all scientists of the 17th-18th centuries, for example, R. Descartes, W. Leibniz, I. Newton. The very existence of nature with its laws is, according to Leibniz, "a continuous miracle." This does not seem strange: if a miracle is a violation of the law that operates in the world, then it is possible exactly where laws exist. Pantheism is alien to any idea of ​​the law, because its world is inhabited by spirits, which are the driving forces of natural processes. In this regard, non-Christian pantheistic civilizations (China, India) did not have any developed natural sciences until the 20th century.

The most famous and obvious example of a continuous miracle is the phenomenon of life, which contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, according to which all processes proceed with increasing disorder; life is a constant increase in order in a given living system. Therefore, the fact of the existence of life has always been one of the most striking evidence in favor of the truth of Christian teaching.

The creators of scientific natural science saw as one of their tasks the protection of Christianity from pantheism and occultism, characteristic of the Renaissance, by discovering laws that are unchanged for man, but not for God. Natural-science apologetics, therefore, in its development as a practical theology, must reveal the historical connection between scientific knowledge and religious knowledge; not "disown" the problem of miracles, as does creation science; carefully study the discoveries of the natural sciences, in which (bit by bit) find evidence of the spiritual universe.

Such evidence cannot exist. In particular, the views of the modern physicist E. Tainov, who proposed a synthesis of Orthodox theology, metaphysics and quantum mechanics based on the development of the ideas expressed by W. Leibniz and N. Lossky, are of interest. E. Tainov claims that "the deepest source of freedom in the visible world is beyond its limits - in the invisible world." We are talking about the state vector of a microparticle, which has a referent (an object of reality or Absolute Being) and is a substance of a spiritual nature that probabilistically controls material objects in space-time, having full and specific information about their possible behavior and exerting a forceful influence on them. Additional evidence in favor of the objective existence of these referents is provided by the discovery of substantive connections in the experiments of Aspek with colleagues in 1982. Quantum mechanics is the lot of specialists, but hardly anyone will dare to refute it as an untrue science.

Scientific knowledge of the world

In 1880 (already after the publication of Charles Darwin's works) at a meeting of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, a prominent German physiologist Emile Dubois-Reymond delivered a speech entitled "Seven World Mysteries". In the speech, seven most difficult problems of cognition were formulated - world mysteries: 1) the essence of matter and force (energy); 2) the origin of the movement; 3) the emergence of life; 4) expediency in nature; 5) the emergence of the simplest sensations and consciousness; 6) rational thinking and the origin of the language closely related to it; 7) the question of free will. The speaker argued that of the seven riddles, three, namely the first, second and fifth, are eternally unsolvable and completely transcendent for the human mind. The other three - the third, fourth and sixth - are very difficult, but knowable. Nothing definite was said about the seventh.

Scientific knowledge of the universe has been carried out in the last four centuries. The sciences, the list of which is constantly growing, in particular solve the above-mentioned “world mysteries”, but a holistic scientific knowledge about the world has not been achieved. Individual discoveries, theories, or simply facts give relative knowledge, which is evidenced by big number worldviews, whose apologists often do not find unity of views on the seemingly fundamental laws of the universe.

There is certainly a reason for this. A holistic understanding of the world is not available to scientific knowledge because the very principle of scientific knowledge is limited - in the study of the world and man, the scientist relies solely on the mind, or - in Orthodoxy - on the rational forces of the soul, which excludes “holistic wisdom” - the perception of the world and man by a whole soul . Only such a perception leads a person to faith in God, which gives a holistic knowledge and a holistic worldview.

Scientific knowledge and religious knowledge - two different attitudes to the universe, which are often opposed in the form of antithesis “faith and/or knowledge” or “science and/or religion”. In fact, there is no contradiction or opposition between science and religion. These two attitudes to the world are still relatively incommensurable psychologically, but skepticism and atheism (belief that there is no God) are absolutely incommensurable. Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) writes that “although revealed knowledge is higher than natural knowledge, we still know that there can be no contradictions between true Revelation and true natural knowledge” 28 .

Some false ideas and stereotypes in the thinking of scientists and theologians, representing different ways of knowing the world and man, may contradict. In practice, skepticism and atheism of scientists often mutually condition each other - this is another proof of the internal incompleteness of scientific knowledge of the world, which leads to the relativity of scientific truths.

