Content:

§1. The Branches of Apologetics. §2. The Brief Course on the History of Apologetics. §3. Russian Apologetics

§1. Man, World, Religion. §2. What is Religion? §3. Meaning of the Word "Religion." §4. Basic Truths of Religion §5. Essence of Religion. §6. Views of Some Philosophers on Religion. §7. Origin of Religion. §8. The First religion. §9. Diversity of Religions §10. Pseudo-religious Thought Systems: Deism, Pantheism, and Theism §11. Views of Some Philosophers on Religion

§1. Proof §2. There Is No God, Because... §3. God Exists

§1. Science. §2. The Path of Reason In Search of the Truth. §3. The Basis of Social Service to the Church. §4. A Christian’s freedom, the Church’s freedom and religious freedom.

§1. Types of revelations. §2. General Revelation and Its Indications. §3. Individual revelation and its signs. §4. Exorcism. §5. Assessment of the Natural Knowledge of God [71].

§1. Naturalism. §2. Idolatry. §3. Mysticism. §4. Magic. §5. The Origins and Essence of Heathenism. §6. Assessment Of Heathenism.

§1. Teaching. §2. The Religion of the Old Testament and Christianity.

§1. Basics of Spiritual Life [1]. §2. About sanctity in Orthodoxy.

§1. Two Views of the World. §2. The Christian Understanding of the World. §3. Christian Ecology. §4. The Hypothesis of the Antiworld. §5. The Boundaries of the Universe. §6. Creation or / and Evolution.

§1. The Notion of Eschatology and Its Different Aspects. §2. Antichrist. §3. 666 and The Individual Taxpayer Number (ITN).

It is natural for a Christian "to know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed" (Luke 1:4). But as the Apostle Paul writes, he must "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" (1 Pet. 3:15). For the Lord Himself commands: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Math 28:19-20).

The preaching of Christianity is a difficult and responsible act, because the salvation of many people depends on its success. It demands the knowledge of the truths of Christianity in relation to the teaching of faith and morals, the understanding of spiritual life and the specific acquaintance with the basic aspects of human life and activity, first of all, with the religious, philosophic, and scientific ones. It necessarily supposes that one knows the answer to the main and more disturbing questions of our contemporaries. All this requires special preparation, which is primarily the subject of apologetics (Basic Theology).

Apologetics is orientated towards people of different convictions and levels of belief: both those, who have just come into the Church and still have many doubts, and those, who are "near the Church walls," but are looking for the Truth, the meaning of life, and are interested in Christianity. Both the first and the second, who in the majority do not have any spiritual experience and have not yet "experienced" God within themselves, need the substantiation of the truths of faith, need proofs, inasmuch as they are one of the natural means towards acquiring and strengthening faith. The following work, examining many questions on apologetics, both those common to all religions as well as those of a specifically Christian character, is orientated towards this goal.

The present work consists of the following parts:

• The concept of apologetics, its aims, tasks and place in the system of theological sciences; also a brief review of the history of apologetics (Chapter 10).
• Religion and its origin. — The positive disclosure of the question, and the analysis of the negative points of view (Chap. II-III).
• The Existence of God. — The basic arguments and the analysis of counter-arguments (Chap. IV).
• Religion and human activity. — Science, philosophy, Orthodoxy; the problem of cognition; the social activity of the Church; freedom of man, the Church and religious freedom; exorcism and the attitude towards it of the holy fathers of the Church (Chap. V).
• The Revelation — The natural and supernatural search for God; its types, signs and criteria of verity; the holy fathers’ teaching about the attitude towards miracles, visions, etc. (chap. VI).
• Spiritual life. The bases of Orthodox spiritual life, sanctity. (Chap.VII).
• Heathenism. —The origin, basic types, assessment. (Chap.VIII).
• The Religion of the Old Testament. — Faith and life; the Old and New Testaments (Chap. IХ).

APOLOGETICS (Greek apologia— protection, justification, intercession; a speech, said or written in someone’s defense; apologeomai — to defend oneself, to justify oneself, to state or present in one’s personal defense) in the general sense is any kind of defense of Christianity from the accusations and criticism of its enemies; in the specific sense — a branch of theology, whose goal is to reveal and substantiate the truths of Christian faith, and which has to give an answer to anyone asking, or to refute the incorrect religious, philosophic or other world views which stand in opposition to Christianity. Apologetics as the defense of Christianity has existed since its very appearance and continues as such to this day. As a special branch of theology, or as a separate science, apologetics appeared with the development of scholastic theological education. Throughout history its range and content have changed greatly, and has appeared under various names: the apologetics of Christianity, natural theology, philosophical or basic dogmatics, speculative theology, general theology, introductory theology, basic theology. In the second half of the 19^th century, such independent disciplines from the field of apologetics gradually appear as the History of Religion, Biblical archeology and textology, Biblical history, Exposal (Comparative) theology. In the 19-20^th centuries, in theological schools both in the West and in Russia, apologetics was included in the courses of basic theology or was treated as the same discipline (for example, I. Nikolin. "The Course on Basic Theology or Apologetics." Sergiev Posad, 1904).

In 1996, the reformed study program of theological schools of the Russian Orthodox Church treats apologetics and basic theology as two separate subjects. In addition, apologetics preserves its specificity, and is mainly orientated towards the defense of Christianity from the criticism of other world-views and systems of thought. The task of basic theology is the examination and analysis of the main Christian truths of faith and life from the point of view of the intellectual, moral, cultural and other generally accepted norms and criteria.

It is possible to distinguish three main branches in apologetics: Theological, Historical-Philosophical and Natural-Scientific.

The object of Theological Apologetics is primarily the basic Christian truths of faith and life. However, unlike Dogmatic and Moral Theology, their analysis and examination is not taken from the authority of the Holy Scripture and the Church tradition, but mainly from the point of view of the intellectual, moral, cultural and other commonly accepted norms and criteria. This is caused by the necessity of revealing Christian truths to people who rarely go to the Church, or to unbelievers who are in the state of searching, so that they could have an optimal opportunity of accepting these truths as basic world-view principles. Such an approach serves as a defense of the basic values of Christian religion in the face of criticism, and simultaneously as an optimal condition for the constructive dialogue with other religious systems of thought.

The field of Theological Apologetics includes the examination of such questions as: dogmatic (the understanding of God, the Triunity of God, the Incarnation of God, Salvation, Resurrection, the sacraments and others) in comparison to the non-Christian analogies of other religions and religious trends; theodicy (the cooordination of Divine love and the existence of eternal tortures, the origin of evil, individual freedom and Divine Providence, etc.); spiritual-moral (the understanding of the Christian postulates of spiritual life in comparison with the non-Orthodox ones), and some others.

At the present time, the topics of theological apologetics are assigned to the sphere of basic theology.

This branch of apologetics encompasses a very wide range of problems of a historical and, mainly, philosophical character. The historical aspect includes questions about the origin of religion and its types, the appearance of Christianity, different forms of mysticism, and so on, and the understanding of the essence of these phenomena. Historical subject matter effectively appeared in apologetics only in the 18^th century, when the activists of the so-called era of Enlightenment and the Great French revolution, in their struggle with Christianity, reached the point of negating the historical existence of Christ and the reality of the events, described in the New Testament and other Biblical books (the so-called "Mythological School"). This and other hypotheses about the origin of Christianity (the Neo-Tubingen School, political-economical, syncretistic) defined the content and the character of a multitude of apologetic works. At present, historical subject matter can still be found in the majority of teaching aids on apologetics and basic theology.

Questions of critical analysis of different atheistic hypotheses about the origin of religion ("the invention of religion," naturalistic, animistic, social, anthropotheistic, etc.) play a great role in the historical aspect of apologetics, as well as the evaluation of the views of some more well-known thinkers upon religion, its origin and its place in the life of man and society.

The philosophical aspect of this branch of apologetics has, first of all, as its object the corresponding disclosure and substantiation of those postulates of Christian faith, which are common with or related to philosophy, and in this capacity are problematic both for theology and philosophy, and also the theological comprehension and assessment of many questions of ontology, gnoseology, anthropology, eschatology.

The understanding of existence, or being (ontology), is key for both Christianity and philosophy, inasmuch as it determines the principal opinion toward all the other problems concerning faith and knowledge. In Christian apologetics, it includes the sphere of questions, which are connected to the religious-philosophical comprehension of the teaching about God and His Existence, the existence of the extra-sensual world, about creation and the relations between God and the world (and man). Constant attention, beginning with the times of scholasticism and to the present, is paid to the question of proving the existence of God.

A great number of apologetic works are devoted to the analysis of alternative views to the question of understanding God and of His attitude to the world, which are suggested by deism, dualism, monism, pantheism, polytheism, theism and other philosophical and religious-philosophical trends.

The problem of cognition and, first of all, of knowing God, the conditions, criteria, goal and means of this process (gnoseology) is central both to Christianity and philosophy. It is very extensive and multifaceted. In theology, this problem is examined unclearly, especially ever since the times of the 11^th century schism. The West sees the solution to this problem primarily in the activity of ratio, while the East (Orthodoxy) — in the integrity of the cognizing spirit. A.S. Khomyakov precisely defined this divergence, pointing out the main error of Western mentality: "Rome broke all ties between cognition and the inner perfection of the spirit" [1].

I.V Kireevsky emphasized this also: "Striving for the truth of conjecture, Eastern thinkers first of all worry about the correctness of the inner state of the thinking spirit; the Western ones -- more about the external connection of ideas. The Eastern thinkers, in order to reach the fullness of truth, look for the inner unity of reason: that is, for that concentration of mental forces, where all separate spiritual activities merge into one living and supreme unity. The Western thinkers, on the contrary, believe, that it is possible for divided powers of reason, acting independently in their solitary individualism, to reach the truth" [2].

Thus, Orthodoxy sees true cognition and knowledge of the Truth only through resembling God. The main question of philosophical and Christian gnoseology -- about the truth and delusion (prelest’, or self-delusion) is solved in Orthodoxy not by turning to ratio in and of itself, but to the purity of the entire spiritual-moral state of the cognizing person.

The origin of man, the understanding of the individual, soul, spirit, immortality, freedom, sin and virtue, salvation and perfection, sanctity, attitude towards the body, the meaning of life and death, sufferings and creativity — these are the questions of anthropology, which only represent a small part of this branch of philosophical apologetics. This is that sphere which, together with the teaching about God, takes center stage in Christian theology and around which constant world-view discussions arise.

Eschatology is the problem, which always arouses increased interest and many questions. It has several aspects, though only two of them are usually discussed in philosophical apologetics. The first of them can be called the "antinomy of Gehenna." The main antinomic postulate of eschatology has to do with the fact that the eternal life of immortality and glory can coexist with eternal death and destruction, and both of them, to a different extent, are included in existence. [3] This problem has been a subject for consideration ever since the first centuries of Christianity to the present day. Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Sts. John Chrysostom and Isaac the Syrian, Archpriest A. Tuberovsky, Priest A. Zhurakovsky, Prince E. N. Trubetskoi and many other fathers of the Church, theologians and thinkers suggested interesting and profound ways of solving it.

The second aspect of the eschatological problem concerns the final fate of this world. This aspect includes a wide range of questions and closely borders on historiosophia, sociology, the analysis of scientific-technical progress, cultural development, etc. At the present time, in connection with the increasing ecological crisis, the intensification of globalization processes and the expanding opportunities of total control over man and his behavior, it is acquiring greater and greater relevance.

