Content:

Religious delusions (paganism, pantheism, atheism, etc.) appear in the history of mankind just as early as other delusions (scientific, philosophic, political, etc.). We find refutations of them in profound antiquity. For instance, in the book Wisdom of Solomon, there are elements of cosmological proofs of the existence of God, and a historical refutation of the falsity of idol worship. In general, the Bible concerned itself very little with questions of proof of the existence of God since in biblical times very few doubted the existence of God. Belief in God then was so clear and strong that every doubt in His existence seemed simply lunatic or another form of psychic abnormality and irrationality.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God (Ps. 13:1). Ancient Greek philosophy, mainly in the persons of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, contributed much that is valuable for defending the foundations of religious beliefs and for criticizing atheistic and materialistic teachings.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, in view of the supernatural signs and miracles performed by Him, had no need to turn to so-called scientific and philosophical proofs to corroborate His teachings. For that time, faith alone was enough. Faith was summarized in a heartfelt reception of that which the extraordinary Teacher spoke about.

What could Christ’s answer be to Pilate’s question: What is truth? When He Himself — Truth incarnate — (I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life) stood before the questioner?

The Apostles and early Christians preached Christ crucified and resurrected as a veritable fact, and were not in need of any scientific and philosophical structures and dialectical subtleties. And preachers themselves, in the name of Christ, performed miracles through their faith. At first, Christianity was accepted only through faith, and only later did faith itself become an object of reflection.

Appearing in a Judeo-pagan world, Christianity, in defending itself from attack, was forced to disclose the delusions of the pagans and Hebrews. It was necessary to prove to the pagans that the Christian God is the true God; and to the Hebrews that Christ is the Messiah promised by the prophets. In answer to the persecutions of the governing powers, the Christians had to refute defamation and prove that they not only were not injurious to the government, but on the contrary, were very useful, in consequence of the high moral basis of the new teaching. This explains the character of early Christian Apologetics.

The most ancient Christian Apologetic belongs to Quadratus (written to the Roman Emperor Hadrian in 126 A.D.) The historian Eusebius cites a fragment on it in which Quadratus witnesses that some of those resurrected by Christ lived up to his own day.

Since Christianity was being accepted not only by ordinary and unlettered people, but also by people highly educated in philosophy and acquainted with all of the Hellenistic wisdom, the latter most naturally began to defend the new Christian truths in the light of rationalistic, philosophical achievements of honorable, worldly knowledge. In answer to the criticism of Christianity by the pagan savants and philosophers Flavious Arrianus (+96 A.D.), Lucian of Samasata (120-200 A.D.), Celsus (2^nd century), and later the Neoplatonists Porphyrious (233-304), Philostratus (+217), Hierocles (+305) and others, Christianity put forth remarkable apologists from among former pagan philosophers and savants who had accepted Christianity. Among them were such as Apollos (mentioned by Apostle Paul), Justin the Philosopher (100-165), his pupil Tatian, Quadratus (mentioned above as the first apologist), Aristides, (the full text of whose apology was found by Randall Harrison in 1889), the philosopher Athenagoras, then Pantaenus (formerly a Stoic philosopher), Clement of Alexandria and others.

In the struggle between the young Christian idea and the age old pagan philosophy, an urgent need became apparent: to show forth Christianity as a coherent system of thought or philosophy with a reasonable argumentation which could be contrasted to and could respond to pagan philosophical systems. In connection with this, a new problem appeared. It was necessary to decide in principle the question of the relationship of intellect to faith and philosophy to Christianity, in order to resolve the perplexing questions which were arising concerning the proper place of science in regard to Christian faith. The appearance of new heresies also suggested the same problem. In view of this, some Fathers and teachers of the Church began to deem it necessary to reveal the dogmas of faith with the help of logical methods and to fashion them into a system, setting up against the false gnosticism of heretical schools the true gnosticism of the Christian Church. These teachers of the Church gave a wide scope to their intellect in investigating and defining the dogmas of faith. Other teachers and church writers, believing the cause of heresy to lie in the heretics’ faulty understanding of the role of human intellect and therefore in their improper application of it to Christian dogmas, endeavored to expound Church teaching using only Revelation as a basis.

The main defender of intellect and philosophy was the so-called Alexandrian School. In Alexandria, that center of learning, with its schools and institutes of learning eclipsing famous Athens, the Christian Church for the first time mastered school learning and took advantage of philosophy for the service of faith. Working here were philosophers who had turned to Christianity, among whom was Clement of Alexandria. Clement, in a definitive manner, solved the question of the relationship between Christianity and philosophy, faith and science, in terms of a full recognition of the participation of honorable intellect in matters of faith. According to Clement, there is no knowledge without faith, and no faith without knowledge. He contended for the indispensability of a faith revealed by learning and supplied with possible proofs, and for an internal bond of faith and knowledge.

Knowledge obedient to faith, and faith strengthened by knowledge, both accompanying each other, comprise a beneficial accord between themselves. Knowledge succeeds faith; it does not precede it. Clement of Alexandria, the first to attempt to prove Christian theology through knowledge and philosophy, can be called the ancestor of Apologetics as a science.

The same thoughts about the benefits of science and the participation of intellect in matters of faith were also spread by Origen, a pupil of Clement. The thesis of Origen, On First Principles, was the first attempt to create a theological system in which the dogmas of faith are linked, argued, and elucidated by general thought.

A sharp contrast to the Alexandrian school was presented by the North-African school. The most characteristic representation of it was a Carthagenian priest, Tertullian. He sharply denied all that Clement and Origen affirmed. Having accepted Christianity at a mature age, he gave himself to it with the passion of his ardent nature — to fanaticism. Tertullian completely denied the importance of the intellect in uncovering the dogmas of faith. In his opinion, "heresy is the daughter of philosophy." "Believing in Jesus Christ and the Gospel, we have no need to believe in anything else but that." "The lust of curiosity concerning objects of faith must be completely rejected; the passion toward science must be suppressed by a yearning for salvation." "I believe because it is an absurdity."

Neither Origen nor Tertullian were recognized by the Church as Fathers and unimpeachable Orthodox Church teachers. They were even subjected to censure and condemnation. But the influence of some of their works was considerable. The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa, were partly educated on Origen. St. Cyprian of Carthage was a pupil of Tertullian.

The influence of the Alexandrian school proved to be considerably stronger. In the 4^th century, the Christians of the East had neither a fear of intellect, an apprehension of science, nor an enmity towards pagan philosophers. St. John Chrysostom was a pupil of the pagan scholar Livanius, a teacher of eloquence. St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory the Theologian received their higher education in pagan Athens.

All Greek theology during the brilliant, lively and creative age of the Ecumenical Councils, to a certain extent, shows the mark of classic Greek philosophical methods. This period ends with "The Fountain of Knowledge," St. John of Damascus (7^th century).

The extremely brusque, universal dogmatic formula of Tertullian, "Credo quia absurdum" ("I believe because it is an absurdity"), finally was not accepted either in the East or in the West.

The intellect was acknowledged also as having been given to man by God, and for this reason harmony was reached between true scientific-philosophical knowledge and true religious faith, and the motto of Christian Apologetics became the affirmation: "I believe because it is not an absurdity."

In the history of Apologetics it is impossible not to note the great importance of St. Dionysius of Alexandria (often called the Great), a prominent philosopher and theologian of the 3^rd century. In his work, "Of Nature," is contained a deadly criticism of the teaching of Epicurius about the origin of the earth as the consequence of a collision of atoms. Developing the ideas of Origen against materialistic atheism, St. Dionysius of Alexandria proved with exceeding conviction that the relationship of atoms is possible only on condition that they are subordinated to the universal governing force of Divine Providence.

The great Fathers and teachers of the Church of the epoch of the Ecumenical Councils were not only firm in faith and devoted to the Gospel and of holy life, but were also widely educated in science and possessed a philosophical depth of thought and a dialectical delicacy.

Notwithstanding the greater practical aim of the Latin West, the limitation of its education in comparison to the Hellenized East, and the weakness of its interest in delicate abstractions, the West also did not follow Tertullian, its first teacher and author, but followed the eastern teachers. For a long time, the West learned from the Christian East, as once stern Rome learned from subjugated Greece.

In the epoch of the Ecumenical Councils, great apologetic significance was possessed in the East by many works of St. Athanasius the Great (296-373), St. Basil the Great (329-379), St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444 A.D.), the Blessed Theodoret (+457 A.D.), and others. At this time theologians active in the field of Apologetics in the West were St. Vincent of Lerins (+450 A.D.), Lactantius (+325 A.D.), and especially the Blessed Augustine (354-430), that greatest theologian and apologist of the West. In his work The City of God, making use of the method of Neo-Platonic philosophy, he demonstrated that the best form of a state is found in the heavenly kingdom of the Christian Church. The Blessed Augustine passionately defended intellect and recommended dialectics for theologians. The creative activity of the Christian East flourished during the era of the Ecumenical Councils.

During the Middle Ages the attention of the historian begins to be attracted by the West. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) gave a so-called ontological proof of the existence of God which later was highly regarded by such gifted philosophers as Descartes, Liebnitz and Hegel. Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274) composed a complete philosophic-apologetic system which to this day is the basis for the teaching of Apologetics in Catholic schools.

The predominant direction in the Middle Ages was the so-called scholasticism, which turned its attention mainly to dogmatics, and subjected all church dogmas to a trivially fine, dry, rationalistic analysis. Besides Thomas Aquinas, the more noted Scholastics were: Albertus the Great (1193-1280), Alexander de Hales (+1245), and John Duns (Duns Scotus) (+1308). But side by side with Scholastics, the West also found mysticism, of whom the most vivid representatives were Bernard of Clairvaux (+1153) and Bonaventure (+1274).

Amid the mass of new ideas and theories in the providence of philosophy and science during the epoch of the so-called Renaissance, the western theologians could not at first come to an appraisal. They laughed at the affirmation by Columbus of the spherical shape of the earth and the existence of the antipodes, and persecuted the gifted Copernicus and Galileo for their discoveries. Some of the western theologians even fought against the observations and results of exact natural investigations.