The relative incommensurability of modern scientific and religious knowledge is not an insurmountable category of being. The skepticism of scientists (which can be a positive phenomenon), the very development of science, which reveals the relativity of scientific truths, the return to ethical ideals in the pursuit of scientific truth, the development of natural science apologetics as an alternative to creation science, allow us to hope that in the future there will be a need for a productive dialogue between scientists and scientists. theologians. For this, it is important to identify and overcome false ideas and stereotypes (paradigms) of thinking.

In the controversy concerning the origin of life and the creation of man, a false stereotype of thinking of both scientists and theologians is “stuck” in the first chapters of the book of Genesis. The above information aims to just overcome this stereotype. The sixth day of Creation and the Old Testament Revelation about the creation of man after the new Creation in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 5:17) can no longer be the only basis for a dialogue between scientists and theologians. The fundamental principle must be the new creation and patristic anthropology. It has already been noted that in Genesis (chapters 1-3) there is a revelation that there will be a new creation: this is the promise of the Savior, the first medicine is leather garments, the immutability of the image of God in the old Adam - this revelation most often remains outside the dialogue about the origin of man .

Finally, some scientific fact- the keys of virginity in the feminine gender of a person - related to scientific anthropology, highlights otherwise the problem of the relationship between man and the animal world.

Without detracting from the opinions of St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa, expounded in their writings, one must keep in mind that in the 4th century the dogmas about the Savior's God-manhood were not set forth as clearly as in the writings of St. Maximus the Confessor and subsequent St. Fathers. Therefore, examining after seven Ecumenical Councils questions of the universe and the creation of man, it is impossible to remain at the level of the ideas of the great Cappadocians. The six-day creation as a genesis according to Maximus the Confessor and his Christology as a kinesis - eliminates many inaccurate opinions arising from ignoring Orthodox Christology.

True science, built on logical principles, exploring the material, in some (or perhaps most) of its facts, can also testify to spiritual truths.

Orthodox knowledge of being and man presupposes the assimilation of Truth as a whole-life state of a person with the involvement in the knowledge of all the forces of his personality - mind, will, sphere of feelings. Such knowledge is impossible outside the Church as the Body of Christ. Non-Orthodox knowledge of the universe and man gives knowledge only of relative truths and is characteristic of Protestant denominations, which usually rationalize the search for truth. This is due to the rejection of Christological dogmas and leads to delusions. An example is creation science, which emerged from creationism as a worldview. Creation science is a pseudoscience, since it leads theological and scientific thought away from the new creation in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 5:17), and moreover, causes confusion in the Christian understanding of monotheism, giving rise to interpret monotheism in Old Testament categories.

The theory of universal spontaneous evolution cannot be true knowledge, since man is animal-like, but not consubstantial with animals; the falsity of scientific evolutionary anthropogenesis casts doubt on the whole idea of ​​the origin of species through natural selection and the struggle for existence. The dialogue of religion and true sciences is possible and necessary to achieve a holistic knowledge of man and creation; the real possibility of dialogue depends on the development of natural-science Orthodox apologetics; this will overcome the eclecticism of creation science. A paradigm shift is needed in the dialogue and preaching of the Orthodox doctrine of the creation of the world - the stereotype of dialogue should be abandoned only within the framework of the first two chapters of Genesis and the Six Days of St. Basil the Great. The basis of the dialogue should be patristic Christology and anthropology.

religious knowledge

Unlike science, which is characterized by a readiness for self-refutation (far from always realizable) - up to the basic principles, religious knowledge - within the framework of any confession - is usually aimed at affirming and confirming the original dogmas, the creed (although, at the heart of scientific ideas, too, always there are certain postulates accepted without evidence and most often unprovable; scientists explicitly or implicitly defend them, defending them as if they were indisputable). Another difference: in knowledge religious world is regarded as a manifestation of divine plans and forces, while in science it is regarded as a relatively independent reality.

However, for the human sciences, in particular psychology, religious quests are of particular importance and often turn out to be deeper and more subtle than the traditional scientific approach. In addition, the problem of faith and religious consciousness is very important for a number of the world's leading psychologists - not only in terms of their personalities, but also in the construction of psychological theories and psychotherapeutic systems.

Dictionary of practical psychologist. - M.: AST, Harvest. S. Yu. Golovin. 1998 .

See what "religious knowledge" is in other dictionaries:

These include: scientific knowledge, everyday knowledge, artistic knowledge and religious knowledge ...