The main task of this branch of apologetics is to inspire man to contemplation about the reason of the Origin of the world’s visible and ascertainable expediency of order. Basically, the driving idea of natural-scientific apologetics is what is traditionally called the teleological proof of the existence of God. The main questions here are the problems of the correlation of science and religion, science and atheism.

The sources and basis of natural-scientific apologetics are the familiar words of the Apostle Paul: "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 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; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1:19-20). The Apostle writes with a certain reprehensibility here about those who, while analyzing the world, do not see God’s presence in it. The Fathers and teachers of the Church of different eras were also convinced that the contemplation of the natural world’s phenomena and the use of data from natural sciences for the sake of apologetics is both right and useful, inasmuch as it reveals the existence of God and many of His features to man in its own way. Venerable Ephraim the Syrian wrote, for example: "The Scripture teaches us what we see in nature. If we delve into it correctly, both nature and Scripture show the same things" [4]. The same thing is said by Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa in his "Hexameron," the Venerable John Damascene in the "Precise Discourse on Orthodox Faith" and many others. One of the Russian Saints, Tikhon of Zadonsk, writes a great work "Spiritual Treasure, Gathered From the World." The fact that the overwhelming majority of the most outstanding scientists-naturalists of all times and nations, including the present era, saw God while studying the world, is no less important. Their basic opinion is well expressed by M. Lomonosov: "The Creator gave mankind two books. The first is the visible world… The second book -- is the Holy Scripture… Both of them not only certify God’s existence, but also His indescribable blessings to us. It is a sin to sow tares and discords among them" [5].

. However, together with this main line of theological and scientific thought, beginning with the 15-17^th centuries and especially in subsequent times, the idea of the world’s self-development, the self-origination of life and man himself, is growing more actively in certain social circles. This was the source, which produced pseudo-religious, atheistic and anti-religious moods and whole philosophic systems. The notion of the incompatibility and the struggle of science and religion arose from this, which is still important for natural-scientific apologetics to this day. Now, when natural sciences convincingly testify that all levels of micro-, macro-, and mega-worlds: material, biological, mental, moral and spiritual — are so reasonably organized and correlated, both together and individually, that in fact no doubt remains of the anthropic principle of world organization, natural-scientific apologetics attains its goal as never before, showing that science and religion are not only not enemies, but each of them reveals to man the existence of a highest Reason – God -- with the help of its own means.

Natural-scientific apologetics may have as many aspects as there are separate sciences in natural science. But some of them have greater priority. This depends on the amount of "attention" given to this or that science by the atheistic critics. These are usually anthropology, psychology, biology, cosmology. The main problem in the discussion between religion and atheism (but not between religion and science!) throughout these sciences is the cause, or the source (God or matter?) of the appearance of the Universe, the origin of life and man.

So, apologetics takes on the task of revealing and substantiating Christian faith in such a way that would allow each person, searching for the meaning of life, to see that Christianity is not blind faith, but a religion which truly answers the main questions of life of human existence. This explains the specifics of the given theological science, which consists, first of all, in the fact that it resorts not only to the Bible and the teachings of Holy Fathers, but to the non-Christian religious and philosophical thought, the achievements of natural sciences and humanitarian sciences, history, art — i.e. culture in general.

At the same time, the warning of the Lord remains in effect: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you" (Matt. 7:6). This is the commandment, concerning the discerning attitude to preaching, so that it would not become an irritating challenge for those unprepared and spiritually incapable of understanding it. Apostle Paul admonishes his disciple Timothy, and through him, every Christian: "But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth " (2 Tim. 2:23-25).

[1] Khomyakov A.S. The Complete works. Part 2. Publ.3. Mosc.1886. P.55

[2] Kireevsky I.V. About the character of Enlightenment in Europe.// Criticism and Aesthetics. Mosc.1979. P.274

[3] Bulgakov S, Archpriest. The Bride of the Lamb. Paris, 1946. P.508.

[4] Ephraim the Syrian, Holy Works. Part 3. Mosc.1852. P.48.

[5] Lomonosov M. Poems// Moscow "The Soviet Writer," 1948. P.7.

For greater convenience, the history of apologetics is usually divided into periods. Inasmuch as there is no strictly set division into periods, the following division is suggested in the given review:

• Early Christianity and the Epoch of the Ecumenical Councils (the 2nd-7^th centuries)
• The Middle Ages and the Epoch of the Renaissance (the 8^th -15^th centuries)
• The New Age (the 16^th -19^th centuries)
• The 20^th century
• The History of Russian Apologetics

The necessity of defending one’s faith existed even before the appearance of Christianity. In Judaic circles, it was expressed, for instance, in the works of Philo of Alexandria, Joseph Flavius and the others. Christian writers were not only acquainted with the methods, arguments and ideas of Jewish apologetics, but used them [6]. The first Christian elements of apologetics can be seen in various extracts of the Gospel, the Acts and epistles of the Apostles, especially in those of the Apostle Paul. The Apostle Peter appeals to every Christian to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope" (1 Pet. 3:15).

In the first centuries of Christianity’s existence, a special genre of theological-polemical works appeared — apologia. The apologias of early Christianity address two groups: Judaism and heathenism, which oppose Christianity for various reasons. "But we preach Christ crucified," — writes the Apostle Paul, — unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:23). Protection from both Jews and heathens had its own clearly expressed specificity. If the discussion with the Jews was mainly about the Messianic worth of Jesus Christ, about His Divinity, then with heathens — it was about the unity of God, the unique character of Theophany in Christ, the falsity of different types of accusations against Christians and the unjustness of persecutions against them. As V. Bolotov wrote, those apologias were one "of the forms of appeal to public opinion." They, "though slowly, but surely reached their goal: they made society acquainted with Christianity and destroyed the prejudices and biases against Christians" [7]. The main thing that attracts our attention in the apologias of the early period is their spiritual strength, witnessed in the sermon and martyrdom of many of Christian writers themselves and their disciples.

When the persecutions of Christians stopped in the 4^th century, the character of apologetics changed— it slowly turned from battling with external enemies to the defense of the purity of faith and morality from distortion within the Church. Mainly, this struggle was purely theological and ended with the decisions of the Councils of the 4-8^th centuries. However, this sphere of theological activity goes beyond the boundaries of apologetics themselves.

The apologetics of this period is oriented, on the one hand, towards the polemics of Christianity which appeared in the 7^th century with a new and very active religion — Islam (though the previous questions, concerning Neo-Platonism and especially Judaism, were not set aside), and on the other hand — towards the struggle with revived heathenism and anthropocentrism, which were the result of the Renaissance epoch. Still, there are only a few apologetical works remaining from that period. The first of the Byzantine works, entering into polemics with Islam, is "A Discussion Between a Saracen and a Christian," which was written by the Venerable John Damascene. He also writes "The Origin of Knowledge" — an enormous work, which summarizes and classifies the fruits of Christian theology of the preceding centuries, and also includes ideas of an apologetical and philosophical character. Among the other works, devoted to the struggle against Islam, one can note the works of Nikita of Byzantium and the Emperor John VI Kantakuzen. At the beginning of the 7^th century, Nicholas of Methona writes a vast apologetical treatise "The Refutation of the Theological Teachings of Proclus Platonicus."

At the time, Spain was the center of apologetic activity in the West. There, in 1250, a special institute was opened for preparing apologists, who would battle with Islam and Judaism, and attention was mostly paid to the studies of Hebrew and Arabic. The work of Cardinal Nicholas Kuzansky "The Refutation of the Koran," in which he pointed out the close ties of Islam with Christianity, was unusual for that time.

The political might of the Catholic Church at that time, the absence of the external enemies and the broad interest of the flock and educated circles of society in ancient thought, contributed to the intensive development of philosophical and theological thought and the rise of so-called scholasticism. The latter set the systematizing of theology and its philosophical substantiation as the one of its most important tasks. Scholastics formulated many proofs of God’s existence; they suggested the concept of the so-called "double truth," which presumed the non-contradictory and independent co-existence of the truths of faith and reason, which in principle produced the opportunity of rational substantiation of all Christian truths; much was done towards the creation of theological systems and the development of methods of theological-philosophical analysis.

In the grandiose "Sums of Theology" (by Peter Lombardsky, †1160, and Thomas Aquinas, †1274) an attempt was made to encompass all questions, relating to the teaching about God, the world and man, and to substantiate the truths of the Revelation, from the position of "pure" reason. The most important role in those works played the parts which were called rational, basic, natural, (sometimes — main) theology. The famous pillars of scholasticism, Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas, did much for the development of those areas.

But, by its attitude to theology, scholasticism was also laying the foundation of that profound rationalism, which led Western thought to many of the most negative consequences. In scholasticism, "a practically total desecration of the content of faith" was occurring. "Proclaiming the primacy of Divinely revealed truth over the truth of positive knowledge and the indisputable authority of the Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, scholasticism, in its real intellectual effort, in fact remains a purely rational activity on a logical-speculative plane" [8]. The commandment of the apostle "through faith we understand" (Hebr. 11:3), in spite of the outwardly declared "Credo, ut intelligam," was directly transformed into the statement: "We experience, in order to believe."

Inasmuch as man’s salvation depends not only on the orthodox character of his faith, but on the correctness of the state of his soul, a battle for the truth of life takes place in Church history, which is just as serious and acute as the struggle for the truth of faith. The defense of the principles of spiritual life is one of the most serious and subtle courses in apologetics. It appeared gradually. But it began to develop greatly as a result of the scholastic development of theology in the Western Church, and its break from the experience of the holy fathers.

V. N. Lossky notes: "It was necessary for some division to occur between experience and common faith, between personal life and the life of the Church, in order for spiritual life and dogma, mysticism and theology, to become two different spheres, so that souls, which do not find enough food in the theological "Sums," could greedily search for stories of individual mystical experience" [9].

The outstanding expert of spiritual literature of the East and West, St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov), points to the definite coordinates of time of the rise of the false direction in the depths of the Western church. He writes: "Venerable Benedict [†544 г.], and St. Pope Gregory the Dialogist [†604] still agree with the ascetics of the East; but Bernard Klervossky (12^th century) already differs from them harshly; and the later ones diverged even more." He thus assesses their mystical experience: "They lead themselves and their readers to such peaks, which are inaccessible to a beginner; they become haughty and make others haughty. The passionate…dreaminess is, for them, a substitute for everything spiritual, about which they do not have the least idea. They believe such dreaminess to be grace" [10].

The schism of the Ecumenical spiritual tradition led to the appearance of many ascetics-mystics, often distant from the Church, and of mystical tendencies. John Scott Eriugena (approx. †877), Abbot Joachim of Flora (†1202), Francis of Assisi (†1226), blessed Angela (†1309), Meister Ekhart (†1328), Katherine of Sienna (†1380) and others, greatly influenced the forthcoming (right up to the present time) development of both Church-Catholic and out-of-Church mysticism. The battle for the purity and steadfastness of spiritual life, the polemics with different mystical teachings, which led away from Christ, is one of the brightest pages of apologetics.