The Eastern (Orthodox) Church, however, was blameless in regard to hostility against the progress of science. As to this, there exists impartial, historical and scientific testimony of representatives of western science themselves. For instance, the famous Draper, in his well-known historic research, "The History of the Struggle Between Religion and Science," (there is a Russian translation entitled, The History of the Relationship Between Catholicism and Science,) says: "The Greek Church was innocent of opposing science. On the contrary, she always treated knowledge favorably. She maintained a respect for truth, no matter where it came from. Noticing contradictions between her own interpretations of the revelations of truth and the discoveries of science, she always expected that satisfactory explanations and reconciliation would follow, and in this she was not mistaken."

Concerning this, Professor N.P. Rozhdestvensky, in his Christian Apologetics, notes in complete fairness: "It can be said with extreme probability, that all important collisions of western theology with natural science would not have taken place if the western church had remained in communion with the Orthodox Church and had remained true to the breadth of the latter’s view concerning the relationship between faith and science, a view which results from the firm conviction in the immutability of the eternal truth of Christianity."

A new period inflicted a heavy blow to the papacy and the scholasticism of the Middle Ages, as a result of which Catholic scholastic theology fell into decline. But this decline did not mean the fall of theology in general.

The German Reformation stimulated new religious interests and evoked a new theological science, broad and diverse, and receptive to all sorts of new scientific influences and, as a result of this, divided itself into many schools and directions.

The Holy Scripture was again recognized as the main source of religious knowledge and all theology; the Bible, forgotten in the Middle Ages, again acquired respect and interest. But with this the authority of the Church was shaken, and a new Protestant dogma began to be built on the denial of the authority of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, the Ecumenical Councils and general intellectual reason, (which Luther regarded as blind and dull in its nature). In the opinion of Protestants, struggling with Catholic rationalism, an understanding of the Holy Scriptures should be guided not by the intellect, but by a spontaneous feeling. This gave rise to an extreme subjectivism, which soon evoked a fully natural and rightful reaction in defense of intellect. But the principle of freedom of investigation and interpretation of the Bible, not guarded by the guidance and authority of the Ecumenical intellect of the Church, led to the development of a new Protestant rationalism, differing from Catholic rationalism in the arbitrariness of its individual intellect.

Based on this rationalistic ground, an immense Protestant scholasticism soon rose, not submitting to the old type of the Middle Ages in the scrupulousness of its definitions and refinements of analysis. Concerning Apologetics, the Reformation forced the defense of general, more important truths to retreat to a secondary importance before the defense of private religious convictions.

An impulse to the further development of Apologetics was the movement toward so-called deism. Deism is a religious, philosophical teaching denying Revelation and Divine Providence. The progenitor of deism was the Englishman, Lord Cherberry, in the 17^th century. Deism, in the form of a recognition of God as Creator and a denial of God as Divine Providence, was especially propagated in the 18^th century. Belonging to the list of deists were Shaftesbury (1671-1713), Tindal (1657-1733), Voltaire (1694-1778), Rousseau (1712-1778). (Kant and Darwin, with certain reservations, can also be rated deists.) Many deists defended some general Christian truths very strongly and intelligently and so provided weapons for the struggle with unbelief. But for authentic Christian Apologetics this was not enough. Arguments began among apologists. Some thought it possible to interpret and base Christianity altogether on reason, for instance. Tindal; others, conversely, insisted it is above reason.

From among all these savants and philosophers came quarrelling and often the corruption of Christianity. Distinguishing himself is the remarkable personality of Pascal (1623-1662), a highly gifted French mathematician and a deeply religious thinker, the great apologist of the 17^th century. (For a good example, see his Thoughts on Religion.)

The philosophy of Descartes (the French mathematician and philosopher who died in 1650), which because of his idealistic character accepted the innateness of ideas and a super-sensible world, had a kinship with Christian views and therefore was used by theologians interested in the defense of the Christian faith, especially his new deliberations in connection with ontological proof of the existence of God.

The principal enemy fought by German Apologetics in the 17^th and 18^th centuries was the pantheism of Spinoza (1631-1677). A great deal of merit in the battle with him belongs to the German philosopher, Liebnitz (+1716). The philosophy of Leibnitz, in many ways, assisted the work of a scientific defense of Christianity. In contrast to the gloomy pantheism of Spinoza, it presented a bright philosophical view, examining the world as a creation of the Almighty, All-Wise, All-Blessed Creator. Against the mechanical theories of the formation of the world, it presented the harmonious system of theological outlook. Against the hypotheses of accidental world order, it presented the teaching of predetermined harmony. Against the atheistic theories, it presented philosophical proof of the existence of God, especially the cosmological and theological, and also the truth of the immortality of the soul. The philosophy of Liebnitz therefore gave ammunition for the disproof of materialism, skepticism, and, in part, deism. The philosopher himself took care that his basic philosophic views were reconciled with Christian teaching on God’s Providence, Revelation, Redemption, the freedom of man’s will, and the agreement of faith and intellect.

Near the end of the 18^th century, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant gave a critique of all proofs of the existence of God which were then known, and then proposed his own new proof (a special form of ethical proof of the trust of the existence of God). Just as the critique itself, so the new experiment in proving this truth evoked a great rise of interest in Apologetics and contributed to the growth as a particular theological science.

In the first half of the 19^th century there was a strong current in both science and philosophy which tried to reconcile knowledge and religion. The authority of the learned Cuvier (1769-1832) illuminated in natural science the religious understanding of nature. The idealistic systems of German philosophy gave material for a philosophical foundation for these attempts. But the spirit of liberalism and rationalism, penetrating from philosophy to theology, deeply perverted the very principles of Protestant theological investigations. Having conquered scholasticism, Protestant rationalism armed itself against Church dogma in general and even against the Holy Scripture. Objections were raised against the godliness of the origin of Christianity; the human origin of the Holy Scripture was asserted. The miracles, prophesies and, in general, everything supernatural began to be denied. The Holy Scripture began to be studied just like any other ancient literature. Philosophy began to subordinate theology to itself. Dogmatics were adapted according to the philosophic principles of Kant (1724-1804), Fichte (1762-1814), Schelling (1775-1854) and Hegel (1770-1831). The historic church understanding of dogma, the fruit of ten centuries of Ecumenical intellect and experience of the saints, began to be ignored.

Especially great was the harm brought by the German Protestant negative school of historical criticism, known under the name of the New Tubingen School of Theology, the organizers of which were Strauss (1808-1874) and Bauer (1809-1882). This school, having gathered from the past century all that was done by negative criticism in denying the authenticity of biblical books and scriptural miracles, etc., added considerably to these negative results. Armed by them, it took the field not only against Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, but also against the Person of the Godly Founder of Christianity Himself. Books by Strauss (1808-1874), Schenkel (1813-1885) and others in support of these ideas began to appear, among them The Life of Jesus by Renan (1823-1892) and The Substance of Christianity by Feuerbach (1804-1872).

The philosophical system of Hegel had a powerful and long lasting influence on the method of western scientific, theological Apologetics. This is explained by the fact that Hegel, in his system, gave primary importance to the religious-philosophical outlook which concerned itself with the scientific basis for religious truths, and sharply objected to those theories which denied the benefits and even the possibility of the application of a scientific method to theology (Kant, Jacobi (1743-1819), Schleiermacher (1768-1834)).

For many Protestant theologians, the authority of Hegel became such as was Plato’s to neo-Platonism and Aristotle to the scholasticism of the Middle Ages. But the efforts to conciliate Christian theology with the rationalistic system of Hegel brought sorry results: God Himself was transformed into a mere idea, and Christian theism was turned into deism and pantheism.

In the history of Catholic theology such waverings as those seen in Protestant theology have not been recorded. Thomas Aquinas remains till now the greatest authority of Catholic dogmatics and Apologetics.

During the 19^th and 20^th centuries, the struggle with Kant, Hegel, the materialism of Feuerbach and Karl Marx, the positivism of A. Comte (1798-1857) and other philosophic movements, hostile or foreign to Christianity, led to the appearance of many valuable philosophical works, having also a great apologetic meaning.

A profound crisis and, following it, the unique development of physico-mathematical sciences in the 20^th century also produced a lot of new apologetic material.

One of the greatest contemporary physicists, mathematicians, astronomers and thinkers, James Jeans (1877-1946), drawing upon the colossal amount of material gathered by atomic research in the last half century, arrives at the deduction that the matter now found in the universe, "did not exist endlessly," and closes his deliberation with the statement, "the hand of God evoked it."

The defense of particular truths and the refutation of many particular theories was chiefly the work of Catholic theologians, while the general defense of Christian truths became mainly the work of Protestant theologians.

Orthodox Apologetics, however, has always tried to give an intellectual synthesis of both general and particular apologetic problems, using as a cornerstone the positive method of building the organically whole Christian world-view. The literature of Apologetics is unusually vast, diverse and almost boundless. But, from a strictly Orthodox point of view, a fully complete, whole and deeply absorbing textbook of Apologetics has not yet been prepared.

Among the various works on Apologetics written in the 19^th and 20^th centuries, worthy of note are: Ulrici (1806-1884), God and Nature; F. Hettinger (1819-1890), Apology of Christianity; and J. Ebrard (1818-1888), Apologetics. All of these works are also translated into Russian.

Of the Orthodox Russian works in Apologetics, noteworthy are the classic work of the Moscow Metropolitan, Macarius (Bulgakov), An Introduction to Orthodox Theology, (6^th edition, St. Petersburg, 1897); a remarkable two volume textbook for religious academies by Professor N.P. Rozhdestvensky, Christian Apologetics — A Course of Fundamental Theology (2^nd edition, St. Petersburg, 1893); and an original investigation of dogmatic theology from an apologetic point of view, by the Professor V. Rev. P.Y. Svetlov, Experiment of Apologetical Exposition of Orthodox Christian Doctrine, Vol. I and Vol. II (Kiev, 1898). These remarkable works have not lost their meaning even up to the present time.

Also deserving attention are some other Russian textbooks. For instance, Father Augustine’s, A Manual of Fundamental Theology; Professor V. Rev. D.A. Tichomirov’s, A Course in Fundamental Theology, St. Petersburg, 1887; Professor V. Rev. Kudryavtsev’s Short Course of Lectures in Orthodox Theology (2^nd edition, Moscow, 1898); Piantnitsky’s Fundamental Theology; Eleonsky’s Brief Report on Fundamental Theology; Petropavlovsky’s In Defense of Christian Faith Against Unbelief and several others.