Cognition (philosophy)- Cognition is a set of processes, procedures and methods for acquiring knowledge about the phenomena and patterns of the objective world. Cognition is the main subject of the science of epistemology (theory of knowledge). Contents 1 Types (methods) of knowledge 1.1 ... Wikipedia

KNOWLEDGE The latest philosophical dictionary

Cognition- This article is about cognition in general. On cognition as a subject of study in psychology, see Cognitiveness Cognition is a set of processes, procedures and methods for acquiring knowledge about the phenomena and patterns of the objective world. Cognition is the main ... ... Wikipedia

Cognition (in philosophy)- Cognition is a set of processes, procedures and methods for acquiring knowledge about the phenomena and patterns of the objective world. Cognition is the main subject of the science of epistemology (theory of knowledge). Contents 1 Types (methods) of knowledge 2 Antiquity ... Wikipedia

Cognition- creative activity of the subject, focused on obtaining reliable knowledge about the world. P. is an essential characteristic of culture and, depending on its functional purpose, the nature of knowledge and the corresponding means, and ... ... Pedagogical terminological dictionary

KNOWLEDGE- creative activity of the subject, focused on obtaining reliable knowledge about the world. P. is an essential characteristic of the existence of culture and, depending on its functional purpose, the nature of knowledge and the corresponding means, and ... Sociology: Encyclopedia

Cognition: form this includes: scientific knowledge, everyday knowledge, artistic knowledge and p ... Great Psychological Encyclopedia

FREETHINKING- religious, or free-thinking, a wide trend of societies. thoughts that reject religion. prohibitions on rational comprehension of the dogmas of faith and upholding freedom for the mind in search of truth. Historically, S. manifested itself in various forms of criticism of religion ... Soviet historical encyclopedia

LIFE- Jesus Christ the Savior and the Giver of Life. Icon. 1394 (Art Gallery, Skopje) Jesus Christ the Savior and the Giver of Life. Icon. 1394 (Art Gallery, Skopje) [Greek. βίος, ζωή; lat. vita], Christ. theology in the doctrine of J. ... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia

Page 14 of 23

Religious method of knowledge

The word "method" means a way to something. In religion, this is the path to God, to the knowledge of Him and the world and man created by Him. This is how the meaning of this word has been interpreted since ancient times. The ancient Chinese category "tao" means "the righteous path, the path of Heaven." Confucius (VI-V centuries BC) defined Tao as a good way of social events and human life, depending both on "predestination" and on the individual. In the ancient Indian Upanishads, the idea is defended that the path to the god Brahma is associated with a long and difficult tension of all the spiritual forces of the personality (Atman). Indian "Yoga" sees the main path of human life in the direction of the soul to God. Buddhism teaches the "path" leading from the vanity of the world to the knowledge of causality and through this - to absolute peace - "nirvana". In Orthodoxy, the idea of ​​“smart doing” has been developed, i.e. performing prayers, vigils, fastings, prostrations with the conscious appeal of all feelings and thoughts to God. In Catholicism, medieval mystics developed a methodology mystical knowledge. As you can see, many methods are proposed. To some extent, this is understandable: religiosity and the path to God, to the knowledge of the world and man are individual for each person. Everyone goes to these goals in their own unique way: some rush to them immediately (Simeon New Theologian). Others, on the contrary, go with difficulty, looking for a direct path for a long time (say, the path to God by Av. Augustine, Gregory Palamas). And some generally almost from the first steps in life go in the opposite direction and never come to the knowledge of God, the world and man. As you can see, the paths are varied. However, they have something in common.

The unity of the religious method in a variety of ways and techniques leading to one goal - to the knowledge of God, the world and man. Its unity could be expressed in words: explaining the supernatural in natural ways. And in a way other than natural, a person cannot explain the supernatural. Therefore, it is correct to speak of unified religious method knowledge based on natural methods.

A.S. Khomyakov noticed one essential feature of the study of religion: “... the process of research in its application to questions of faith borrows its property from it and is completely different from research in the ordinary sense of the word. First, in the realm of faith, the world to be investigated is not the world external to man; for the man himself and the whole man, with all the integrity of reason and will, constitutes an essential part of him. Secondly, research in the realm of faith presupposes some basic data, moral or rational, which stand above all doubt for the soul, so that research is nothing but the process of intelligently uncovering these data.