The epoch of the Renaissance, which began in the 14^th century, fully revealed the concealed rationalism, mysticism and mundane character of Western theology. The translations of ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, which revealed to the West the ancient culture in a new and more attractive light than Christian values, helped in this. As a result, more and more, Man and his reason occupy a more important place in the society than God and faith, with all the resulting consequences. In the Western world, open estrangement from Christianity and unbelief begins. The Renaissance anthropocentrism was the most serious challenge to Christianity. However, there it could not form any worthy opposition to the ever-increasing wave of the desecration of God, man and the world. Among the works of the more famous apologists and their works in this period one can mention: "The Glory of the Cross Against the Wise Men of the Century" by Geronimo Savonarola and "Natural Theology" by Raymond Sabundsky, in which he undertakes an attempt to logically trace the Biblical truths of faith from the examination of nature and its laws.

The Reformation and the religious battle associated with it turned out to be the "sui generis" statement of the development of that serious spiritual crisis of the Western Church and society on the whole, which became especially obvious ever since the time of the 11^th century Schism. The reformation not only undermined the foundations of the Catholic Church, but also provided a strong impulse for the development of many non-Church and anti-Christian ideas and philosophical teachings. The more significant among these were deism, pantheism, materialism, which greatly influence all subsequent history of thought. The notion of a Personal, Living God begins to be replaced more and more by either an eternal Substance (the pantheism of Spinoza), or by a "Divine Clock-Master" that is detached from the world (deism) or altogether by lifeless matter (Hobbs, Golbach, Moleshott). Apologetics developed with those teachings accordingly.

The English school of apologetics is known for its struggle with deism, though the activity of this school was very ambiguous. Its representatives, among whom many were Unitarians, actively defended the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and other common religious truths, but remained silent on specific Christian truths. In their scholastic interpretation, Christianity often turned out to be just one of those religions, in which there was nothing new, exceptional, in comparison with other monotheistic religions. In this respect, the work of the famous scientist D. Locke "Experience of Human Reason" is very indicative.

Professor Archpriest N. P. Rozhdestvensky characterized the activity of this school in this way: "A one-sided, scholastic tendency dominated English apologetics in the 17^th and 18^th centuries…. The best thing that was done by the English apologetics in the 17^th and 18^th centuries belongs to the historical-apologetic activity, i.e. the defense of the historical authenticity of the Biblical books, the reliability of the Gospel history, and of the Biblical testimonies of miracles, prophecies, etc." [11].

Apologetic activity also developed in other European countries at that period of time. Thus, one of the most impressive apologetic works of the 17^th century appeared in the Netherlands by the lawyer, historian and government figure Hugo Grotius "About the Veritability of the Christian Religion," which was translated not only into all the European languages, but even into Chinese for the missionaries. In France, in the 17-18^th centuries, there was an entire apologetic theological-philosophical school of Bossuet and Fenelon, which was under the influence of Descartes’ philosophy. The work of Fenelon "About Existence and Divine Qualities" was greatly renowned, directed mainly against the pantheism of Spinoza. B. Pascal was an outstanding representative of this school, and he left many marvelous thoughts about religion, published after his death under the title of "The Thoughts of Pascal about Faith and Some Other Subjects," which was translated into many languages, including Russian, and which did not lose its apologetic significance to this day.

Germany, in the 17-18^th centuries, did not have, practically, any of its own apologetic thoughts. It basically used French translations. The main contribution was made by philosophers, and not theologians. These were, first of all, Leibniz and Wolfe. Leibniz in his "Monadology" develops the teaching about a pre-set harmony of the world, and also gives the philosophical basis of the proofs of the God’s existence, especially of the cosmological and teleological ones, and the immortality of the soul. His philosophy became the foothold in the struggle against materialism, atheism and partially deism. In "Theodicy," as an introduction, he suggests the experience of rational substantiation of faith and of its coordination with reason. Wolfe writes "Natural Theology," in which he tries to define the truths of faith and connect them with pure logic. But the formal-logical method, applied by Leibniz and Wolf, made their works dry and hard to master.

In the 18^th century, the French "enlighteners" sharply posed the question of the correlation of religious faith and knowledge. Actively opposing Christianity, they unreservedly gave primacy to human reason. Their influence upon public opinion turned out to be so strong that religion, or more precisely — Christianity, began to be considered as the main obstacle in the path of mankind’s prosperity. A direct ideological, and afterwards a bloody battle, with Christianity begins.

On account of this, at the end of the 18^th —the beginning of the 19^th century in France, there appeared another popular apologetic school, founded by Chateaubriand, which defined its direction in its main work "The Spirit of Christianity." Unfortunately, this spirit was seen by Chateaubriand not within the spiritual content of Christian faith, but in the cultural-aesthetical forms of its manifestation. The name of famous scientist and researcher Bonne especially stands out, who, in the work "The Contemplation of Nature," provides rich material which testifies to the existence of a reasonable Creator of the world.

The appearance of the so-called mythological school at the end of the 18^th century, the founders of which were the Leaders of the Great French revolution K.F. Volney and Ch. Dupuis, caused an energetic apologetic reaction, which lasted for many decades in France, and later in other countries. The mythological school not only denied the historical existence of Christ and other Biblical figures, but presented Christianity as nothing more than another variation of the myths and religions of ancient nations.

Arthur Drews, who became one of the more well-known "mythologists," wrote "The Myth about Christ" in 1909. The book aroused indignation in Protestant circles in Germany, though essentially Drews did not say anything new, "except the same mistakes" [12]. Drews became famous due to the German-Jewish so-called "Union of Monists," which made the ideas of Drews the subject of passionate propaganda and threw them to the crowd as "the last word" of historical science. Both the debates and the extensive literature, which appeared in connection with "The Myth about Christ", showed the absolute scientific incompetence of the author. [13].

In spite of the total historical insolvency of this school, its ideas soon invaded many countries: England, Italy, Germany, Holland, U.S.A, etc. It was sharply criticized there as well. In England, for instance, Bishop Whately writes the apologia-pamphlet "Historical Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte," in which, using the method of the mythological school, "proves" that Napoleon Bonaparte never existed. In France J.B. Perez writes an outstanding parody concerning "the proofs" of mythologists "Why Napoleon never existed, or the Great Error — the Source of the Endless Number of Mistakes, Which Must Be Noted in the History of the 19^th Century" (Moscow, 1912). As a reaction to these new ideas, E. Presanse wrote his work, "Jesus Christ and His Time" (S.P. 1871).

By the middle and the second part of the 19^th century, the negative critical thought of Germany took another direction. The so-called Neo-Tubingen negative historical-critical school appeared, which tried to contest the authenticity of the Biblical books of the Old and New Testaments and of many events described there. Its activity, on the wave of common infatuation with atheistic ideas, contributed to the ever-growing increase of negativism towards Christianity. Naturally, the apologists of that time gave the corresponding answer to such literature. From among their works, the following should be mentioned: those of H. Hettinger ("Apology of Christianity," in 2 parts, Russian translation published in 1872-73), E. Jerusalem ("Thoughts about the Main Truths of Religion," in 5 parts, Russian translation published in 1806, 1817, 1831, 1833, etc.), H. E. Luthardt ("Apologia of Christianity," Russian translation St.-P. 1892).

In the 19^th century, in connection with the appearance of Darwin’s theory and its use in atheistic propaganda, a great number of apologetic works appear that are devoted to this subject. Their main attention was focused on the inability to substantiate atheistic evolutionism, and, simultaneously, on the possibility of even the evolutional development of the world under the condition of God’s existence.

Western theology in the 19^th century becomes more and more dependent on the more popular philosophical systems of thought: those of Kant, Hegel, Shelling, etc. Rationalism, atheism, pantheism, various mystical ideas and movements continued to spread. This fact in its turn caused the intensive development of apologetic activity. (Extensive critical literature on the given questions can be found in the works of Russian apologists).

The prominent German philosopher E. Kant made his contribution to apologetics. In his "Criticism of Pure Reason," he comes to the conclusion, that the existence of God cannot be proved rationally, but neither can it be refuted. At the same time, in the "Criticism of Practical Reason" Kant states that the acceptance of the existence of God is a necessary postulate of the moral consciousness of man. The moral argument ("proof") of the existence of God was quickly included in the arsenal of apologetics. But many statements of Kant, for example, the denial of Divine Providence in the world, of Revelation, the de facto equating of morals and religion, and so forth, were unacceptable to Christian understanding. They, like his criticism of the traditional proofs of the existence of God, were met with strong opposition on the part of apologists.

Another prominent philosopher who influenced the development of apologetic thought in the 19^th century was Hegel. In his "pan-logism" ("everything is thought"), Hegel tried to overcome the deistic understanding of God and eliminate the gap between faith and reason. However, in his system, the living, personal God dissolves and disappears in an impersonal, abstract, philosophically-cold Absolute, while faith is replaced with dialectics. For Hegel, the dialectic method, with the help of which he tried to find answers to all questions, turned out to be in its way a kind of logical magic [14]. The pantheism of Hegel’s philosophy turned out to be favorable soil for the growth of extremely rationalistic views.

The dialectics of Hegel were taken as a basis for atheistic Marxism. One of Hegel’s followers, L. Feuerbach, in his work "The Essence of Christianity," develops the idea of the anthropological understanding of God as the projection of man and his qualities into infinity, and undertakes the attempt to create some new religion with the cult of man. This idea was brought by F. Nietzsche to the extreme forms of man-Godliness, which "is the conclusion of the internal dialectics of humanism" [15]. The battle against atheism and materialism was taken up by the apologetic school, which had appeared in Germany under the influence of theology and philosophy of F. Schleiermacher, who first placed apologetics in the field of so-called philosophical theology. Schleiermacher actively defended Christianity. But his method and the pantheistic character of his philosophy, clearly revealed in his "Discourses on Religion," do not let us highly assess his apologetic activity. This school was not distinguished by any strictness in the questions of faith, or by any consistency in the expression of its ideas.

The theistic philosophical school, founded by Fichte the Younger, made a more significant contribution to the apologia of Christianity. In his works, Fichte defends the existence of a personal God in the face of openly aggressive atheism. Among the representatives of his school, the most significant was G. Ulrizzi. In his works "God and Nature," "The Teaching about Man," "The Soul and Body" and others, he shows himself to be very competent and an active combatant against materialism.

By the beginning of the 20^th century, using the apt expression of de Lubac, mankind as never before "began to experience the tortures, caused by the necessity of living without God" [16].

The distinguishing feature of the apologetics of the 20^th century and its development was determined by the following basic factors.

The first was the wide dissemination and, in many traditionally Christian countries, the dominance of an atheistic and materialistic world-view. Even in those countries, where religion is formally a priority world-view, Christianity, in fact, is being forced out of life and atheism turns out to be a real faith of the overwhelming majority. Therefore, the questions of reason and faith, the correlation of scientific knowledge and atheistic and religious world-views, the proofs of the existence of God and the soul, or, like I. Ilyin noted, why it is "not stupid and not harmful" to believe in God even for an educated man [17] are found most often in the foreground of apologetics.

The second factor was the sensational discoveries in physics, genetics, astronomy, psychology, mathematics, archeology and other sciences, which brought completely new evidence of the amazing wisdom of the physical world’s arrangement, thanks to which the defenders of Christianity received serious arguments for the substantiation of the existence of God, the existence of the soul and its immortality, the existence of the extra-sensual world, etc.