The word religion as explained by Lactantius, Blessed Jerome and Blessed Augustine is derived from the word "religare" — to tie, to unite, or as Blessed Augustine emphasizes, possibly from "reeligere" — to reunite. Lactantius defines the nature of religion as a union of man with God. Blessed Augustine defined it as a reunion of man with God.

There is no doubt that every religion presents in itself a tie, a union or reunion and communion with a higher world or a higher being, with a higher absolute worth, that is, with that which is called God.

At the foundation of all religions lies faith. Faith is an intricate, syncretic (that is, syncretic at first) capability of the mind, feeling and will (the triune harmony of all these spiritual powers of man), directed to understanding that which is inaccessible for the mind alone. Where it is enough for the efforts of the mind alone to understand something, there is no need to turn to faith. But in a case where the mind alone is incapable and helpless, faith is essential.

Faith can be just or righteous (faith in the Truth) and it can be mistaken or deluded (faith in a falsehood). Where and in what is the criterion of true faith? This criterion consists of the so-called pragmatic justification or accusation of that which is accepted in faith by life itself. By their fruits ye shall know them (Matt. 7:20). The intellect can never strictly-logically, strictly-scientifically, mathematically-accurately prove that which was perceived with the aid of faith. Where such proof is possible, faith is unnecessary. It is not necessary to have faith in something which can be known simply. The intellect also can never exactly disprove that which became known by true faith. If such disproof is possible, then faith was a mistake. In short, only that can be believed which can not be disproved, and the possibility of which can be proved.

From this it is plain that the basic truths of religion are inaccessible to the mind alone, and, therefore, perceived through faith, can and must be defended as indisputably possible. Fundamental Theology or Apologetics does engage in proving their problematical authenticity.

Every sensible, normal and critically thinking person, developing spiritually, sooner or later sets before himself a whole line of questions about the nature, meaning and aim of life, personally as well as for all mankind and for the whole universe. What is life? What is the origin of all existing things? Is there a God, Creator of all things, or does the world exist without a Creator? If there is a God, can we have a possible communion with Him? Does there exist another world, besides the visible one? What is matter? What is conscience? What is the spirit? What is "I"? What is death?

Does the soul exist and does it possess immortality? In what does the meaning and aim of the existence of the world and man consist? What will be the end of world history and creation in general? What is good and evil? Can the absolute Truth be known? How must one live, and what must one aspire to?

The answers to these questions comprise the religious foundation of every world-view. In the building of this foundation, all the spiritual forces of man take part: first of all the will (will to Truth), then the senses and the mind.

The most important question which must be answered in building this foundation is: Is there an absolute Truth (that is, God), and can It be comprehended? For if there is no absolute Truth, then life has no meaning and no aim.

The solution of this religious problem can be many-sided:

1. Skepticism is a doubt of everything; included in this is the doubt of the existence of God. His answer as to the question of God (the absolute Truth) is such: "I don’t know."
2. Criticism (Kant) is a declaration that the absolute Truth (God) is not perceptible. His answer: "I cannot know" shows it is impossible to prove exactly by science.
3. Positivism (Comte) is a declaration that mankind in its growth passes through three stages: theological, when faith predominates, metaphysical, when speculative philosophizing predominates, and positive, when science predominates. The answers of positivism as to the existence of God and the absolute Truth is such: "I don’t want to know this."
4. Atheism is the assertion that there is no God. Atheism is itself a belief, since to know that there is no God is impossible. Atheism is faith that there is no God, a faith in an un-God.
5. Pantheism is a belief that God and nature are one and the same thing. This cannot be known, but can be believed and is therefore also a kind of faith.
6. Deism is a belief in God only as the originator and Creator of the world and its laws, but denies God as providentially caring for His creation.
7. Theism is a belief in God not only as the Creator and original cause, but also as the Intellect of the universe: Man can be in communion with God through the Sacraments and prayer. The most complete aspect of theism is represented by Orthodox Christianity. Let us briefly analyze these views.

Skepticism is fruitless. It is appeased in its "I don’t know," and does not make a moral or spiritual effort of the will to perceive the absolute Truth (God). Consistent skepticism must question its own personal doubts; that is, it becomes completely impotent in questions of any kind of perception of the world and man.

Criticism in the final analysis is only the recognition of the limitation of scientific knowledge and rational method.

Positivism presents in itself a combination of a peculiar skepticism (theological and philosophical) with a naïve belief in science. Cutting itself off from the most important and urgent queries of man’s spirit, positivism emasculates itself as a world-view, and changes into a conglomeration of scientific knowledge suitable only for the satisfaction of shallow practical questions of life. Positivism suffers through the absence of a will to the Truth.

Atheism, being a belief in the absence of God and absolute Truth, becomes entangled in a mass of contradictions and is incapable of building not only a complete world-view, but even a more or less satisfactory theory of matter, which it tries to idolize, imputing to it absolute virtues.

Pantheism, identifying God and nature as one, also is enmeshed in insoluble contradictions, since it is unable to explain the origin, aim or meaning of the world and man, nor the expedience of the universe, the origin of evil, or moral law.

Deism, denying the Providence and Revelation of God, cannot give any answers to the most urgent questions of man’s spirit.

Only Theism, and, especially in most complete form — the true Christian religion — gives the most orderly, complete, deep, wide, reasoned, proved, convincing, and, at the same time, the most bright, joyous and vital world-view.

At the foundation of the Christian religion lies a thirst for Truth and a will to Truth. There must be absolute Truth, and I want to know it no matter what happens! From this act of will (the will to Truth) is begun the building of a Christian world-view!

After this ethical effort of the will, the honest critical mind of a seeker immediately and categorically declares: But man, being a part of the whole world, not being the Creator, but a creature of this world, and limited by the time of birth and death and the length of his life, is incapable of independently knowing the whole, complete, boundless world, to comprehend the thought, ideas and aims of its Creator and to understand the reason and aim of the life of the world and of his own life. For an insignificant part cannot perceive the absolute whole!

The absolute Truth is incomprehensive to man! However, there is just one condition under which the recognition of this Truth is possible! If there exists an Absolute, All-Perfect, Higher Being (God), Who is the Individual, the Originator of everything, the Creator, the Conceiver of the world, and, if this absolute Being (God), desires to reveal the absolute truth to man, then, and only then, can this Truth become accessible to our consciousness. In other words, the absolute truth is either unknowable (in which case life is meaningless), or can be known only through God’s revelation to people! The absolute Truth is revealed by God! But does such revelation of God exist? Yes, it exists, and it is precisely this which comprises the foundation of the Orthodox faith!

Christ spoke of this clearly, plainly and definitely: I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). That is, I am the Method (Way) of perceiving the Truth; I am Myself the incarnate Truth (everything I say is the Truth, for I reveal to people the will of God, My Father), and I am the Life (without Me there cannot be life). How shall we regard these words of Christ? We can believe them or disbelieve them! Man has a free will and on his free will depends the choice of what to believe! If we choose to disbelieve, then this means we have chosen "to believe in naught."

It is extremely important to understand, therefore, clearly and definitely, that nothing interferes with the possibility of accepting a faith in God, in Christ, and in God’s revelations!

For one who proceeds with faith in God, there are no contradictions or hindrances in the process of building a complete world-view; quite the contrary, it is precisely here that the only possibility of knowing the absolute Truth, which man so thirsts to know, is revealed!

Only when one’s knowledge is merely a superficial knowledge (which, in the words of Bacon, often draws one away from God) does there arise before man’s intellect imaginary contradictions between faith and knowledge, between religion and science. However, with a deeply penetrating knowledge (which, again according to Bacon, draws one near to God), these imaginary contradictions disappear without a trace. This is why Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Descartes, Pascal, Leibnitz, Newton, Pasteur, Roentgen, Lomonosov, Mendeleyev, Pavlov, Einstein, Bergson, Plank, Jeans, and other famous world scholars of all times and peoples were deeply religious people!

Ordinary people, not tempted by science and philosophy, but being close to nature and having clean hearts, also believe in God.

Atheists, however, in most cases are half-educated people. Even among scholars there are many such people, perhaps highly qualified in their own narrow field, but incompletely educated and philosophically illiterate. An atheist is always defective — either in intellect, in moral philosophy or in will (wicked will).

Atheists are people who do not believe in the existence of a Supreme Being, called God. Some do not believe in God because no one ever told them about Him, and they never came across a thought about God themselves. Others do not reject the existence of God in principle, though they live so as if He and His Law are not for them. These can be counted as practicing atheists. Finally, there are people who principally reject the existence of God, and who wish to justify their disbelief by scientific or philosophical arguments. These can be called convinced atheists. Theoretical, principal atheism often turns into active theomachism, implanted by violence, as it occurs in communist countries.

Theoretical atheism is in its essence an anti-religion, because it is also based on belief. As religions are formed on faith in the existence of God, so atheism builds on the belief that He does not exist. Indeed, if God is a spirit, then how can material devices "prove" that He does not exist? This is comparable to rejecting the existence of the Earth’s magnetic field on the basis of barometric readings. Atheism replaces belief in God with a belief in self-sufficiency of matter and laws of nature.

As a mass phenomenon, atheism has come into existence over the last two hundred years. It is the result of separation of humans from direct contact with nature, which occurred when significant amounts of population started to move from countryside to towns. Psychology believes that humans have an inherent desire to comprehend the cause and purpose of existence. Contemplating the fundamental questions of existence, man comes to faith in the Maker of the Universe. Nature helps man on his way to the Deity, for at his every step nature’s beauty, splendor, harmony and purposefulness speak of God, His omnipotence and goodness. In the past people used to be closer to nature, and an atheist was a rare bird. It is common knowledge that since pre-historic times the idea of a supreme being has been widely spread among people at all stages of development. "Look at the face of the earth," wrote Plutarch (1st century AD), — and you will see townships without fortification, sciences or hierarchy, you will see people without permanent dwelling, not knowing money, having no idea of the fine arts, but you will not find any one human community without a belief in a Divinity." This testimony is still in force when applied to people who live close to nature, though their concepts of God may be imperfect and childishly naive.