Khomyakov sees the interaction of scientific and religious methods of cognition. He says in this regard: Orthodox Church the totality of these data encompasses the whole world with all the phenomena of human life, and the whole word of God, both written and expressed by dogmatic ecumenical Tradition ... the study itself in the field of faith, both by the diversity of the data subject to it, and because its goal lies in living truth , and not only logical, requires the use of all mental forces, in the will and in the mind, and, moreover, requires an internal study of these forces themselves. He should, so to speak, take into account not only the visible world, but also the strength and purity of the organ of vision.

Both theological and practical methods of knowledge are still in early years Christianity received an apt description: Clement of Alexandria and Origen gave a common name to the religious method - allegorical. Indeed, both in sacred writings and in church services there is a lot of conditional, poetic, one might say, theatrical. In science, the dominant position is occupied by logic, reasoning, proof, mathematical justification, experiment; in religion - an image, comparison, allegory, allegory. Dry, boring moral edifications leave people indifferent to sermons. The attractive aspects of the allegorical method are obvious: an aphorism, a parable, an image psychologically contain much more content than they express. Allegory often has the character of hyperbole, when the ordinary fact of life acquires the meaning of universality, divinity. This feature of the religious method was noted by A.S. Khomyakov, P.A. Florensky. The methods of religious thinking, wrote Florensky, "are somewhat reminiscent of poetry, folk poetry." In his book At the Watersheds of Thought, he emphasizes: “The symbolic nature of religious thinking is its essence. It is not a system of philosophical order. Any accusation of rational inconsistency is a complete misunderstanding. Unity comes from within.” In this, Russian Orthodox theology differs essentially from Western theology. In the West, man is a servant of God and nothing more. In Russian Orthodox theology, he is the creator.

Russian theologians give their interpretation of Holy Scripture. ON THE. Berdyaev writes:
"IN Holy Scripture we do not find the revelation of human creativity. It is not revealed, but hidden by God.” “The boldness of creativity was for me the fulfillment of the will of God, but the will is not open, but hidden ... An unusually bold thought that God needs man, man’s answer, man’s creativity. But without this boldness, the revelation of God-manhood loses its meaning.” These views of the Russian philosopher are full of optimism, inspire people with faith in the meaning of human life, open up the prospect of creativity for him, including after the completion of the divine judgment. The allegorical method of cognition received an original interpretation in the book by I.A. Ilyin Axioms of Religious Experience. Here he introduces the concept of “heart-felt insensible contemplation”, confirming its reality with allegorical arguments: the icon is revered as a “real shrine”, as a “visible reminder of God”, as a “call to Him”; the icon is like a “door to God”; it symbolizes the Divine Object, “giving a person the perception of “absent and invisible, but as if present and visible”; the icon is the embodiment of “sensual-prayer meditation”, etc.

The religious method of knowledge largely depends on the nature of the subject. Priest P.A. said this well. Florensky: “The method of cognition is determined knowable". According to Florensky, thinking is objective. It is not material (modern scientists already have data on the “materiality” of thinking), but objectively, it is embedded in the human gene pool. Therefore, Florensky develops his idea about the determining role of the object in cognition: “It’s all about the objectivity of ... thinking: the object of cognition is not constructed by ways and evidence, and therefore it is not comprehended from them, as is the case in subjective thinking, but, on the contrary, it is , although not analyzed, from the very beginning serves as the focus of thought.

The method of cognition in any field, including religion, involves an almost identical process, which includes an analysis of the state of an object, its assessment, based on this goal setting, selection of specific means and methods, conclusions and conclusions. The religious method of knowledge in this respect is no different from the scientific one. There is a mutual influence of two spiritual spheres here. Vladimir Solovyov in his fundamental work "The Justification of the Good" very clearly describes the process of cognition in Christian religion: “... Christianity (and it alone) is established on the idea of ​​a truly perfect person and a perfect society and, therefore, promises to fulfill the requirement of true infinity inherent in our consciousness ... To achieve this goal, it is necessary first of all to stop being satisfied with a limited and unworthy reality, it is necessary to renounce her ... This is only the first step, ... stopping at it, a person receives only emptiness ... Having cast aside the worthless reality, I must replace it with something worthy of existence, but for this I must first understand or assimilate for myself the very idea of ​​\u200b\u200bworthy being - this is the second a step represented by idealism ... It is clear that we cannot stop here, because truth is only conceivable, and not realized, not fulfilling all life, is not what is required, is not unconditional perfection. The third and final step that we can take thanks to Christianity is the positive realization of positive being in everything. The scheme of religious knowledge proposed by V.S. Solovyov, is very similar to the Hegelian general scientific scheme, which V.I. Lenin put it in the following words: “Human consciousness not only reflects the objective world, but also creates it. The world does not satisfy a person, and a person decides to change it by his action. The result of action is a test of subjective cognition and a criterion of true-existing objectivity. Solovyov limits the process of cognition only to religion, its specific denomination; Hegel and Lenin extend it to the whole world. Religious knowledge, therefore, in this case merges with scientific.