The third factor is the special attention paid in the 20^th century to the problem of Man, human existence. The development of scientific-technical progress caused the appearance of many new questions, connected to the essential changes of both the inner world of man (his psychology, morals, culture, and the attitude to the surrounding world on the whole) as well as the natural world. In the modern society of consumption, the processes of estrangement of one man from another, from society, and even from himself, began to take on a terrible scale. Man found himself facing a great number of such crises, and first of all, moral-spiritual and ecological, which carry a real threat to life on earth. Therefore again, but on a principally different level than before, the problem arises of finding the answer to the question about the meaning of one’s existence and activity. Theological and philosophical-apologetic thought in this way received a powerful stimulus for its activity. The question about the meaning of life took on a particularly relevant meaning and came to the foreground. An abundance of many-faceted Christian literary works appeared on this subject.

The next and specifically religious factor is the unusually strong development of the theosophical (or so-called pan-religious) idea of soteriological equality and identity, in essence, of all religions, in the 20^th century. This idea was manifested, in part, in the rise of the ecumenical movement, the goal of which was to bring all Christian confessions together. The battle over the elimination of the boundaries between confessions and principally different religious world-views on the one hand, and the theological opposition to religious fanaticism, the aggressive denial of other religious views on the other, became one of the most vital tasks of modern apologetics. These factors and a number of others caused the appearance of a great number of apologetic works.

Among the more well-known, to the Russian reader, works of the Western apologists of the 20^th century, one should mention the works of the American, Orthodox ascetic Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) and the Anglican theologian Clive S. Lewis, whose books quickly gained great popularity in Russia.

[6] See: Ivanitsky V.F. Philo of Alexandria. Life and Review of the Works. Kiev, 1922, p.591-592.

[7] V.V. Bolotov. Lectures on the Ancient History of the Church. Vol.2. S.-P. 1910. P.165.

[8] Mozheiko M.A. Scholasticism.//The Newest Dictionary of Philosophy. Minsk, 1999, p. 695.

[9] Lossky V. The Essay on the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Theological Works. №8. Moscow, 1972. P.16.

[10] Ignatius (Bryanchaninov), Bishop, Works in 5 parts. S.-P. 1905. Vol. IV. P.498.

[11] Rozhdestvensky N.P. Christian Apologetics. A Course on Basic Theology. S.-P. 1893. P.74-75.

[12] Bulgakov S.N. Modern Aryanism.// "Silent Thoughts." M.1918, p.160.

[13] See: Sakharov N., Professor. The Union of Monists and the Struggle against It in Germany. "The Theological Bulletin," 1911, December, p. 775-785. S.M. Zorin. "The Mythological Theory of Drews and Its Analysis"// The Pilgrim. 1911, July-August, p.67.

[14] S. Bulgakov. The Non-Evening Light. Sergiev Posad, 1917, p.83.

[15] N.A. Berdyaev. About Man’s Designation. Moscow, Republic, 1993, p.276.

[16] Henri de Lubac. The Drama of Atheistic Humanism. Moscow-Milan, 1997.

[17] Ilyin I.A. The Crisis of Atheism. — Works in 10 parts. Vol. 1, Moscow, 1993, p. 337.

Apologetic thought appears in Russia at the time of its conversion into Christianity. But, in fact, until the end of the 19^th century, it did not have that specificity which is inherent to modern apologetics, and which encompassed all the questions concerning the defense of Orthodoxy and the struggle with other confessions, heresies, false teachings and superstitions, schisms, sects, "free thinking," atheism, etc. In the first centuries, the Russian Church had two main tasks: the positive disclosure of the essence of Christianity and the struggle with the heathenistic remnants in people’s souls. The resolutions to these problems took many forms: oral sermons and accusations, teachings and epistles, special literary works, etc.

One of the first of such works belongs to Metropolitan Leontius (Leon, 11^th century). It was written against the Latin Church, and besides listing multiple proofs of the erroneousness of the Roman tradition of performing the Eucharist with unleavened bread, it briefly analyzes other deviations of the Roman Church. Apologetic elements were often included in works that were not themselves apologetic in character. Such, for instance, is the word of the Presbyter Hilarion, subsequently the Metropolitan of Kiev, "About the Law, Given by Moses, and About the Grace and Truth, Being Jesus Christ," in which he showed the superiority of the New Testament grace over the law of the Old Testament. An outstanding writer, the Venerable Theodosius, (†1074), abbot of the Kiev-Pecherskaya Lavra, in his "Epistles" to the great prince of Kiev, Izyaslav Yaroslavovich, shows the spiritual roots of the misfortunes that come upon man, exposes heathen folk superstitions, reveals the meaning of the Sabbath in the Old and New Testaments, calls for freedom from the ritual law and to act by the spirit of the Gospel. In the 2nd epistle, the venerable Theodosius lists the deviations of the Latin Church from the Orthodox faith and teaches how to treat members of other confessions.

The first ideological anti-Church opponent, which caused a corresponding apologetic reaction, was the so-called strigolnik heresy, which appeared in Pskov in 1371 and which soon reached Novgorod. Here, for the first time, the Russian Church is faced with open attacks on the Church hierarchy. In 1394, an epistle against the strigolnik heresy appeared, which, as Archbishop Philaret (Gumilevsky) thinks, was written by the disciple of the Venerable Sergius of Radonezh, the Venerable Athanasius, who was living in Constantinople since 1392. In that epistle it specifically says: "Tell us, heretics: where do you wish to get a priest? If you say: the Patriarch and the Metropolitans are not worthy, then according to you, there are no priests on earth…Where will you get a priest through your anathematical faith? Shall Christ come down to earth for you a second time? Thieves and robbers kill people with weapons, but you, strigolniks, kill people with spiritual death, leading them away from the Holy Gifts of the Blood and Body of Christ… He who rejects these most Holy Gifts is not a Christian…" [18]

The appearance of the Judaizing heresy in Novgorod at the end of the 15^th century, which engulfed the church and state circles and infiltrated the people, was a serious test for the Russian Church. "Now, monks and laymen all gather, all ask questions about faith: at home, and in the roads, and in the markets," - writes the Venerable Joseph of Volotsk. The Judaizers denied the basic Christian truths and Church rules, giving preference to the Old Testament in everything, which they interpreted incorrectly. St. Gennady of Novgorod actively refuted their false teaching. The Venerable Joseph of Volotsk, on the request of St. Gennady, wrote "The Enlightener," in which he revealed the main truths of Christian faith and replied to the accusations of the Judaizers. "The Enlightener" was the first major apologetic work in Russia. And though the heresy was externally overcome, nevertheless, its ideas continued to live.

The heresy of Matthew Bashkin, which appeared in the 16^th century, was similar to the Judaizing heresy in many ways, though Bashkin called the Latin followers his teachers, and not the Jews. In the transposition of his followers, Theodosius Kosoy and Ignatius, this heresy took the form of extreme rationalism. Their teaching was thoroughly analyzed by the Monk Zynovius of Otensk, the disciple of the Venerable Maxim the Greek. In his book, "Evidence of Truth to Those Asking about the New Teaching," Zynovius thoroughly explains many disputable points; his refutations are well thought out, the arguments are based on vast Biblical and historical materials. Zynovius wrote another apologetic work, "The Many-Worded Epistle of a Monk," which supplements "Evidence of Truth…" with its analysis of some other confessionary and church-practical questions, touched upon by the heretics.

In the 13^th-15^th centuries in Russia many apocryphal books appeared, coming mainly from Bulgaria (apocryphal stories about Adam, Enoch, Lamech, the Patriarchs, "The Songs of Solomon," "The Vision of Isaac," "The Story of Jacob," "The Sufferings of the Theotokos," "The Commandment of the 12 Patriarchs," etc.). These works, which contain many fantasies, superstitions, astrological ideas and various dogmatic and moral errors, were zealously criticized by Maxim the Greek. He wrote many works of a dogmatic-polemical character as well, which were directed against the members of other confessions and heretics. Five short articles of his are directed against the Jews. In "An Expository Word Concerning the Hellenistic Delusion," the Venerable Maxim shows the superiority of Christianity over heathenism. He especially underlined the important fact, that the faith of Christ was spread throughout the world not by the power of weapons, but through the meek word and example of Christians of high moral life. To the polemics with the Latin Church, were devoted "The Word Against the False Work of Nicholas Nemchin about the Union of the Orthodox with the Catholic," "The Word of Praise to Apostles Peter and Paul, and the Exposure of the Three Great Latin Heresies," and as well the epistle to the nobles Theodore Karpov and Nicholas Nemchin, and others. Venerable Maxim did not neglect Islam either, to which he devoted three works. His last work — "The Word on the Armenian Misbelief" is the refutation of the teaching of monophysites that Christ died on the Cross with His Divine nature.

Among the Western-Russian apologists of the 16^th century the elder Artemius, the ex-abbot of the Trinity monastery, attracts attention, who actively fought against the Protestants and Aryans in Lithuania. His letters testify to his profound understanding of Christianity. In them, the author constantly cites the holy fathers and tells them to "test the scriptures," for they are filled with the spirit of tolerance and love.

Another famous Orthodox apologist of that time in Western Russia — Prince A. Kurbsky — "strived for the creative renewal of the legends of the holy fathers, to the revival and continuation of the Byzantine tradition" [19]. He zealously worked towards the enlightenment of the Orthodox, the strengthening in them of the reasonable understanding of faith. For him "the theology of the holy fathers and wisdom of Hellenes become one: "Our ancient teachers are wise and skillful in both, that is, in the external philosophical teachings and in the Holy Scriptures." [20].

The Brest Unia greatly sharpened the apologetic struggle, in the defense of which Orthodox fraternities played a particularly large role. Active theological-polemical and translating work was done by the fraternities in Vilna and Ostrog, then later in Lvov, and at the beginning of the 17^th century — in Kiev. Among the most active apologists, one should mention Archim. Zachariah (Kopystensky) (†1626), who knew the works of the holy fathers extremely well and fought both against Protestantism, which was very successful in southwest Russia at that time, as well as the Latin Unia. His "Palinode," written in reply to the book of the Uniate Archbishop L. Krevza "The Defense of Unia," was an outstanding independent work, revealing the Orthodox understanding of Christian unity.

During the time of the Metropolitan Peter Mogila of Kiev (†1647), the spiritual and theological dependence of Orthodox literature on Catholic sources became notably stronger. The school founded by him— the College of Kiev — was organized like Latin colleges, which naturally left a deep imprint on the character of the upbringing, teaching and theological education of its students. This was reflected in apologetic works. In the Kiev College, apologetic theology was not taught as a separate subject, but was included in the course of lectures on philosophy, which was taught using Catholic textbooks.

The non-critical attitude to Western theological thought tangibly influenced "The Orthodox Confession" of Peter Mogila. Purely Catholic ideas can be found in this catechism. Archbishop Basil (Krivosheyin) calls it "a clearly Latin document in its form, and sometimes in its content and spirit." [21]. Archpriest G. Florovsky writes: "On the whole, "Orthodox Confession" is nothing but an "adjustment" or "adaptation" of Latin material and exposition (to Orthodox teaching, it) …is much more connected to Roman-Catholic literature than to the spiritual life of Orthodoxy." [22]

Archimandrite Joannikius (Galyatovsky), the rector of the Kiev College (†1688), wrote not only against Jesuits and Uniates ("White Church Discourse," "About the Origin of the Holy Spirit," "The Answer" to the book of the Jesuit Skarga "The Basis of Faith"), but also against the Muslims ("The Ruined Alkoran," "The Swan") and the Jews ("The True Messiah").