On the other hand, the life of modern townspeople flows in daily fuss, traffic noise, a jungle of concrete, smoke and crime. It gives no noble, lofty feelings; quite on the contrary, it mutilates and spoils any spiritual properties. It is therefore not surprising that atheism, and a variety of psychiatric deviations, propagate predominantly among megalopolis inhabitants.

Religion-less and anti-religious teaching systems in a few modern educational institutions also facilitate the spread of atheism. The Biblical narrative about the origins of the world and man is often criticized in textbooks and classrooms. Instead of adding data to expand on the Bible’s information, scientific discoveries are set in opposition to the inspired truths, in order to forge a conflict between faith and knowledge. Sometimes, teachers or professors ridicule the principles of faith and moral in the open. Not many youths have enough independence of thought to see that their educators’ anti-religion assaults are not based on objective scientific data, but on private opinions of people reluctant to religion. These students’ parents need a lot of knowledge and skill to save their belief in God.

Sin casts gloom over intelligence and dulls conscience, and unruly living tends to loosen faith in God. It happens that youths, brought up in religious families and ardently believing during childhood, give up to temptation of sinful pleasures and get stuck in the spider web of fleshly passions. After several years of sinful life, they retain very little of their former innocence, modesty and goodness. They become impudent, evil and shameless. Religious doubts arise alongside vice, and can lead to faithlessness, unless youths recollect themselves and turn to God in repentance.

One consequence of atheism is despair. It is not usually recognized by non-believers, but it takes roots in his subconscious and begins to determine his style of life. Once there is no God, there is no afterlife, no reward for labors and good works. That is why an atheist, while still alive, has to hastily use all life’s available pleasures. Once there is no God, moral law is relative and man defines the difference between good and evil. Of course, laws of state, shame, fear or merely practical concerns may to an extent restrain the desire to grasp the pleasures and delights of life by any means, but they would not change an essentially atheistic mindset. Beasts and insects can be cruel to their prey. But there is no creature more dangerous and brutal than a man without supreme moral guidance. A man like that can cause harm not for benefit, but for some perverse pleasure. He takes revenge on others because of his own bad luck. But he is unfortunate because he has no future. This explains why the most senseless and brutal crimes are committed in countries governed by atheism.

How can man come to faith in God, or strengthen belief in His existence? Philosophy and apologetics have the so-called "arguments for the existence of God." They say that admission of the existence of God logically comes out of observation of the order of nature, spiritual qualities of humans and historical facts. Retelling these arguments here would take too much space. We only wish to say that no external proof of the existence of God can substitute for man’s convincing inner spiritual experience. God is a Spiritual Being and may not be studied by any regular scientific methods, but the human soul, created in His image and after His likeness, can be in touch with Him. When a man makes an effort and throws off the darkness of vanity, in which his life is depleted, and takes his heart to follow the Divine light that surrounds, then he can see and hear God. This intimate sense of Divinity cannot be proven or explained to others because it is in the realm of inward experience. Whoever does not have such experience will not realize what you are speaking about.

This personal experience of fellowship with Divine Grace becomes to man the most convincing proof of the existence of God. It obliges him to change his moral life and to learn to sacrifice himself for the sake of obedience to the Supreme Will. Many people are afraid to bother their consciences, and are not willing to give up their sinful lifestyle, and therefore make no attempt to improve themselves and have fellowship with the light of the Divinity. But those who are in fellowship with this light find in it a source of spiritual power, peacefulness and heavenly joy.

For a deeper understanding of the essence of religion, an explanation should be given of its relationship to other facets of the spiritual life of man. Most important is an explanation of the relationship of religion to morality, to science and to the arts.

The first and main relationship between religion and morality is the relationship of their inalienable reciprocal action. Religion and morality are tightly bound together. Religion is not possible without morality, and morality is not possible without religion. Faith without deeds is dead. With such a faith only demons believe (believe and tremble). True faith, however (alive, not dead), cannot be without good deeds. As a naturally fragrant flower cannot but be sweet-smelling, so true faith cannot but be testified to by good morality. In its turn morality, too, without a religious foundation and religious light, cannot exist and must certainly wither, like a plant deprived of a root, moisture and sun.

Religion without morality is similar to a sterile fig tree; whereas morality without religion is similar to a fig tree which has been cut down. However, the close and unbreakable reciprocal tie between religion and morality does not at all make them identical. In order for this to be understood, it is necessary that along with their relationship, we show their difference. Even many prominent philosophers did not understand this difference.

For instance, Kant asserted: "Religion in itself or objectively differs in nothing from morality, in that the general objectives of one and the other consist of ethical obligations; the difference between religion and morality is only formal" (The Dispute of the Faculties, 1798). This formal difference, according to Kant, consists in the fact that religion rouses us to regard our ethical obligations not just as the demands of ethical duty, but as godly commandments.

The view that the heart of a religion is in teaching on morality and that all the rest is only its "form" was asserted long ago. Such in essence is the teaching of Buddha and of Confucius. In ancient Greek philosophy, the Stoics regarded morality higher than religion. Leo Tolstoy also identified religion with morality.

The difference between a religious feeling and a moral feeling may be understood if we focus on the differing psychology of these experiences and on the difference in their objectives. An ethical feeling is characterized by a movement toward the ethically good, that is, "right" or "appropriate" conduct; a religious feeling, however, tends towards the infinite, that which is perfect in all respects toward the Absolute. The aim of the former is the satisfaction of the demands of moral duty and a longing for ethical perfection; the aim of the latter is unity with God.

Christianity asserts categorically that without the help of God it is impossible to do anything, even to live: Without Me you can do nothing (John 15:5). Every plant, which My heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up (Matt. 15:13). I am the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6).

Therefore, between religion and morality there exists the same relationship as that which exists between life and activity. No activity is possible without life. Religion gives life. And only on condition of this life is moral activity possible. Only through God can there be life. Without God life becomes death. The ideal of Christian morality is religious: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48).

True religion and true science, recognizing the limits of the sphere of their competence, can never have contradictions between then. If such contradiction occurs, it means that either religion or science betrayed its principles and became pseudo-religion or pseudo-science.

Faith and knowledge in their very essence are inseparable. It is impossible to surmise that a believing person did not think about the object of his faith and did not know what he believed in; it is impossible that a philosopher or a scholar, while investigating, did not believe, at least, in his intellect.

Knowledge is as necessary and lawful for religion as faith is for science. Faith can be indispensable where knowledge is inadequate and helpless. Anything learned through faith should not enter into contradiction without knowledge. True, a contradiction is often imagined. Christian Apologetics, therefore, does engage in resolving these imaginary contradictions between religion and science.

The more deeply and thoroughly man studies the sciences and knows the limits of their competence, the more philosophical and theological culture man possesses. Likewise, the more deeply his religious faith is developed, the fewer the imaginary contradictions between faith and knowledge and between religion and science. Of course, faith plays a decidedly greater role in religion than in science. But this is explained primarily by the different objectives of religion and science, each demanding different methods of study. The objective of science is exceptionally elementary in comparison to the objective of religion. Knowledge of the chemical composition of a rock, and knowledge of the meaning and aim of the life of the world and of man, have a different meaning for us.

Religion answers the highest and most intricate inquiries of man’s spirit, which science is absolutely helpless in answering. The more highly developed religion is, the more it nurtures a love for knowledge; not, of course, vain knowledge, but true knowledge, which is called spiritual wisdom.

The ancient Fathers and teachers of the Church attached great value even to pagan philosophy. In the words of Clement of Alexandria: "Ancient philosophy was the world of godly foresight [in the history of the preparation of the ancient world for Christianity]. It was a necessity for the Greeks as a guide to truth … a child-guide of the Hellenes to Christ, reflecting in itself the truth even if obscurely and not completely, but in part."

St. Basil the Great, who was a scholar, philosopher and a theologian, said: "In philosophical teaching there was a shadow of revealed truths, a pre-portrayal of Truth shown in the Holy Scripture, a reflection of the light of Christ’s truth, similar to the reflection of the sun in water." Of the relationship between faith and knowledge, St. Basil the Great also asserted: "In science faith precedes knowledge." This is profoundly true, since everything most fundamental and initial in scientific knowledge is impossible to prove and is accepted as a basic principle by an act of faith.

St. Gregory the Theologian wrote: "I think that everyone having intelligence will recognize external learning as good, even though many Christians, because of poor understanding, abhor it as an evil art causing a remoteness to God."

If the great Fathers of the Church regarded honest scientific and philosophic knowledge with such deep respect, then, in their turn, the greatest scientific scholars regarded religious faith with deep esteem and reverence. True knowledge is incompatible with pride. Humility is an indispensable condition in the possibility of perceiving Truth. Only a humble scholar, like a humble religious thinker, always remembering the words of the Saviour Without Me you can do nothing (John 15:5), and I am the way and the truth and the life (John 14:6), is capable of going in the correct way (method) toward perceiving Truth. For God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble (James 4:6).

It is of great significance that on the church of the Moscow University shone the words: "The Light of Christ enlightens all."

Religion acknowledges miracles. But some scientists reject the possibility of miracles, regarding them as contradictory to the laws of nature. Often such scholars assert that miracles appear to be either fiction, fraud or a phenomenon which science cannot at present explain, but will certainly be explained scientifically later on. What is unintelligible today might be intelligible and explainable tomorrow.

Science, setting for itself the problem of an exact, objective proof of phenomena investigated experimentally, is fully correct in approaching miraculous phenomena in an attempt to scientific enlightenment. It is without doubt true that often so-called miraculous phenomena prove to be not at all miraculous. A fiction or deceit in such cases is lawfully revealed through a scientific method of verification. It is also undoubtedly true that many phenomena, not understood at the present time, may be scientifically explained at some future time. But the problem of a miracle is not fully explained by this.

It is necessary, therefore, first of all, to define what in religion is called a miracle. A miracle is a phenomenon which is unexplainable not only at the present time but, in general, can never be fully explained merely from a scientific point of view. The philosophical exploration of a miracle, therefore, arrives at the question: Is a miracle possible? In other words, is such a phenomenon possible which cannot be explained from the point of view of science?

Very often atheistically and materialistically inclined scholars say that every phenomenon of nature and every event occurring in the world can be explained by the laws of nature alone, without the help of God or of miracles. This is not correct. At least two cases are not explainable by the laws of nature alone: 1) the very existence of the world or nature and 2) the laws of nature themselves. Therefore, the existence of the world and its laws are miracles.