Home, one might say integral goal Orthodox theology - absolute perfection in the person of God and in the form of the kingdom of God. "Absolute perfection" - idee fix V.S. Solovyov. He is convinced that the kingdom of God is possible on earth. This idea literally permeates through his Justification of the Good. He writes in one place: “The moral principle, logically developed from a religious sensation, certainly not only presents its fullness of good ... as an idea or requirement, but also reveals the real forces contained in it, fulfilling this requirement, creating a perfect moral order, or the Kingdom of God. ... ". But if there is an ultimate goal - the absolutely perfect Kingdom of God on earth - then there is also the end of development, which means death. Solovyov understands this, but he cannot stop. He offers the ordinary mortal man a higher ideal, to which he should be equal, to judge himself by the measure of the ideal of a higher being.

The ideal exists in the soul of any person, both believer and non-believer. This is the image of an ideal person or a social ideal that incorporates ideas about something perfect. The ideal has a great unifying and driving force. It arises objectively, as the need for people to arrange their lives the best way. There is nothing religious about such an ideal. But in its psychological essence it coincides with the religious ideal. However, one must understand that the ideal is not eternal, capable of continuous self-development.

Earthly goals are always relative and tied to the specific historical needs of earthly people. This was well understood by Hegel, who said that earthly goals are always limited. The highest goal of the spirit is thinking. God is thinking. But the achievement of this highest goal is inaccessible to man, therefore he always mixes some comparisons and similarities with his desires, ideas. “There are many such forms in religion,” writes the famous philosopher, “which, as we know, should not be understood in their direct rational meaning. Thus, for example, "son", "birth" are only images borrowed from natural relations, and it is quite clear to us that they should not be understood in their immediacy; rather, their significance lies in the fact that only approximate attitude ... Further, it is quite obvious to us that the mention of God's anger, his regret, vengeance should not be understood in the literal sense, this is just a semblance, a comparison ... ”. “... in the idea of ​​the creation of the world, God is for himself on one side, and the world is on the other, the connection of both sides is not put in the form of necessity. This connection finds its expression either in an analogy from the life of nature and natural events, or, if it is defined as creation, this act takes on the character of something quite extraordinary and incomprehensible. It is clear that Hegel is not talking about the scientific method of cognition of religion, but, according to Origen's definition, about the allegorical method. There are no absolute goals in nature: in the course of achieving one goal, another, higher and richer goal arises; after its implementation, an even higher and richer one appears. And so on ad infinitum. The world is so diverse and changeable that the human mind is not able to foresee not only the final, absolutely perfect goals, but even the goals of the coming decades. Therefore, absolute knowledge of the world, of God, is an unattainable goal. In this sense, perhaps, Rev. Simeon, A.S. Khomyakov and I.A. Ilyin, when they say: the desire to know God is meaningless and one should not strive for this.

Religious philosophers and theologians worked hard on the principles of religious knowledge, thereby contributing to the identification and substantiation of the scientific theory of knowledge. One of the effective principles of knowledge is consistency, the honor of opening which is attributed to the modern Italian philosopher L. Bertalanfi. He really did a lot to develop it. But in the works of Russian philosophers A.S. Khomyakova (a hundred years before Bertalanffy), V.S. Solovyov (about half a century earlier than the generalizing work of L. Bertalanffy "The General Theory of Systems"), Russian religious philosophers gave a clear idea of ​​the essence of the system method in relation to religion. In the two-volume V.S. Solovyov, there is an essay on the life of the philosopher, written by A.F. Losev, where he gives an exposition of the systemic method of the great Russian thinker. Empiricism or the material principle of morality, traditional realism and sensationalism, rationalistic metaphysics, economic life and political life, religion are one-sided, or opposite to each other, suffer from abstraction, rationality...