But the greater part of the South-Russian apologetic literature of the 16^th-17^th centuries was not noted for originality. The Orthodox often used Protestant sources to polemicize with Catholics and Uniates, and for polemics with Protestants —Catholic ones, which made Orthodox literature just as scholastic and ineffective.

The second part of the 17^th century is highlighted by the reforms of Patriarch Nikon and the schism of the old believers, which caused tense discussion. A great amount of anti-schismatic literature appeared, very dissimilar in its content and worth. The more significant works appeared in the 18^th-19^th centuries.

In Moscow, in 1685, the Slavonic-Greek-Latin school opened (in 1814 it became the Moscow Spiritual Academy), which marked the beginning of systematic theological and social education in Russia.

In the 17^th-18^th centuries, the Church faced new phenomena. In connection with the reforms of Peter the Great, the ideas of materialism, atheism, deism, Masonry, mysticism, etc. actively infiltrated Russia. And the struggle with them, as a rule, was difficult. Thus, the entire printing of the polemical book of Eustaphius Stanevich: "The Discussion about the Soul’s Immortality over the Coffin of a Baby" (1818), written against the ideas of pietism and Masonry, was seized by order of the chief-prosecutor Prince Golytsin, who said the following about it: "The discussion about the soul’s immortality is connected with defending the Eastern church, when no one is attacking it… The author, incorrectly understanding, does not sense that he can make people worry that the Church is truly in danger" [23].

But though theology was severely bound by the politics of Peter and his followers, some apologetic works still appeared. Metropolitan Stephan Yavorsky (†1722) wrote one of the most interesting apologetic works of this era, "The Stone of Faith," directed against the Lutheran innovations in Peter’s Russia. He wrote "The Signs of the Coming of the Antichrist and the End of Days from the Holy Scriptures" against the apocalyptical mood of schismatics. His "Answer to the Sorbonne Academy about the Union of Churches," which anticipated later ecumenical discussions of the Orthodox with the representatives of other confessions, is of much interest.

Many sermons of the Archbishop Theophan Prokopovich (†1806), Bishop Anastassiy Bratanovsk (†1806), Metropolitan Plato (Levshin) (1812) are of an apologetic character. The manuscript, "Answers to 16 Questions of Voltaire," is thought to be written by Metropolitan Plato. In his work "Comments about Atheism," Archbishop Theophan states proofs of God’s existence, criticizes the deism of the Enlighteners and the pantheism of Spinoza.

The "Apostolic Reply to the Folly of the Age of Free Thinking" [24] of St. Tikhon of Zadonsk (1724 -1782) is known for its resistance to the stormy surge of unbelief in the 18^th century. Thanks to St. Tikhon, the meeting of a pillar of the Orthodox faith and Russian atheism happens for the first time. With his works "About True Christianity," "Spiritual Treasure, Gathered in the World," St. Tikhon tries to raise the reader’s thought from this life to the phenomena of the spiritual world. "This was the first experience of living theology, and experienced theology, -- in contrast to and as counterbalance to scholastic erudition without real experience…"[25]. The publishing of the Philokalia in Moscow in 1793, in the translation of the Venerable Paisius Velichkovsky (†1794), was of great importance in the struggle against the spreading of the ideas of Enlightenment in Russia.

Not only the hierarchs of the Church, but its separate members come out in defense of faith in the face of spreading atheistic propaganda, the more demagogical thesis of which was the declaration of the conflict between religion and science. One of those apologists was the great scientist M.V. Lomonosov. In a number of his works and poems, he insists on the absence of any contradictions between religion and science. "A mathematician does not think soundly, — he wrote, — if he wants to measure Divine will with a pair of compasses, the same with a teacher of theology, if he thinks, that the Psalms can teach him astronomy and chemistry" [26].

G. Skovoroda (†1794) was an outstanding apologist-pilgrim. His discourses, poetry and very life did much for the strengthening of the faith of his contemporaries. He paid special attention to the criticism of atheism and materialism. The teaching, developed by him, about two "natures" ("Visible nature is called creature, and the invisible —God" [27]), which witness about God to man, stemmed from the familiar words of the Apostle Paul (Rom. 1:19-20).

St. Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow (†1867) did much in the matter of overcoming the destructive infatuations of the Russian aristocracy and the educated circles of society. He saw as the task of education the fact that it should become an active beginning of Christian life for man: "Christianity is not foolishness or ignorance, but Divine Wisdom" [28]. His works bear an apologetic character: "An Exposition of the Differences between the Eastern and Western Churches in the Teaching of Faith" (1811), "Discussions Between the Testing and the Sure in Orthodoxy of the Eastern Greek-Russian church" (1815) and "Discussions to a Speaking Old Believer" (1830).

In the second half of the 19^th century in Russia, the development of a distinctive religious-philosophical idea begins. This is, first of all, the slavianophilic movement, which was closely connected to theological traditions of the Moscow Spiritual Academy. [29]. A.S. Khomyakov (†1860) was one of the first Russian philosophers to appeal to philosophical thought to "return to the forgotten path of experienced knowledge of God" which is kept in the Church. In his work, "One Church," he tries to outline the living image of the Church, in contrast to the scholastic one. The Church for him is "the unity of Divine grace, which is living in a multitude of reasonable creatures, submitting to grace." Such a view of the question about the Church was completely novel for scholastic theology. Khomyakov posed the question of the authorship and Divine inspiration of the Holy Scripture in a new way as well: "The Scripture is not the Scripture of Paul or Luke, but the Scripture of the Church," that is why for apologetics the proven authenticity of the Scripture is not as important as the internal belonging to the Church, because this, and not the authorship of this or that person in itself, canonizes books. The letters of Khomyakov about the West have a great value in the defense of Orthodoxy in the face of Western confessions.

The fellow campaigner of Khomyakov, I.V. Kireevsky (†1856) in his program article "About the Necessity and Possibility of New Beginnings for Philosophy" expresses a dream about the appearance of a new philosophy, which does not yet exist either in the west, or in the East, but the foundation of which is in the inheritance of the holy fathers. Another article of his, "About the Character of Enlightenment of Europe and About Its Attitude to the Enlightenment of Russia," precisely reveals the difference in the approaches to the education and upbringing of man in the West and in Russia.

The slavianophilic movement had a definite influence on the formation of Russian apologetic thought, inasmuch as many apologetic questions were first discussed in philosophy courses in spiritual seminaries and academies. The departments of the introduction into theology and basic theology appear later. Their main task was the justification of the holy fathers’ faith. When, according to the Regulations of Spiritual Academies of 1869, the departments of physics and mathematics were abolished, Prof. D.F. Golubinsky founded in their stead the Department of the Apologetics of Natural Science in the Moscow Spiritual Academy. The main questions, over which the Russian apologists-theologians toiled at that time, were connected with the analysis and criticism of the ideas proceeding from the West. Those were, first of all, "Voltairianism," rationalism and new "revelations" of German philosophers (Kant, Hegel, Schleiermacher, etc.)

The first professor of the Moscow Spiritual Academy of the Department of Philosophy, whose lectures included questions of philosophic apologetics, was Archpriest F.A. Golubinsky (since 1818 till 1854). In the lectures on "Speculative Theology," he analyzed in detail the proofs of the existence of God and the views of deists, pantheists, materialists.

The successor of Archpriest F.A Golubinsky in the Department of Metaphysics and the History of Philosophy was Professor V.D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov (†1891). He devoted all his scholarly activity to the problems of apologetics. It is hard to find a problem which interested his contemporaries and was not thoroughly analyzed by him from the Christian point of view. His Master’s thesis, "About the Unity of Mankind," and doctoral thesis, "Religion, Its Essence and Origin," research and essays on philosophy, especially on gnoseology, on the substantiation of God’s existence, the immortality of the soul, on cosmology and rational psychology, on natural theology, which are gathered in the three volumes of his works [30], speak of the enormous range of his creative activity. His comparatively small, but successfully combining philosophical and apologetic questions and many times re-published work, "The Basics of Philosophy" (the 9^th edition, Sergiev Posad, 1915), was very popular. Prof. A. Vvedensky writes that the basic problems, which interested Prof. Kudryavtsev, can be expressed in the following questions: 1. What can man know and in what should he believe? 2. What is the world, how did it originate and what is its goal? 3. How should man live and what can he hope for after death? [31] The apologetic works of Prof. Kudryavtsev are a great contribution to Russian apologetics. They organically combine a serious philosophical approach with deep religious piety, which endows them with special persuasiveness.

Subsequent development of Russian apologetics is found in the works of the professor of the Moscow Spiritual Academy of the Philosophy Department Al. Iv. Vvedensky (†1913). In his Master’s thesis, "Belief in God, Its Origin and Basis," Vvedensky performed the analysis of various philosophic views on the question of the origin of religion. The doctorate thesis "Religious Consciousness of Heathenism: the Experience of the Philosophical History of Natural Religions" (Mosc. 1902), although touching upon mainly Hindu religions, nevertheless still gives a basic assessment of heathenism on the whole. Other works of Vvedensky testify to the scale and multifaceted character of his apologetic creativity.

On of the most versatile and fruitful theologists-apologists of the end of the 19^th- 20^th century was the Professor of the MSA of the Department of "The Introduction into the Circle of Theological Sciences" S.S. Glagolev (†1937). His name is mainly connected with natural-scientific apologetics. His Master’s dissertation "About the Origin and the Primitive State of Mankind" (Moscow, 1894) was the first work in Russian apologetics of scientific criticism of the theory of Darwin, and was accompanied by a detailed explanation and analysis of various theories of evolutionists. In the doctorate dissertation, "The Extraordinary Revelation and Natural Knowledge of God outside the True Church" (Kharkov, 1900), he developed the idea about the possibility of heathens, in their way, entering the number of those saved in the Old Testament Church. In the work, "From Readings about Religion" (Holy Trinity-Sergius’s Lavra, 1905), he suggests the historical review of religions of both cultural and undeveloped nations, as well as the analysis of the view upon religion of various thinkers (Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Cherberry, Hobbes, Leibniz, Voltaire, Kant, Schleiermacher, Hegel, Baader, F.A. Golubinsky, Hartman, Soloviev). The last part of this work is devoted to the analysis of general questions on the correlation of religion and natural science. Glagolev wrote other works: on the history of religion ("Essays on the History of Religion," M.1902; "Islam," M.1904) and on some other questions (e.g. "Matter and Spirit" (S.-P. 1906), "Man’s Past," Sergiev Posad, 1917), multiple articles of apologetic content in "The Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia" and different magazines. He prepared "The Textbook of Studies on Basic Theology" (M.1912) for the women’s theological courses in Moscow.

An immense contribution (which became the last in the pre-revolutionary period of the life of the Russian church) to the development of Russian, mostly philosophical, apologetic thought was made by the Priest Paul Florensky (†1937), who in 1914 became a professor of the MSA in the Philosophy Department. His theological-philosophical and apologetic legacy is great and multifaceted, but unfortunately, some of his ideas are non-Orthodox and even heretical.