Who created the world and the laws of nature? There are not and there cannot be any logical obstacles for the belief that the cause of the world and its law is God.

The English philosopher Berkeley (1685-1753), gave this reasoning concerning the above. The laws of nature, he said, are those means through which God governs the world, and the actions of these laws of nature are actions of God Himself. As a result, where God finds it necessary according to His intentions or plans, He can change these constant methods of His activity in the world so that a phenomenon will occur which is not explainable by the laws of nature alone; that is, an actual miracle will occur. Almighty God can, whenever He chooses, even change "the order of nature."

Very often we may happen to hear it said that a miracle contradicts the laws of nature, but the word "contradicts" is out of place here. We will try to analyze this question carefully.

Let us suppose that on earth everything exists except man and his consciousness. In such a world can a steam engine appear? Of course, it is impossible! But why? All the component parts of the steam engine exist in the world (steel, copper, iron, wood, water, etc.). Is it possible that by accidental motion of the particles of which a steam engine is composed, over a long period of time (millions of years), that a steam engine could fabricate itself just by chance? No, this is impossible. Actually, for a steam engine to appear, the intelligence of the man who designed and made it is a necessity. Without the aid of consciousness, the steam engine is a miracle, even though all its components exist in nature.

As it is, this miracle (the appearance of an engine) does not contradict the laws of nature. All the laws of nature remain inviolate. But they — the laws of inert unconscious nature — are overcome by a new factor, consciousness. In order to explain the miracle of mechanics, a recognition of a "higher factor," consciousness, is necessary.

Now we turn to consciousness itself. Can consciousness be explained by inert unconscious laws of nature? If these laws could not create a steam engine, they would have even less of a chance to create something incomparably more complicated — consciousness. (Such nonsense is assumed only by materialists who regard consciousness as a product of evolving matter.) Even consciousness cannot explain itself. Consciousness can create a steam engine, but it cannot create itself. It follows, then, that consciousness is also a miracle. To explain this miracle it is necessary to accept an even more complicated, higher and more complete principle, which causes such phenomena as consciousness. This higher cause of consciousness (a higher Intellect) is God, faith in Whom is not impeded by anything found in science of philosophy.

If man’s consciousness, intervening with inert and unconscious nature and overcoming it, can make such things (miracles) as steam engines, then the higher divine Intellect, having created man’s consciousness and inert nature, directly intervening in inert nature and overcoming it (by powers unknown to us of His creative, divine Intellect), can create phenomena even more greatly complicated, for instance, to transform water into wine or to resurrect the dead. In these phenomena the laws of nature are not violated; a miracle does not contradict the laws of nature, but overcomes them by means of higher forces unknown to us.

When scholars came to Newton and expressed perplexity in regard to his belief in the future resurrection of bodies, he answered in the following manner: Taking a pile of copper and steel filings and mixing them together, he offered to separate the steel from the copper. Then he took a large magnet and with its help he quickly separated the steel filings from the copper. The Lord God evidently has forces which are more complicated and unknown to us (special magnets), with the help of which He can perform a resurrection of the bodies of all the dead at the future fearful Judgment. Nothing interfered with Newton’s belief in this.

The relationship of religion and art is neither one of contradiction nor one of sameness. Between them exists a kinship and a singular reciprocal support. Both religion and art exalt us and awaken in us aspirations to an ideal world. But, if aesthetic feelings aspire chiefly to an artistic representation of the ideal world, religious feeling thirsts for a living communion with God — the foundation of all perfection. Contemplation of an artistic composition or of the beauties of nature under the influence of an aesthetic feeling creates in the soul only a vague, unaccountable impulse to the higher world. However, the contemplation of the same phenomena under a religious feeling opens up the possibility for the soul to have active communion with the Living God, through prayer and the Sacraments. These intentional substitutions of an aesthetic feeling for a religious one is a proud and harmful perversion, which in asceticism is the temptation to sin called "delight."

Common to religion and art is the striving to express ideas not in an abstract form (as in philosophy and science), but in vivid, concrete forms. In religion, as in art, a pure idea is clothed in an appropriately pure and beautiful shroud or image through which all the spiritual/bodily feelings of a man are made to participate in the spiritual contemplation of the idea.

Dogmatic truths and ethical conceptions are clothed by the Church not only in highly artistic word images and the beautiful dress of sacred music, but are also symbolized in the splendor of its liturgical services and rituals. Not one of the ancient religions was a stranger to symbolism. The most perfect religion, Christianity, is therefore an exceptional treasure-house of symbolic images, which, embedded in the muteness of silence (expressing "the mysteries of the future age"), makes the invisible visible.

The philosophy of history teaches us that religion was the original cradle of art. The opinion that religion and art are hostile to each other in principle is a mistaken one. This hostility begins only when the substance of religion is perverted (for example, in Manichaeism, which considers matter an evil substance), or when the form of art is not suitable to the religious idea. The hostile attitude towards all aspects and forms of art inhibited their adaptation to the service of the church and in time led to iconoclasm.

The Christian Church does not deny art. Christianity is the religion of the Incarnate God, Christ, in whom was manifest "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9). Sanctifying the body and condemning only sinfulness in the flesh, Christianity sanctified also the various forms of art for use in Christian church services, condemning only the sinful use of art. The sin of art, therefore, begins where art forgets its divine origin and turns to serve evil.

Having examined the relationship of religion to morality, philosophy, science and art, we see that religion represents something much more universal than all the above mentioned manifestations of man’s spirit, not only separately, but also in combination, since religion embraces them in complete unity. Without religion, all the yearning of man’s soul would not have solid support and would place man’s spirit into hopeless contradictions.

A yearning for Truth, without faith that there is an absolute Truth (a perception of which is possible through communion of man’s mind with the divine Intellect), would be transformed into "a wild goose chase," a fruitless chase after the unattainable, or would end with an even more fruitless and cynical skepticism. Poetry and other forms of art, with their impulses toward the ideal, would be transformed into a fruitless play of fantasies if religion did not convince people that a higher, ideal world actually exists.

Morality without religion would not contribute any consolation to the life of people, since, in a living communion with God, man receives higher, blissful means for moral growth and genuine ethical satisfaction.

This makes it clear that religion not only cannot be replaced by philosophy, science, art or morality alone, but, on the contrary, without religion, all these inclinations would be deprived of all foundation. This basis is the aspiration to a living communion with God (the essence of religion). But where do we get this aspiration? This question bring us to the problem of the origin of religion.

The question of the origin of religion can be the object of historical, psychological or logical analysis. Historical analysis brings us, on the one hand, to the so-called historical proof of the truth of the existence of God by means of indicating the universality of religion, and, on the other hand, to the study of the rise of various forms of religious cults and well-known historical religions. Psychological analysis leads investigators to vague contradictory hypotheses, a survey of which is not at all obligatory for Apologetics.

A logical analysis, however, leads us to a clear assurance that the question of the origin of religion has no practical meaning, for, in an appraisal of religion, it is of no importance whatsoever in what manner religion occurred. It is completely unimportant whether it was because of fear, or foolishness, or amusement, or mischief, or gain, or any other motive that religious considerations arose; the only matter of importance is whether the ideas under consideration are correct or incorrect.

The truth of an assertion does not depend on its origin. Just because an insane or criminal person said that 2x2=4, 2x2=4 does not cease to be the truth. Likewise, the truth or falsity of the statement "God exists," depends not one bit on the fact that it might be made from fear or from the hope of material gain. In other words, the question of how religion originated has no relation whatsoever to the question of whether one or another religious conviction is true or false.

As to the matter of faith in the Divine Revelation (for example, of the Christian religion), you can contrast against it only the belief that there is no revelation. Logic itself presents no obstacles to having faith in God and His Revelation. As was shown above, that is exactly why the majority of the world’s greatest philosophers, scholars, poets and other highly gifted people do believe in God and the Revelation.* Faith is not contradicted by the scientific data of psychology, anthropology, comparative philosophy, or any of the other sciences, since scientific conclusions have only a hypothetical character.

Nothing interferes with a Christian’s belief that the origin of religion is explained, on the one hand, by an innate impulse of man’s soul to strive to its highest image, God, and, on the other hand, by the influence of God Himself acting upon the soul of man.

____________________________

*For example: Tabrum: The Religious Beliefs of Contemporary Scholars.

The highest rank among fundamental religious truths belongs to the truth of the existence of God. Objections against the necessity and usefulness of rationalistic proofs for the benefit of religious truths fall into three categories: In the first place, these proofs are regarded as impossible. Secondly, even if possible, they are unnecessary and superfluous. Thirdly, they are not so much useful as they are harmful.

The opinion that theoretical and strictly scientific proofs of the existence of God and of other fundamental religious truths were impossible was expressed for the first time with complete critical argumentation by the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, in his work, Critique of Pure Reason. However, the followers of positivism were especially energetic in emphasizing the indemonstrability of religious truth. At times in this denial of the possibility of the proof of the existence of God, there has appeared either an incorrect understanding about God or an incorrect understanding about the proof itself.

For example, according to Kant’s definition, God is the personified mental ideal of all the possible perfections. In other words, Kant has no conception of the living personality of God, but only has a notion of "a godly idea." Such a subjective and abstract idea of God does make impossible the proof of God’s objectively perceptible existence. But this impossibility immediately fades as soon as we replace the conception of an abstract "idea of God" with a concrete conception of God as an active, perceptible Being.

Into the basis of the denial of the possibility of proof of the existence of God there is sometimes mixed an incomplete understanding of the substance of the proof itself. For instance, some investigators have defined proof as a conclusion from the higher to the lower; and, as there is nothing higher than God, the proof of the existence of God is therefore impossible. But that is an incorrect definition of the proof. The proof of the existence of God is necessary not for God Himself, but only for us who are by nature lower than God, and hence struggle to have faith in God’s existence. The meaning of proofs of the existence of God are sometimes denied validity on the grounds that they do not have the character of mathematical precision. But mathematically exact proofs are very few. In place of them, in philosophy, in science, and in practical life, other forms of proofs are often used. Even in mathematics there exist so-called postulates, that is, self-evident truths, which are impossible to prove exactly, mathematically, and, as a result, they can be doubted. For instance, the uncertainty inherent in the fifth postulate of Euclid (that is, that through one point you can draw only one straight line parallel to the given straight line) led the highly gifted Russian mathematician Lobachevsky to the discovery of a new pan-geometry.