“Truth ... is possible only if we recognize the whole reality, taking it as a whole, i.e. as general and as specific as possible. This means that truth is a being taken in its absolute unity and in its absolute plurality. In other words, truth is the all-one being.” The terminology is “non-systemic”, but the essence of the systemic method is set out as fully and expressively as possible.

It was the religious philosophers who noticed and convincingly demonstrated the insufficiency of the scientific method of cognition. A.S. Khomyakov back in the thirties of the nineteenth century. wrote: "There is no doubt that a proof based on a strict formula is less controversial than others and rather gives the truth the right of citizenship in the field of knowledge." But in the knowledge of reality, a significant role is played by artistic, poetic methods, in particular, the legends and beliefs of the people: "... more important than any material signs, any political structure, any relations between citizens among themselves, the legends and beliefs of the people themselves." The same idea was expressed almost a century later by P.A. Florensky.

A very important (and in some cases the only) method of religious knowledge was teamwork method fundamental tenets of faith. The Indians were the first to use this method. Its founder was Badarayana (c. 5th century BC). His service to the Indian people is that he gave the first set of ancient Vedas, created Vedanta . He also proposed the first methods of studying the Vedas. In the Vedas, two main themes stood out - ritual and Brahman. The study on the ritual was called the "First Study". And the study of texts about Brahman, which assumed a ritual behind it, was called "Later / Higher Study", or Vedanta. At first, the Vedas were classified by topic: for example, the topic of sacrifice, accompanied by judgments about the problems raised in this topic. In the process of such work, the principles of interpretation were developed, on the basis of which the “ thematic method of discussions", method " adhikarana", when various views on each topic were presented with arguments for and against, as well as a final judgment.

Veda is an ancient Indian tale.

Vedanta- organized meeting Indian Vedas about the beginning and development of the world, nature, man.

In Europe, collective methods of religious knowledge took shape in the form of ecumenical councils. Councils were usually convened when discussions on some essential issues of faith in the daily routine could not develop. In the third century, a strong heresy appeared in Christianity, named after its founder, Arius, - Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ. All discussions with Arius did not bring any results. He insisted that God the Father and God the Son are different entities, God the Son is subordinate to God the Father, is a product of God the Father. Then, in 325, the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea was convened, the main theme of which was the fight against Arianism and the development of the fundamental Christian dogma (or, in other words, the creed) about the Holy Trinity. The council rejected Arianism, found the term "homousios", which meant "unanimity", "consubstantiality" of God the Father and God the Son. Although the term provided an opportunity for a multi-variant interpretation of "homousios", it nevertheless handed over to the supporters of the unity of hypostases God the Father, God the Son, a more or less convincing argument. At other ecumenical councils - Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451) the dogma of the Holy Spirit was approved. Thus, at the ecumenical councils of 325-451. the Christian meaning of faith in the Holy Trinity was formed, representing the consubstantiality of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Other important questions of Christianity were also decided at the ecumenical councils.

Of course, these councils can be interpreted as a manifestation of the will of God, as much in Christianity receives just such an explanation. But at the same time, consciousness does not leave the thought that many divine issues were resolved on earth, by simple voting. This, in particular, is confirmed by the Orthodox art critic I.K. Yazykova: “In Byzantium, since the time of the Ecumenical Councils, it was customary to prove one’s point of view in public, theological disputes were constantly going on there, brought to cathedrals, debates, squares, and formed a rich polemical literature. In Rus' there was no tradition of theological dialogue, which came to Byzantium from the ancient heritage. In Rus', theology was different - liturgical life, monastic obedience, iconography were the main forms of theology.

The religious method absorbs all the previously obtained knowledge and clothes it in a religious form. P.A. Florensky called the process of cognition "round thinking", borrowing this image from the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides. “Circular thinking” does not reveal the truth immediately, but as the thought rotates around the subject: the researcher “suddenly discovers new approaches from center to center…”. He allowed the existence of "whirlpools of thought" "in their frank pre-scientific, pre-systematic". Without them, "without the original keys of thought, flowing from pre-mental depths ... do not understand large systems." Florensky also compared the religious method with the surf: “Themes leave and return, and leave again, and return again, and, enriched, each time filled with new content and the juice of life ...”. But all the themes are interconnected: “in the new ones, the old, already former ones sound… In the addition of the whole, each topic turns out to be connected in one way or another with each other… The connecting relationships here are multiple, vitally organic…”. It seems that these images accurately convey the essence of not only religious, but also scientific methods knowledge.