The appearance of Apologetics as a separate subject in a Russian theological school is traditionally connected with the name of the professor of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Academy (opened in 1809) Archpriest N. P. Rozhdestvensky (†1882), who was one of the first to compile an independent and full-fledged course on Christian apologetics. After his brilliant graduation from the St. Petersburg Academy in 1865, he was appointed to the vacant chair of basic theology of the Kazan Academy, where, in 1867, the result of his scientific research was the defense of his Master’s dissertation "About the Antiquity of Mankind" (1866. Part 2. P. 134-466). When, in 1869, the chairmanship of Basic Theology in the St. Petersburg Academy became vacant, N.P. Rozhdestvensky returned to it and continued his apologetic work. He was appointed chairman of basic theology in the St. Petersburg Academy in 1883. His main work, published only after his death, is "Christian Apologetics. A Course of Basic Theology" (Parts 1-2. S.Pb.18840). Rozhdestvensky considered apologetics to be "the foundation of the whole building of theological science, including all of its separate branches." (The same source, p. 12). The method Rozhdestvensky proposed of presenting its system remains supreme to this day. It consists of the division of all apologetic problems into two main parts: questions which have common religious importance, and specifically Christian questions.

The Archbishop Innocent (Borisov) of Kherson, (†1857) is known for his apologetic activity. When he taught at the St. Petersburg Spiritual Academy, Archimandrite Innocent in his lectures "…boldly touched upon rationalistic ideas… The students were enthusiastic about those lectures, listened to them with pleasure and left the classroom absolutely fascinated by them" [32].

Another notable apologist of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Academy was Professor Ivan Sokolov (†1860), subsequently the Bishop of Smolensk. His lectures on dogmatic theology were more like apologetic discussions, in which he tried to stimulate students to the idea of reasonable substantiation of Divinely revealed truths. He sharply criticized various types of mysticism, outward rituals and other spiritual diseases of his era.

The Philosophy Department of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Academy was for many years led by Professor and Archpriest F. F. Sydonsky (†1873). His lectures were published under the title, "Genetic Introduction to Orthodox Theology."

In the Kiev Spiritual Academy (from 1702) from among the teachers, working in the field of philosophy and philosophical apologetics, besides the above-mentioned Archbishop Innocent, one can also mention Archimandrite Theophan (Avsenev, †1852), who was called "the humble philosopher," and also Professor F.F. Gusev (the ex-professor of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Academy), who wrote "The Presentation and Critical Analysis of the Moral Teaching of Schopenhauer, the Founder of Modern Philosophic Pessimism." The graduate of the Kiev Academy, O.M. Novitsky († 1884), wrote the first Russian history of philosophy in 4 parts — "The Gradual Development of Philosophical Teachings in Connection with the Development of Heathen Beliefs" (1850-1861).

The professor of the Kiev University, Archpriest Paul Svetlov, was a talented and versatile apologist. He wrote many works on various theological questions, which, as a rule, were scrutinized by him in an apologetic light. Among the more significant works of his one can mention: "The Origin of the Current Opinion About Faith, as the Opposition to Reason" (St.-P. 1869); "Mysticism at the End of the 19^th Century in Its Relation to Christian Religion and Philosophy" (2d Publ. St.-P. 1879), "Christian Faith in an Apologetic Exposition" (3d publ. Kiev 1910); "Religion and Science" (St. - P. 1912). He composed a very useful manual, "What to Read on Theology? The Systematic Index of Apologetic Literature" (Kiev 1907), which includes a vast list of works (1820 names), which were published before 1906, on practically all questions of apologetics.

Among the professors of the Kazan Spiritual Academy (opened in 1842), who studied apologetic questions, one should name, first of all, the professor of the department of "The Introduction into the Circle of Theological Sciences" A.F. Gusev, who expanded the library of Russian apologetics with such works as: "The Moral Ideal of Buddhism in its Relation to Christianity" (S.-P. 1874); "Morals as a Condition of Civilization"; "Christianity in its Relation to Philosophy and Science" (Orthodox Review, 1885 , № 10). He wrote a number of articles against the teaching of Leo Tolstoy.

Though Professor D.F. Gusev was a patrologist, he also had apologetic works: "The Teaching about God and Proofs of God’s Existence in Philo’s System," "The Apologia of the Hypostasis of Jesus Christ and His Earthly Life and Activity in the Work of Origen against Celsius."

Professor V.I. Nemeslov (†1937) is known as the author of the fundamental work in 2 volumes "Science of Man" (1896, 1903). Nemeslov turns Feuerbach’s main thought about the anthropological mystery of religion into a weapon for defending Christianity [33]. The work of Nikanor Brovkovitch (†1890), the Archbishop of Kherson, "The Positive Philosophy and Extra-sensual Existence’ (S.-P. in 3 parts) is interesting. During his activity in the Moscow, Petersburg and Kazan Academies, he was distinguished by his quick theological responsiveness to relevant contemporary problems. Bishop Nikanor analyses the newest rationalistic theories of religion’s origin, the essence of Christianity of famous German thinkers: Strauss, Bruno Bauer, Feuerbach, etc. His sermons are lively, bright, full of rich apologetic material.

In 1854, in the Kazan Spiritual Academy, Professor N.I. Ilminsky opened two missionary departments — the Tatar and Mongolian, the task of which was the preparation of missionaries and apologists for preaching among populations which professed Islam, Lamaism, and other Eastern religions.

A versatile, uncompromising, sometimes brusque apologetic was Archpriest T.I. Butkevich (†1925), the Professor of Theology in the Kharkov University and an active co-worker of the magazine "Faith and Reason." His master’s thesis "The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Experience of Historical-Critical Rendering of Evangelical History with the Refutation of Objections of the Negative Critics of the Present Time" (S.-P. 1887) was a serious scientific answer to negative Biblical criticism. Butkevich’s doctoral dissertation, "Religion, Its Essence and Origin" (Kharkov, v. 1-2. 1902-1904) is a fundamental work which is devoted to the analysis of different philosophic views upon the origin and the essence of religion. The following also belong in the list of his apologetic works: "A Historical Essay of Apologetic Development, or of Basic Theology" (Kharkov, 1899), "Evil, Its Essence and Origin" (Kharkov, 1897).

The positive disclosure and substantiation of Orthodox faith always had a special apologetic value. Two basic approaches exist: the theological-rational and the theological-ascetic. If the first was represented by all of the development of apologetics through the works of theologians-professionals, then the second mostly belonged to pastors-ascetics. There were always many of these in Russia. During the Synodal Period, one should mention, first of all, St. Tikhon of Voronezh (Works, v. 1-5. M. 1889), the Venerable Paisius Velichkovsky (The Life and writings… M. 1847), the Venerable Seraphim of Sarov and other venerable fathers. St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov) (†1867) in his "Ascetic Experiences" (Works in 5 parts, 3d publ. S.-P. 1905) presented a particularly clear understanding of the Orthodox bases of spiritual life and the essence of the errors of Western mysticism and rationalism. In the word "My Cry" (Part 1) he gives a brief, sober Christian assessment of science and philosophy.

The longing for the rebirth of the patristic spiritual traditions inspires the activity of another bishop — Theophan (Govorov) (†1894). He translated "The Philokalia" into Russian, left an interpretation of the epistles of the Apostle Paul, wrote many works devoted to the inner exploit of a Christian ("Letters about Christian Life" (S.-P. 1862), "The Path to Salvation" (S.-P. 1868; "Letters to Different People on the Subjects of Faith and Life" (Moscow, 1882) and others. St. Theophan was very concerned about the passiveness of the spiritual authorities and the clergy concerning the preaching of Orthodoxy and defending it from destructive secularization, atheism, sectarianism, etc. He said straight out that such a state of Church life would inevitably lead to the disappearance of Christian faith in Russia: "In a generation, maybe two, our Orthodoxy will dry out…We should create a whole society of apologists, -- and write, and write…" [34]

It is hard to overrate the meaning of the apologetic activity of St. John of Kronstadt (†1908). By his way of life, sermons, countless miracles he defended Orthodoxy more powerfully than any professional apologist. His work "My Life in Christ" is a marvelous lesson in correct spiritual life.

Among the more significant courses of apologetics, or basic theology, for the educational institutions in pre-revolutionary Russia, the following works should be named. The first study guide for seminaries was written by Archimandrite (subsequently — the Bishop of Ekaterinoslav) Augustine (Gulyanitsky) (†1892). Though the structure of his "Guide to Basic Theology" (Vilna, 1876; 1884) fundamentally repeats the Western systems of apologetic theology, nevertheless it satisfactorily develops the main questions of Christian apologetics. The work of Prof. N.P. Rozhdestvensky "Christian Apologetics. A Course of Basic Theology" (S.-P. 1884, in 2 v.) can be considered normative. The other courses are: "The Lectures on the Introduction into the Circle of Theological Sciences," which was read to the students of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Academy in 1888-1889 by Archimandrite Michael (Gribanovsky), (subsequently a bishop) and published in "The Orthodox Interlocutor" in 1899; "A Course on Basic Theology," written by the professor of the history of philosophy of the MSA Archpriest Dimitry Tikhomirov (S.-P 1897); "A Course of Apologetic Theology" by Prof. Archpriest Paul Svetlov (Kiev 1905); "Lectures on Basic Theology" by the professor of the St.-P. University, Archpriest Basil Rozhdestvensky (S.-P. 1883); "About the Basic Truths of Christian Faith. Apologetic Public Readings" by the professor of the Moscow University, Archpriest Nicholas Sergievsky (M. 1872); "Theology in Apologetic Readings" by the professor of the Moscow University, Archpriest Nicholas Bogolyubsky (M. 1913); "The Scientific-Theological Self-Justification of Christianity. The Introduction to Orthodox-Christian Apologetics" by Prof. Archpriest Eugene Aquilonov (S.P. 1894); "A Course on Basic Theology or Apologetics" by I.P. Nikolin (Sergiev Posad, 1904); "An Essay on Christian Apologetics" by Prof. Archpriest Michael Albov (S.P. 1902), and others.

The means of apologetic activity of Russian theologians and thinkers were theological magazines, which began to be published in the second half of the 19^th century: in the MSA — "In Addition to the Works of the Holy Fathers" (1843-1891) and "The Theological Messenger" (from 1892), in the St. Petersburg Spiritual Academy — "Christian Reading" (from 1821), in the Kiev Spiritual Academy — "The Works of the Kiev Spiritual Academy" (from 1860), in the Kazan Spiritual Academy — "The Orthodox Interlocutor" (from 1855); "Faith and Reason" (from 1884); "The Orthodox Review" (1860-1891); "Faith and the Church" (Moscow, 1899-1910) and many others.

The 20^th century featured great upheavals. Russian apologetics, as a scientific discipline of spiritual schools, stopped existing soon after the revolution of 1917, together with the whole system of theological education. However, even under the conditions of persecutions, pastors and educated lay-people continued to support the faith of one another and to stand in opposition to aggressive atheism. In Siberian exile in 1928, Archpriest Valentine Sventsitsky wrote his apologetic "Dialogues" (M. 1993) about the existence of God, immortality, the Church, progress and spiritual life. In the 1930s, in Tver, living in extremely difficult conditions, Professor N.N. Phioletov (†1943) wrote "Essays on Christian Apologetics" (M. 1992), in which he mainly paid attention to natural-scientific apologetics, the questions of the correlation of religion and science. To the works which were illegally written in Soviet Russia, belong "By the Church Walls" by S.I. Fudel (it was published for the first time in the privately published collection "Hope"), and also the work, in many volumes, "The Basics of the Art of Sanctity" by Bishop Barnabas (Belyaev, first published in N. Novgorod 1995-2000), many chapters of which are dedicated to apologetic topics. At the end of the 1950-s, Metropolitan Benjamin (Fedchenkov) (1880-1961) finished his work of many years, "About Faith, Disbelief and Doubts" (S.P. —M. 1992).