So we see that even the most exact and conclusive science, mathematics, is based on axioms and postulates, which, just like all so-called self-evident truths, cannot be proved and which are accepted on faith. St. Basil the Great is profoundly correct when he states that in science "faith precedes knowledge." Everything that is most basic and elementary in scientific knowledge is unprovable and is accepted on an act of faith. The sciences usually pride themselves on their exactness and conclusiveness. But is should not be forgotten that, in the first place, science is composed not only of facts and "empirical data" (which do not yet give us scientific knowledge), but also of speculative structures of the mind. These speculative structures can be argued about, because it is impossible to construct them without elements of philosophical theory. Secondly, besides exactness of knowledge, one must discern also its value and meaning. The knowledge of the chemical composition of stone and the significance of the life of the world and man, as we have already noted above, have for me a different value than they do for one who does not believe in God. If exact sciences cannot exactly mathematically prove basic religious truths, and, in general, cannot answer the most urgent questions of man’s spirit (for example, the aim and meaning of life), then this shows only the limits of the scientific method of knowledge, and, therefore, the boundaries of the meaning of empirical science for man.

Where knowledge is helpless, faith is lawful. Faith in something which cannot be proved, but at the same time cannot be disproved by means of scientific knowledge, is perfectly lawful.

The absence of the possibility of exact mathematical proof of religious truths, which reveals the lawful possibility of faith, makes religious truths (and, first of all, the most important of them — the truth of the existence of God) a subject of the free will of man. God could prove His existence by a direct appearance in His power and glory, but He does not desire to force the free will of man and awaits a free desire, a free faith in Him and toward Him. Again we must conclude that nothing hinders man’s coming to God by an act of faith, if man desires to come to Him.

From the Christian point of view, the impossibility of a scientific, mathematically exact proof of the existence of God and other religious truths is part of the nature of things and was originated by God Himself. In science and philosophy there are different methods of proofs or, rather, persuasive considerations, perhaps not so persuasive in a mathematical sense, but nonetheless speaking strongly in favor of one or another theory or hypothesis. The same is true with religion.

The opinion is often expressed that, after Kant’s critique of the methods of proving the truth of God’s existence, this impossible task should not be approached anymore. This may be answered as follows. In the first place, Kant himself, after a critique of the existing proofs, tried to found a new form of so-called ethical proof. The history of philosophy contains other significant instances where a highly gifted philosopher began to defend anew ideas already examined and abandoned earlier. For instance, the ontological proof of the existence of God, first expressed by Anselm of Canterbury, has at times stimulated a renewed interest toward it and new argumentation in its defense. Such attempts were made by Descartes and Leibnitz before Kant, and by Hegel after Kant.

Kant’s critique itself involved not so much a loss of interest, as, instead, a heightening of interest in proofs of God’s existence. Famous and weighty is the criticism of Kant and the refutation of his ideas in works such as those by Ulrich, God and Nature and God and Man, and in the course by Professor N.P. Rozhdestvensky, Christian Apologetics, and others.

Speaking practically, Kant’s critique does not refute the proof of the existence of God, but simply points out that these proofs do not have the mathematically exact character of scientific proofs.

In regard to the conclusiveness of proofs in general, one should remember the remarks of Pascal (Thoughts on Religion), that if geometry could provoke man’s passions, people would be found who would begin to object against the most evident geometrical statements. Contradictions and objections against the most clear and convincing proofs are very often met in practical life where man’s passions are touched upon. In political, religious, philosophical and even in scientific controversy, we often meet with this phenomenon. Very often exceptionally convincing proofs, which do not convince an obstinate opponent, do convince a listening bystander present at the argument who is objectively weighing the arguments of the opponents.

Sometimes you can hear objections against proofs of the existence of God in this form: Proofs are not necessary for the faithful, and an atheist will not be convinced anyhow. In answer to this it must be said that if we have before us an atheist whose convictions are founded on an unwillingness to believe in God, then such an atheist cannot be convinced. If, however, we have before us an atheist who, through a misunderstanding due to insufficient education, regards his atheism as scientifically proved, then such a one can be convinced.

Also, not every believing person is disinterested in the rationalistic proofs of the religious truths in which he believes. A striking example is the prayer with which the profoundly believing scholar and philosopher, the Bishop Anselm of Canterbury, preceded his so-called ontological proof of the truth of the existence of God: "Lord! You grant wisdom to faith; give me also the wisdom to perceive that You exist, as I believe, and that You are the same being as my faith describes You to me." Love not only contemplates but also wants to know its object. The lover of God lawfully wants to perceive him with all the powers of his spirit — the powers given us by God Himself. Numbered among these powers, granted to us by God, is also the honest intellect.

Some investigators regard the absence of one fundamental and convincing proof of the existence of God and the replacing of that one by several proofs as proving the weakness of the latter. This profoundly incorrect! As the steeple of a building is not founded on the foundation alone, but on the many parts of the building simultaneously, so also the proof of the truth of God’s existence is founded on the combination of several separate and particular proofs.

The Holy Scripture rarely mentions the so-called proof of God’s existence, regarding this basic religious truth to be so evident that one who denies it is qualified as senseless. The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God (Psalm 13:1). It is regrettable that the authority of the Holy Scripture has its full meaning for the faithful, but for skeptics it has no meaning whatsoever.

After these preliminary remarks, we will now proceed to an examination of the specific so-called proofs of the existence of God.

1. Cosmological proof of the existence of God is one of the most ancient. Holy Scripture often points to a creature as a manifest testimony of the existence of the Creator of the world: The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaimeth the work of His hands (Psalm 18). For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead (Romans 1:20).

Among the Holy Fathers of the Church, cosmological proof of God’s existence is presented by St. Athanasius the Great in the form of a conclusion from the fact of the existence of creation to the fact of the existence of the Creator; by St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory the Theologian, by means of refuting the opinion of the accidental origin and preservation of world laws; by St. John of Damascus, in the form of a conclusion from the changeable to the unchangeable. In the history of philosophy, the oldest assertions in the defense of cosmological proof are met in Aristotle (as a conclusion from motion noticed in the world to the existence of a Prime-mover). Leibnitz forms this proof by a conclusion, not from motion to a Prime-mover, but from the conditional to the absolute. The philosopher, Wolf, makes it a conclusion from the accidental to the indispensable.

Cosmological proof usually rests on two laws of logic: the law of causality and the law of sufficient reason. The first demands the recognition of the original cause of the world, and the second affirms that nothing but the highest universal Cause can be recognized on a sufficient basis as the true original cause of the world.

Everything in the world has its cause. Every cause in its turn is the consequence of another cause. This means that everything in the world has the cause of its existence outside of itself; nothing is original (self-existing). Therefore, the world, too, in totality, is not self-existing and must have a cause for its existence, and this cause must be outside of this world. Such a cause can be only a universally all-highest Being: God.

This was the object of the criticism of Kant and many other philosophers. The main objection to this proof was that we do not have enough reason to search for the origin of world phenomena in another, super-sensual world since it is possible that the law of causality is valid only as to this world’s phenomena. Also, in Kant’s opinion, there is not a sufficient basis to deny the possibility of self-existing world phenomena.

Contemporary physics, in the persons of the scholars Planck and Jeans, categorically denies the possibility of self-existing world phenomena, and, by doing so, again vindicates cosmological proof to a sufficient degree. As to the question of causality, if there is no absolute necessity to recognize its action in a super-sensual world, then there is also no absolute necessity to deny it there.

If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief.

The way we decide whether the atheist is correct or not is to see what science has discovered about this question. The picture below on the left represents our part of the cosmos. Each of the disk shaped objects is a galaxy like our Milky Way. All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to increase with every passing day. If we had three galaxies located at positions A, B. and C in the second diagram below, and if they are located as shown, tomorrow they will be further apart. The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day.

Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a singularity! A second proof is seen in the energy sources that fuel the cosmos. The picture to the right is a picture of the sun. Like all stars, the sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion. Every second that passes, the sun compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence. The process fueling this incredible furnace is not used by our sun alone. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Just think about it! If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left?

Suppose one attempts to drive an automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it. As he drives and drives, what is eventually going to happen? He is am going to run out of gas. If the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago! The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe! Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21 cm line in the spectrum — a piece of light only given off by hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning!

A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan is so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.

The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct.

If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question: was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause — a creation — but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all electronics and demanding that your TV set not work! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.

The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and self existing is also incorrect The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.

If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer — what was the cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God exists "through the things he has made." The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance. Julian Huxley once said: We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents.

The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.

Some investigators point out that cosmological proof does not demonstrate a personal God. This is correct. Cosmological proof makes no pretence to this. It affirms only that there is a sufficient basis for the recognition of a super-universal, higher creative force, on which the origin of the universe depends, and that this force has a real existence.

The teleological proof of the existence of God, based on the expedient arrangement of the world, results necessarily in affirming the existence of an Intellectual Being, the cause of this expedience. If cosmological proof concentrates on the investigation of the original cause of the universe, then the teleological proof interests itself chiefly in the final purpose. It examines the world not only as something existing and needing an explanation of its emergence, but as something whole, harmonious, artistic, proportionate, expedient; pointing to the wisdom of the Author of this expedience.

Cosmological proof demands recognition of God as a very wise, mighty, creative force, capable of creating the world; the teleological proof demands the recognition of God as an Intellectual Personality, capable of high purpose and good order in the created world. Both proofs complement each other. Teleological proof is not greater than the cosmological and has need for it. For, as Kant so justly pointed out, the teleological proof does not prove the Creator of the world, but the Creator of a well-ordered expedience in the world which could have existed along with God eternally in the form of inert, formless matter.

A world-view is possible in which God and matter co-exist eternally, and in which God transformed this co-eternal matter into an expedient world. God is understood, in this case, as the Demiurge, that is, the expert arranger of the world, and not the Creator of the world from nothing. But Christianity categorically asserts that God created the world from nothing. The existence of matter co-eternal with God is impossible, since, in such a case, God would not be the Absolute. It is of note that contemporary physical science (Plank, Jeans, and others) also affirms that matter cannot be eternal.