In the diaspora, Archpriest George Florovsky answers the still troubling to some people question: "Did Christ exist? (The Historical Testimonies about Christ")//Christianity, Atheism and the Present. Paris, 1929). Prof. Archpriest V.V. Zenkovsky wrote "Apologetics," which was published in 1959 in Paris. In it, he attempted to examine the more vital problems of the modern world (the basic divisions: "Christian Faith and Modern Knowledge," "Christianity in History," "Christianity as the Church"). For philosophical apologetics the other works of Zenkovsky were significant: "The Problems of Upbringing in the Light of Christian Anthropology" (Paris 1934), "Russian Thinkers and Europe" (Paris 1955) and especially "The History of Russian Philosophy," (Paris 1948-1950), where he examined, in part, the development of theological and religious-philosophical thought in spiritual academies. In 1953, "Orthodox-Christian Apologetics" (New-York 1953) by Prof. A. Andreev appears. In the 1970s-80s, in the city of Jordanville, several apologetic reviews appeared ("About Life, Faith and the Church"); "The Dogma about Faith" and "Whatsoever the Lord Pleased, That Did He in Heaven, and in Earth" by the Professor of the Holy-Trinity Seminary Archpriest Michael Pomazansky.

The works of religious thinkers always had great significance for apologetics. Russian religious-philosophical thought did much for many of those searching for truth, and for their conversion to God and Christ.

Individual works of V.S. Soloviev (e.g. "The Justification of Goodness" M.1996), I.A. Ilyin ("The Religious Meaning of Philosophy," Paris 1925), "The Axioms of Religious Experience" (Paris 1953), "About the Resistance to Evil by Force" (1925), "The Singing Heart. The Book of Quiet Contemplations" (1958), "Our Tasks" (1956) and of many other Russian thinkers are of interest as well.

A great number of articles, also devoted to apologetic questions, was published in the magazine "The Path" — the leading publication of religious-philosophical society of Russians abroad.

Gradual rebirth of apologetics as a theological science began in the ex-USSR together with the renewal of activity of theological seminaries and academies. In the MSA, in the first few years, the course of basic theology was taught by the Assoc. Prof. Archpriest N.S. Nikolsky, Prof. Archpriest S.V. Savinsky, Prof. M.A. Starokadomsky, Assoc. Prof. V.I. Talyzin and Prof. A.V. Ushakov. Prof. Starokadomsky defended his master’s and doctor’s dissertations in philosophical apologetics: "Faith and Reason as the Paths of Knowing God through the Works of Church Writers of the First Three Centuries of Christianity" (Master’s Thesis, Mashinopis, 1961) and "The Experiences of Speculative Substantiation of Theism in the Works of the Professors of the MSA" (Doctoral Diss., Mashinopis, 1969).

In the St. Petersburg Spiritual Academy, the course of basic theology was taught by Professor K.A. Sborovsky, Assoc. Prof. A.F. Shishkin, Archbishop Michael (Mudyugin), who published his lectures under the title "Introduction to Basic Theology" (M. 1995).

Literature: Smirnov S. Archpriest. The History of the Moscow Slavonic-Greek-Latin Academy. M. 1855. The same author. The History of the MSA Before its Reformation. (1814-1870). M. 1870; Rozhdestvensky N.P., Archpriest. Essays on the History of Apologetics and Its Modern Scientific Position in Western Theological Literature // 1873. Part 3, Sept. P. 89-134; The same author. Christian Apologetics: The Course of Basic Theology. S.P. 1884. Part 1. Butkevich T. Archpriest. A Brief Review of Russian Apologetic Literature // F&R. 1899, № 19. P. 415-440. Svetlov P.J. What to Read on Theology? The Systematic Index of Literature (248-1906). Kiev, 1907. Zenkovsky V. Archpriest The History of Russian Philosophy. P. 1948, 1950. V. 1-2. Sarychev V.D. The Acquaintance with the Main Works of Russian Apologetic Literature/the MSA. Zagorsk, 1952-1954. V. 1-2. The Manuscript; Florovsky G. Archpriest. The Paths of Russian Theology; Russian Religious-Philosophical Thought in the 20^th century; Collection of articles/ Ed. N.P. Poltorazky. Pittsburg, 1975; Zernov N.M. Russian Religious Rebirth of the 20^th century. P. 1992.

[18] Philaret Gumilevsky, Archbishop. The History of Russian Church, p. 227 --- 229.

[19] George Florovsky, Archpriest. The Paths of Russian Theology. Paris. 1981. P.33.

[20] The same, p.32.

[21] Basil (Krivosheyin), Archbishop. Symbolic Texts in the Orthodox Church.// BT №4. M. 1968. P.21.

[22] Florovsky. The Paths…p. 50.

[23] The same, p. 151.

[24] The same, p. 124.

[25] The same, p. 125.

[26] M.V. Lomonosov. Collection of Articles, edited by V.V. Sypovsky. St. P. 1911. P.17.

[27] Gregory Skovoroda. Works. Vol. 1. Kiev, 1961. P.16.

[28] Florovsky. The Paths…p. 172.

[29] See: F. Andreev. The Moscow Spiritual Academy and Slavyanophils. Sergiev Posad, 1915.

[30] Collection of Works. Vol.1-3. Sergiev Posad, 1893 -94.

[31] A. Vvedensky. The Philosophy of V.D. Kudryavtsev in an Understandable Presentation. M. 1895, p. 3-4.

[32] Smolych I.K. The History of Russian Church. 1700-1917. M. 1996, p. 442-443.

[33] Florovsky p. 445.

[34] Florovsky, p. 398.

This manual on Basic Theology is drawn up in compliance with the curriculum, approved by the Teaching committee of Moscow Patriarchate, and intended for the first (of two) year of studying this subject in theological seminary. Therefore this manual covers mainly issues of general religious character relating to the introductory part of the fundamental theology. However, where required, assessments are given from the Orthodox viewpoint.

This second edition contains 2 topics relating to Orthodox understanding of the difference between Christianity and heathenism: "About sanctity of saints as signs of fulfillment of God’s promises to man" and "Basics of spiritual life."

The curriculum of the manual after explaining the notion about the subject of Fundamental theology and its basic tasks includes the following chapters:

Notion about religion and its origin — the chapter that not only explains this issue but also provides analysis of other viewpoints.

About the existence of God — the chapter that provides main traditional arguments on this issue.

Religion and human activity — analyses the problem of correlations of natural science and religion. It also provides analysis of natural ways of reason (philosophy and science) in the knowledge of the truth and Christian understanding of this issue.

The following chapters: Revelation, About sanctity, Basics of spiritual life are oriented at Orthodox understanding of the essence of religion itself, conditions and the nature of the unity of man and God.

Then the manual considers topics: Heathenism, Old Testament Religion and Origin of the world, as they are seen in the light of Biblical and patristic theology.

One of the natural tasks of every educated Christian is to absorb the truths of his faith so that he can not only know them but also be capable of revealing and grounding them to anyone who might inquire. "And be always prepared, writes the Apostle, — to give an answer to everyone that asks you to give an account of the hope that is in you, but with meekness and fear" (1 Peter, 3:15). Hence, for a Christian to be aware of "the certainty of things in which he has been instructed" (Luke 1:4) is not only a natural need, but also a commitment to fulfill Christ’s commandment to love people and make disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28:19). Preparation to such a mission is a very difficult and crucial task. Among theological sciences it is the Basic Theology that assumes to help accomplish this task.

Its aim is to show and prove the main Christian ideas (both those of general religious character, e.g. the existence of God, and those specifically Christian, e.g. the principle of Salvation) in a manner that would allow anyone who seeks the sense of life to comprehend the Christian answer in a proper way and evaluate it as compared to various non-Orthodox alternatives.

This explains the specifics of the Basic Theology and its methodology. However it is based on the dogmatic and moral premises of the Christian faith, it employs both separate ideas of other religions, and data of various sciences, philosophical and cultural achievements. Basic Theology is addressed to those who are not yet firm in their faith, which are in doubt and yet seek the Truth and are interested in Christianity. Having mainly no proper religious experience, not having experienced God inside oneself, such people often need a rational grounding of the basics of the faith, of the verity of Christianity and its answers to the main questions of human existence.

Thus, Basic Theology is primarily for those who are by the church walls, yet "alive." And though at first such people often make an error trying to find the Truth and explore the Christian faith only through reason, logic and religious philosophy, nevertheless, those who later on become spiritually capable of actual, i.e. empiric, comprehending Christianity, acquire this knowledge through prayer, fulfillment of the Commandments and repentance.

One should also be aware of two dangers arising from the possible use of this theological science. The first one is avoid giving a stone to one who asks a loaf of bread and a serpent to the one who asks a fish (Matthew 7:9-10). And the second, whereof the Lord also warned: "Give not that which is holy to the dogs, or cast your pearls before the swine, lest they trample them with their feet, and turning round rend you" (Matthew 7:6). The word of sermon can be addressed only to one who truly seeks, for only those who hunger and thirst after righteousness are capable of accepting Truth (Matthew 5:6-10). Apostle Paul instructs his disciple Timothy and every Christian: "But foolish and senseless questionings avoid, knowing that they beget contentions. And a bondman of the Lord ought not to contend, but be gentle towards all; apt to teach; forbearing; in meekness setting right those who oppose, if God perhaps may sometime give them repentance to acknowledgement of the truth" (2 Timothy 2:23-25).

What is human life? If it were possible to film it and then watch it in the fast mode we would get a rather depressing impression.

What is a usual day of a person? — He or she wakes up, eats, works, talks, fusses, laughs, quarrels — this is today, tomorrow, day after day, year after year. What is life in general? One graduates from school, works, gets married, has children, gets old and sick …and dies. His children and grandchildren have the same "story." Different events are overlaid on this general scheme, but none of them may stop the stream of life in its unrestrained flow to … death. And this is true of everyone, always and everywhere. Generation after generation passes away like autumn leaves.

Billions of lives, filled with joys and sufferings, love and despair, nobleness and meanness, glory and obscurity have gone into eternity. Which one? What is it? What is the meaning of life of a human being and human kind?

My life! A vain and accidental gift, what have you been given me for?

Or why have you been sentenced to execution by a mysterious fate?

Who has called me from the worthlessness by his hostile power?

Who has filled my soul with passion, who has surged my mind with doubt?

There is no aim before me: my heart is empty, my mind is idle,

And the monotonous noise of life oppresses me with misery.

With these biter words at the difficult moment of his life Alexander Pushkin expressed this paradox of human existence and its tragic mysteriousness for us.

The Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret (Drozdov), who was called Wise while still living, answered Pushkin with the following famous poem:

Not in vain and not by chance God has given me my life

Not unjustly He has secretly sentenced it to grief

I myself have called the evil from the dark abyss by my self-willed power

I myself have filled my soul with passion and have excited my mind with doubt.

Let me recall You, the One Who I have forgotten!

Shine to me through the haze of thoughts —

And You will make my heart pure and my mind clear.

An unexpected reply of the Metropolitan, which revealed the very essence of the tormenting question, deeply touched Pushkin. He wrote to the Metropolitan a long poetic reply in which there was a genuine sense of gratitude and affection:

I cried streams of unexpected tears,

And the pure balm of your fragrant words

Was a delight to the wounds of my conscience.