Cosmological and teleological proofs are closely related. Only in their synthesis can be inferred the proof of God as an Absolute Personality. In ancient philosophy, many philosophers (for example, Socrates, Plato, and, before them, also, Anaxagoras) recognized the teleological proof as one of the strongest and most conclusive arguments in defense of the existence of a Higher intellect. In general, however, the teleological proof is regarded as chiefly biblical, as the Holy Scripture often refers to the expedient ordainment of the world as graphic proof of the wisdom of the Creator. For instance, in the Psalms of David we find much contemplation of the beauties of the world, with inference from this of godly wisdom.

Teleological proof can be divided into two main aspects: 1) the so-called physico-teleological, inferring from the expedience and planned system of the external world to a wise Author of it, and 2) historico-teleological, inferring from the intellectual course of the historical life of man to a wise Ruler of the fates of man. The Orthodox Church sometimes calls God "Master of Life."

Objections against teleological proof usually take one of three main directions: 1) the denial of the expedient ordering of nature; 2) the explanation of expedience as accidental; 3) the denial of the consciousness and personality of the cause of the expedience of the world.

As to the first point, the criticism comes to pointing out several popular phenomena of the world which do not appear to have expedience. The answer to this is that we sometimes do not know, do not understand, and do not see the purpose and sense of some particular phenomena, but this does not mean that, in general, these phenomena have no purpose and sense. With this, the general experience of nature can by no means be denied. Exceptions are extraordinarily insignificant and can be simply unexplained expediencies from the point of view of a higher plan unapproachable to us and with purposes incomprehensible to us.

The explanation of expediency as ordinary chance does not withstand strict criticism. If the expedience of a machine (for example, a steam machine) cannot be explained as accidental and demands the recognition of the presence of consciousness which crafted this expedient machine, then it is that much more difficult to explain the expediency of consciousness itself, and, finally, the expediency of the entire universe, as accidental.

If we conjecture that this question is unsolvable by exact knowledge and is subject only to faith, then faith in a causative expediency certainly has many more sufficient reasons than a naïve and contradictory faith in causeless expedience. In short, plan, aim and sense (which can be disclosed by analyzing expedient phenomena of the world) should be regarded by normal consciousness as primary, preliminary phenomena and not as secondary or subsequent.

The last objection, denying the reasonableness and personality of God and explaining the cause of expediency as blind unconscious will, also cannot stand serious criticism. Some critics point to animal instinct as an example of expedient action. They say, "The instinctive activity of animals is originated without reason." This is not correct. An animal acts without being conscious of the aim of its action, but not without aim. An animal acts in conformity with an aim unrecognizable to itself.

From this, it follows that the causes of the expedient actions of animals and nature, in general, are not animals and nature themselves; but it does not follow that there is no Creator consciously assigning the aims, which are unconsciously accomplished in an unconscious nature. Observing the expedient arrangement of the world, we affirm a conscious Author of the world — i.e. one with an intellect, to whom came the idea of an expedient arrangement of the world, and also one with power, which accomplished this idea in a substantial existence of the world. Only to a reasonable, conscious, personal Being can an expedient creation be obliged for its origin.

Historico-teleological proof of the existence of an Intellect-God is more debatable. This proof, leading to an understanding of the profound significance of man’s history, is accessible to few people (the philosophical theory of reality). For those to whom it is accessible, this proof is exceptionally convincing.

Ontological and ethical proofs of God’s existence are called inner proofs in that they are taken from our inner experience, as distinguished from external cosmological and teleological proofs which are taken from external experience.

The meaning of inner proofs is very important, for without them, external proofs would not have force. If we had not the former, there would not be so much strength expended on the latter. If in our consciousness there were not an idea of God and an inner conviction of His reality, together with the immense practical importance of the ethical meaning of this conviction, we would not have the impetus to search for careful proofs of the existence of God in external experience.

Ontological proof of the existence of God was formulated first in the 11^th century by the western theological scholar Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury. The author of this proof regards it not as a fruit of his own mind, but as received with the help of a higher inspiration.

The basic thought of this proof is that in the inherent idea of a higher, all-perfect and endless Being, there is of necessity also included the idea of the reality of this Being, because the All-Perfect cannot be unreal!

Critics, especially Kant, consider it incompetent to conclude that God exists based on human thoughts of Him. To make such a conclusion is impossible, says Kant, because we can have (and do have) dreamy ideas which do not conform to the existence of actual objects.

Long before Kant, this objection was foreseen by the learned French philosopher and mathematician Descartes. Analyzing chimerical, conditionally and unconditionally necessary ideas, Descartes came to the conclusion that unconditional necessity truly belongs to the idea of an all-perfect Being. Ontological proof was also defended by Leibniz and Hegel. The latter, taking exception to Kant, cited the following considerations. Ontological proof does not at all assert that all ideas must necessarily assume the existence of the thing corresponding to the idea. It does not conclude the existence of the All-Perfect from understanding it, but insists that in understanding the All-Perfect, there is already contained an understanding of its existence. We can no more think of an all-perfect Being as not existing, than we can think of a triangle as not being a triangle.

Therefore, the ontological proof can be finally formulated thus: because in the soul of man there exists an idea of a Being, which with a fullness of perfections is united also to a real existence, it necessarily follows that this being must exist, not only in mind, but in actual fact.

Ethical proof of God’s existence can be of a practical or theoretical character. Practical, ethical proof results in pointing to the fact that faith in God assists improvement of morality, while faith in atheism usually leads to a fall in morality.

Attempts to prove that atheism, on the contrary, assists in bettering morals are absurd and are not corroborated by actual experience. Many defenders of atheism, recognizing the beneficence of religion for morality, expressed the thought that this does not at all prove the truth of religion. However, it is very strange that in such a case a paradoxical situation exists — a false conviction (faith in God) leads to a betterment of morality, while a true conviction (faith in atheism) assists in corrupting morals. Instead of quibbling, ought not the truth of religion and the falsity of atheism be accepted, since the former assists the betterment of morality and the latter, on the contrary, ruins it?

The indication that atheists exist who do live morally does not refute the general conclusion about the ethical benefits of religion. The truth is that many people do not follow their theoretical convictions in practical life. This contradiction between theory and practice leads to the result that some who theoretically espouse atheism in their practical life follow the laws of Christian morals. But wherever a complete accord exists between theory and practical action, where there is no dissension and contradiction between theory and practice, based on this theory, there cannot even be talk of the ethical good conduct of an atheist.

At times, atheists indicate that believers live in perpetual fear before the Almighty Sovereign God for their misdemeanors, while the atheist, free of religious convictions, does not experience this fear. This can be answered in the following manner.

The fear of moral responsibility before God is an exceptionally beneficent fear. This fear appears in a man not when he lives a moral life, but only when he performs unethical actions, transgressing moral law, given to us from God, according to the conviction of believers. On the other hand, does not the atheist also have fear? If life has no meaning and aim, and every occurrence depends on a simple accident of an indifferent, cruel nature, does not a man acquire fear before these inexorably cruel happenings upon which all life wholly depends? And, conversely, does not the conviction of a religious man assist in reassuring him that Almighty God Himself, Who is understood as love and higher justice, guards a man and leads him to eternal blessings?

Theoretical and so-called scientifically philosophic methods of ethical proof of God’s existence come in two main forms. Before Kant, in both theology and philosophy, ethical proof of God’s existence was deduced from the ethical law contained in conscience, to the existence of God as the Creator and Legislator of this law. Kant gave to the ethical proof a different basis. For harmony between virtue and blessedness, which is demanded by our ethical conscience, it is necessary to recognize God, because this harmony can be accomplished and fully realized only by God Himself. In both its forms (pre-Kant and Kant), ethical proof has its force. These forms not only do not exclude, but, on the contrary, complement each other.

Careful analysis of the ethical conscience of man shows us that having freedom of action, man, after performing immoral actions, experiences pangs of conscience, and, on the other hand, after fulfillment of the demands of ethical law, he experiences a spiritual satisfaction in being aware of a fulfilled debt. In other words, the freedom of man’s will is guarded from arbitrariness by the presence of a higher ethical law which approves or censures its actions. Man, having free will, nonetheless feels this law above himself as an unconditional, commanding force. Consequently, it could not have been man himself who created this law and placed it above himself.

Ethical law also cannot be deduced from any other side of man’s nature. However, if ethical law is not created by man and cannot be deduced from anything conditional and accidental but is deposited in man’s spirit as an unconditional higher requirement, then its origin can be explained only by its being deposited by a higher, unconditional Being, God, and presents in itself nothing other than the voice of God in man’s soul and the inner revelation of the holy and unconditional will of God in man’s spirit.

Concerning Kant’s basis for ethical law, it is formulated by the author himself in such a way: "We are aware of the ethical law within ourselves demanding our fulfillment of a debt without any search for gain, benefit or pleasure; besides, we are conscious within ourselves of a need to attain the higher welfare. Even though in our ethical deeds we should not be governed by self-interested ideas of rewards, we have in our spirit a permanent demand that virtue should have a worthy reward and vice a worthy punishment. This is the law of truth. The requirement that virtue would be rewarded by a corresponding measure of fortune is so deeply placed in our spirit that we can in no way erase it within ourselves. The union of the purest morals with perfect fortune or blessedness, therefore, constitutes the highest blessing to which the spirit of man aspires by virtue of its own ethical nature. But the union of fortune and virtue in a completely equal measure does not depend on us ourselves. The organization of our morality depends on our freedom, but fortune does not depend on our authority. And experience shows that virtue in the present life more often is not rewarded by deserved fortune. Meanwhile, our ethical conscience urgently demands that virtue should be inseparable from fortune, and from this alliance of virtue and fortune, supreme welfare would result. If it is not in man’s power to establish an alliance between virtue and fortune, then there must be another ethically good Being who wants to and can effect this; that is, to reward virtue with fortune worthy of it. Such a Being, therefore, is the one God."

Kant also expressed his proof in this fashion: "Nature cannot establish compliance between virtue and fortune. This impels us to recognize the existence of a cause differing from nature and not depending on it. This cause must possess not only force and might, but also intellect; it must be such a force which, in might and will and mind, is higher than nature. And such a Being is God only. He wants to and can also sanction an alliance between ethics and virtue."

From his proofs, Kant deduces God’s perfections. "As one who desires the highest good, God Himself must be the highest Good, filled with holiness. As one capable of combining virtue and fortune, He must be All-Mighty, All-Knowing, All-Wise, etc., and, in every case, a particular Being."

The deficiency in Kant’s argumentation is found in that he separates the understanding of virtue from the understanding of fortune (or blessedness), and, therefore, he understands a compensating reward as something eternal, when, according to Christian morals, true virtue finds its reward in itself and does not require any external repayment. Even in pre-Christian philosophy we find such an understanding of good. "Virtue is fortune," says Socrates. Hegel, in his criticism of Kant’s ethical proof, with complete justice, notes that "virtue in consequence of its expedient activity directly brings with it self-enjoyment and self-satisfaction."

The Savior Himself said in regard to virtue, which cannot be put into life without moral effort and grace sent from above (and consequently, being a sort of yoke limiting man’s freedom) the following clear and simple words of Truth: Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light (Matt. 11:29-30). The yoke of Christ is goodness; that is, Christian value is already in itself a blessing.

Combining all aspects and formulations of ethical proof of God’s existence, we can arrive at the following generalized conclusion. The existence of moral law concluding in a demand for moral good, which already in itself comprises the greatest spiritual good, and which is impossible to explain or to accomplish without help from above, is the theoretical proof of the existence of God, receiving its fullest justification during its practical verification by ethical life according to the teachings of Christ.

The truth of God’s existence, finally accepted with the assistance of faith, has exceptionally convincing and highly rational principles, permitting us to maintain the irrefutable, local possibility of this truth. The impossibility of refuting this truth by any local considerations and the impossibility of proving it exactly and mathematically, methodologically justifies the application to it of faith as an act of the free will of man.

Belief in the soul’s immortality among all peoples is usually closely connected with religion and comprises an essential part of almost all religions known in history. This points to the fact that the idea of the soul’s immortality goes into the consciousness of man with its roots. In the opinion of many profound thinkers of ancient days as well as of recent (Socrates, Plato, Descartes, Pascal), the idea must be recognized as native to man’s spirit. The religious conviction that the alliance uniting God with man cannot be destroyed after the death of man, but is an eternal union, belongs to the most firm convictions of religion, without which it would not have a vital force. Faith in immortality is as ancient as man himself and his religion.

In defense of this belief there are also intellectual considerations, which are called proofs. Proofs of the immortality of the soul are divided into teleological, philosophical, ethical, and historical (from the universality of belief in immortality held by all peoples).

The teleological proof is drawn from the attributes of God, mainly the attributes of His personality, goodness, justice, and omnipotence.

• The philosophical proof is inferred from the properties or nature of the soul itself.
• The ethical proof is based on the demands of our ethical conscience.
• The historical is drawn from the history of mankind.

For people who believe in god, the most convincing proofs of the immortality of the soul are the teleological proofs. If God is a living Personality, possessing attributes of All-Mightiness, All-Goodness, and unconditional justice, then, in creating people, He could not have created them deprived of immortality. Therefore, the conscience of a believer has an immovable conviction in the truth of the soul’s immortality. If there is a God, there is also immortality of the soul.

The philosophical proof of immortality complements the teleological and comes to the aid of the believer when he meets with objections from theories denying a personal God (i.e. materialism, atheism, pantheism).

Spiritual and physical phenomena present in themselves something substantially heterogeneous (or different in nature), not comparable one to another. Just as you cannot infer physical attributes from spiritual attributes, so also you cannot infer spiritual attributes from physical. What kind of chemical, physical, or, in general, material attributes can be found in such psychological phenomena as faith, hope, justice, love, kindness, etc.? It is impossible, from a materialistic point of view, to explain psychological phenomena. The consciousness of a man represents in itself a complete oneness, while the brain, to which materialists want to attribute a consciousness, represents a multitude of material particles. The brain is only an instrument of which the soul makes use, but it is not the soul itself. And when the brain and man’s body, in general, is destroyed, there is no logical basis on which to affirm that the soul must also be destroyed. It does not have to be manifested in a dead body or in a destroyed brain, but can exist also separately from the body and from the brain.

The body cannot live separately from the soul, but from this it cannot be deduced that the soul cannot live separately from the body in a different world which is unknown to us, but whose existence we have no basis for denying. We can believe in the existence of a different life, another spiritual world, or we can disbelieve in it, that is, we can believe there is not a spiritual world. Nothing can interfere with our belief. We have many more reasons for making the assertion that the psychological differs from the physical. Likewise in stating that the soul can live without the body, we again have more reasons than in conjecturing the destruction of the soul at the time of the destruction of the body.

From the materialistic point of view, which denies the existence of the soul as a separate element, that is, a separate substance, it is impossible to explain the fact of the constant identity of our self-consciousness. If our spiritual phenomena represent in themselves only the union of material particles, then how can the continuity of our consciousness throughout our whole life be explained with the change of material particles which undoubtedly takes place in our bodily organism? Therefore, it is highly improbable that the basis of our personality would be composed of constantly changing matter.

The ethical proof of the soul’s immortality is summarized in pointing out that man, representing in himself an intellectual, ethical personality, cannot have only a temporary meaning during his life on the earth. The aim and ethical designation of man as a personal being consists of his attaining the fullness of his personal spiritual perfection and taking his place in the proper relationship to the eternal personal God. It follows that his purpose cannot be terminated by time. The denial of God and the immortality of the soul transforms man into a highly qualified form of cattle. Faith, however, in God and the immortality of the soul, in the way of which nothing can stand, places before man the possibility of endless perfection until union with God is reached.

By ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect — that is the ideal furnished to man by God Himself.

The immortality of the soul, the existence of the spiritual world and life beyond the grave, these are religious themes. Christianity has always known and taught that man is more than a simple combination of chemical elements, that besides the body humankind has a soul which at the moment of death does not die, but continues to live and develop in a new surrounding.

In its two thousand years of existence, Christianity has amassed a wealth of literature on the world beyond the grave. In some instances, the Lord allows the souls of the departed to appear to friends or relatives to forewarn them of what awaits in the world to come and thus to encourage them to live righteously. Owing to this, religious writings have a significant number of accounts of what the souls of the departed saw in the other world, of angels, of the devil's snares, of the joys of the righteous in heaven, and of the torments of sinners in hell.

In the last quarter-century, many accounts of people's experiences during clinical death have been documented. A significant percentage of these accounts contain a description of what the person saw near the place of their death. In most cases these souls did not have time to visit either heaven or hell, although at times they observed those conditions.

Both ancient religious stories as well as doctors’ contemporary research reiterate the Holy Scripture's teachings that after the death of the body some part of the person (call it what you will: the personality, consciousness, me, or soul) continues to exist, albeit in completely new surroundings. This existence is not passive in nature, because the personality continues to think, feel, want, etc., much as it did during its earthly life. An understanding of this essential truth is absolutely necessary to correctly build one's life.

Nevertheless, far from all of the doctors' conclusions should be taken at face value. Sometimes they put forth opinions based on incomplete and sometimes inaccurate data. A Christian must check everything that concerns the spiritual world against the teaching of the Holy Scripture to avoid entanglement in the webs of philosophic machination or the personal opinions of authors who write about these themes.

The main value in the contemporary exploration of the life after death question is that it confirms in an unbiased and scientific way the truth of the soul's existence in the world beyond. In addition, they can help a believer to better understand and prepare for that which he will encounter immediately after his death.

Rаymоnd А. Мооdy, МD, “Lifе аftеr Lifе, Bаntаm Bооks, NY 1978. Rаymоnd А. Мооdy, МD, Rеflеctiоns оn Lifе аftеr Lifе, Bаntаm Bооks, NY 1978. Rаymоnd А. Мооdy, МD, Тhе Light Bеyоnd, Bаntаm Bооks, NY 1990. Меlvin Моrsе, МD, Clоsеr tо thе Light, Ivy Bооks, NY 1990 (аbоut childrеn whо еxpеriеncеd nеаr-dеаth). Мichаеl Sаbоm, МD, Rеcоllеctiоns оf Dеаth, Hаrpеr & Rоw Publishеrs, NY 1982. (А sеriоus аnd mеthоdicаl invеstigаtiоn). Кеnnеth Ring, PhD Lifе аt Dеаth, QUILL, Nеw Yоrk, 1982. Меlvin Моrsе, МD, Clоsеr tо thе Light Ivy Bооks, publishеd by Bаllаntinе Bооks, 1990 , “To Hell and Back,” 1993. J. Аnkеnbеrg аnd J. Wеldоn, Тhе Fаcts оn Lifе Аftеr Dеаth, Hаrvеst Hоusе Publishеrs, Еugеnе, Оrеgоn, 1992. Rоbеrt Каstеnbаum, Is Тhеrе Lifе аftеr Dеаth?, Nеw Yоrk, Prеnticе Hаll, 1984.

In a general survey of pagan natural religions, we come to the conclusion that all these religions represent in themselves the history of the natural development of religious consciousness of ancient man. Each individual religion fixed on some one aspect of this development which was the nearest to the spirit of its people. A full expression of the true substance of religion, however, is represented neither by any one of them nor by all of them taken together. Every different religion had its sources, its golden age, and its decline. The sources of all religions bear witness to the fact that the Ancestral Religion contained the ideal of monotheism. The golden age of a religion was often preceded by the personality of a reformer (for example, Confucius, Lao-tse, Buddha, Zoroaster). The decline of a religion, however, for the most part, was related to later times, as each individual religious system of ancient times outlived its contents. The dying out of a religion — if not of the whole cult and its rites, then of its very spirit or essence — most vividly bears witness to the absence within it of authentic revelation.

If, in the Chinese religion, God is almost in no way different from the world, in the Hindu religion, He is represented as somewhat different from the world even though He is still impersonal and not fully separated. In the Persian religion, there are already tendencies toward the idea of a personal God. And, finally, in the religion of the Greeks and Romans, personality becomes a necessary condition of divinity. Already among the Greeks and Romans there is not the overwhelming force subjugating man to external nature characteristic of th