It is true that for each person the main question has always been and still remains the question about the meaning of life. Not everyone can find a final answer to this question, not everyone can give an answer to the skeptic. But in every normal person there is an ineradicable need to find this meaning and its reasonable explanation.

What options does a human being have when facing this main question of life?

First of all these are religion and atheism. Agnosticism, which is somewhere in between these two, cannot really claim to be a worldview, because it basically denies the person’s ability to give any reliable answer to the main worldview questions such as the existence of God and immortality of soul, the nature of good and evil, the truth and the meaning of life, etc.

How do we evaluate religion and atheism? To answer this question, it is reasonable to examine religion and atheism as two theories of existence (or non-existence) of God, because this issue is the main one for both of them. In this case the criteria for evaluation of religion and atheism may be found in two basic scientific requirements, which can be applied to any theory. First, there should be facts confirming the theory. Second, its basic premises and conclusions must be empirically verifiable. It is obvious that only the theory which satisfying these requirements can be considered as scientific and deserving serious attention.

What do religion and atheism have to offer in this respect? Speaking of religion, firstly it offers innumerable facts that directly testify to the existence of God, soul, angels, demons, supernatural forces, etc. To be convinced of this, it is enough to take a look at the lives of at least a few of the Russian saints and their numerous miracles, for example saint Xenia of St. Petersburg (†1803), Seraphim of Sarov (†1833), Ambrose of Optina (†1891) (whose wisdom and astuteness attracted the whole of Russia, the most famous writers, thinkers and public figures: Dostoyevsky, Gogol, Tolstoy, Vl. Solovyev); saint John of Kronshtadt (†1908), whose amazing miracles took place in front of great numbers of people.

Thus, first of all, religion offers facts. But, along with them, Orthodoxy provides each person with the means for verification of its statements, shows a specific and real way to personally experience the spiritual world. The most succinct expression of this is found in Christ’s words: "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God." (Matthew 5:8)

What does atheism have to offer? First of all, it does not have and cannot have in principle any facts, testifying to non-existence of God and the spiritual world. Besides, the infinity itself of the cognizable world shows that these facts cannot exist, at least owing to the fact that all the human knowledge is just a tiny island in the ocean of the unknown. That’s why even if God did not exist, this would have always remained an eternal mystery for mankind, in which one could only believe, but never know for sure.

Secondly (and this is the most difficult issue for atheism), it is not able to answer the most important question: "What specifically should a person do to make sure that God does not exist?" And without this answer, atheism appears to be nothing but a blind faith. Yet the answer is obvious: there is only one way that allows an individual to make sure that God does or does not exist, and that is to live a life of religion. There is simply no other way.

Thus, taken together in a paradoxical unity, both religion and atheism call every person, who is seeking the truth, to study and experimentally examine something called "religion."

So, what is religion?

Religion as a phenomenon inherent in human society throughout its history and still characteristic of the overwhelming majority of the population of the Earth still appears to be an obscure area for a great many people. One of the reasons for this seemingly strange fact is that, as a rule, religion is evaluated by its outside features; by the way it is practiced by its followers in a church or temple, in private and social life. From this follows a wide range of different interpretations of religion, which perceive its essence either in the elements that are secondary and minor or even in its distorsions, which none of the world religions has managed to avoid.

Therefore the question of what the essence of religion is and what characteristics of it are defining and which ones are unimportant requires special consideration.

Religion has two sides, the external one — as an outsider sees it — and the internal one, which is visible to the believer, who lives in conformity with spiritual and moral principles of the given religion.

From the external side, religion represents first of all a worldview, which includes a number of specific premises (truths), without which (or at least without one of which) it loses its own essence, degenerating into either magic, occultism, and other similar pseudo-religious phenomena, which are just the products of its decay, degradation and distorsion; or into a religious philosophical thought system, which has little to do with a person’s everyday life. Religious worldview always has a social character and expresses itself in a more or less developed organization (church) with a certain structure, moral, rules of life for its followers, ritual, etc.

From the internal side, religion is a direct experience of God.

The etiology of the word "religion" itself gives a preliminary understanding of religion.

There exist several points of view on the origin of the word "religion" (from Latin "religio" — conscientiousness, godliness, reverence, religion, holiness, worship service...). Thus, Cicero, a famous Roman orator, writer and political figure of the 1-st century B.C., thought that it was the derivative of the Latin verb "relegere" (to recollect, to re-discuss, to reconsider, to put off for a special use), which in a figurative sense means "to venerate" or "to treat something with special care, respect." From this, Cicero sees the essence of religion in the reverence before the supreme powers, Divinity. This thought of Cicero correctly indicates that the reverence is one of the most important elements of religion, without which religiosity turns into hypocrisy and vain performance of ritual, when faith in God turns into a cold, lifeless doctrine. At the same time one cannot agree that the reverence before something mysterious and even before God forms the essence of religion. No matter how great and necessary the reverence is in religion, it nevertheless represents just one of the feelings, present in person’s religious relationship towards God, and it does not express its essence.

A famous western Christian writer and orator Lactantius (†330) thought that the term "religion" came from the Latin verb "religare," which means "to bind," "to unite." That is why he defines religion as a union of godliness between man and God. He said: "We are born with the condition to show fair and due obedience to the Lord, Who gives us life, to know Him alone, to follow Him. Being bound with this union of godliness, we are united with God, from which the religion itself received its name... Thus the name "religion" came from the union of godliness, with which God united Himself with man..." [N. P. Rozhdestvensky "Christian Apologetics": In 2 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1884. vol. 1. p. 136].

Lactantius’ definition reveals the most important aspect of religion: the living unity of human spirit with God that takes place deep within human heart.

Blessed Augustine (†430) understands the essence of religion in the same way, though he thinks that the word "religion" came from the verb "reeligere," which means "to reunite," and the religion itself means "reunification, restoration of formerly lost union between man and God." He writes: "Searching for Him or again finding Him (from which religion seems to get its name), we are striving for Him with love, to attain peace once we have reached Him" ["On the City of God." Quoted by: N. P. Rozhdestvensky. Indicated Works. p. 137].

Thus the origin of the word "religion" points to two of its main meanings: union and reverence, which speak of religion as a mysterious spiritual union; living revering unity of a human being with God.

So what are the basic truths of religion?

The first one is the confession of spiritual, perfect, rational, personal Origin, that is of God, the Source (Cause) of everything, including human beings, Who is always actively present in the world. This idea of God exists in different forms, has different content and clarity of expression in different religions: monotheistic (faith in one God), polytheistic (faith in many gods), dualistic (faith in two divine powers: good and evil), animistic (believing in spiritual nature of all beings and in presence of a soul in all natural forces and phenomena).

According to the Christian doctrine, "God is love" (John 1, 4:8), He is our Father (Matthew 6: 8-9), "in Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). God is that initial Existence and Consciousness bringing forth all the various forms of material and spiritual existence and consciousness, both known and unknown to man. God really exists and is unchanging; He is a Person and the ideal of good, truth and beauty; He is the ultimate goal of people’s spiritual aspirations. In this aspect Christianity and other religions principally differ from other worldviews, the higher ideal of which does not exist in reality, but is just a fruit of people’s dreams, rational constructions and hopes.

The second basic religious truth is the belief that a human being essentially differs from all other kinds and forms of life; that he is not only a supreme biological being, but first of all is a spiritual being with not only a body, but also a soul, a carrier of mind, heart (the organ of feelings), will, personality itself, capable of communication and unity with God and with the spiritual world. According to the Christian doctrine a person is the image of God.

In religion the possibility and the necessity of spiritual unity of a human being with God presumes belief in Revelation of God and a necessity for a person to live righteously in compliance with religious dogmas and commandments. In Christianity such a life is called faith, which implies not just a conviction of the existence of God, but a special spiritual and moral character of the entire life of the believer.

This religious truth is inseparably linked to the more or less developed in various religions doctrine, that a human being exists after death. In the Christian Revelation one can find more: a teaching about the universal resurrection and eternal life of a human being (and not just the soul), which fills a person’s earthly life and activity with special responsibility and full meaning. "You live just once and eternity is ahead of you. So make a free and deliberate choice of conscience and truth as the norm of your life!" This Christian statement is in stark contrast with the atheistic one: "You live just once and the eternal death awaits you!"

It is the answer to the questions about the soul and eternity that best shows the true nature of religion and atheism. It also reveals the hidden face and spiritual orientation of each person: whether a person strives for the immortal beauty of the spiritual perfection and eternal life or prefers to believe in the final and absolute rule of death, in face of which, all ideals, all the struggle between good and evil; truth and lie; beauty and ugliness, and the life itself become meaningless.

By his choice of faith a person testifies about himself as to who he really is and what he wants to be. As one of the most outstanding Russian thinkers of the 19^th century, I.V. Kireyevsky, correctly observed, "a person is his faith." And though there are two faiths, there is only one truth, and every rational person cannot forget about that.

Another important feature of religion is the belief in the existence of the supernatural world of angels and demons, getting in the spiritual contact with which (with one’s honest or immoral actions), the person determines, to a large degree, his or her life. [Taylor, a prominent 19^th-century expert on religion, wrote: "the belief in the existence of the supernatural world is a religious minimum without which no religion is possible." (Quoted by N.P. Rozhdestvensky, "Christian Apologetics," vol.1, St. Petersburg, 1893, p.141)]. All religions acknowledge that the spiritual world really influences the person's activity and life. That is why it is highly dangerous to find oneself in combat on the same side as the spirits of evil. The consequences of this, both temporal and eternal, are frightful for the person.

An obvious element of any religion is its ritual, i.e. the combination of all its external forms of public worship and regulations.

There are many other elements characteristic to all religions: their dogmatic and moral teachings, ascetic principles, rules of life, etc; they are all naturally and logically linked to the basic ones given above.

It is more difficult to speak of internal side of religion, than of its external side, since it represents a field of such experiences and comprehensions, which cannot be expressed in terms of our words and concepts. It is obviously difficult to interpret even our usual and common feelings. Thus, we say: "I had much fun" or "I feel sad in my heart." But any other person will never know what exactly stands behind these words, because the inner world of a person is deeply personal and in essence is inexpressible. The same applies to religion. For a true, not nominal, believer it opens a special spiritual world, God and such indefinitely rich variety of spiritual experiences which are impossible to express in words to another person (even if he perfectly knows the external side of religion). In the most general form, one can give the following definition of religion: religion is coming to know God and experiencing a connection with Him. However, religious experience makes a person sure of the reality of another, Heavenly world not by proving to him its existence, but by showing it to him. Only that person enters a truly religious path, who in his journey of life has really met God, who has been overtaken by Him, who has experienced an outpouring of His overcoming power. Religious experience is essentially neither scientific, nor philosophical, nor aesthetic, nor ethical. And just like the mind cannot research beauty (but only can think of it), so the mind gives only a weak idea about the burning flame of religious experience... Lives of the saints, men of faith, prophets, and founders of religions and live monuments of religion: writings, ritual, customs... — these are things that, alongside with everyone's personal experience, help a person to come to realization of religion better than abstract philosophizing about it. [S. Bulgakov, "Eternal Light," Sergiev Posad, 1917, p.6-7].

It is possible to provide practically an infinity of testimonies on the nature of religious experiences and revelations, on the states of deep joy, love, on receiving gifts of insight, healing and the comprehension of what, according to great saint Venerable Isaac of Syria, is higher than man (spiritual world), is equal to man (souls of other people) and lower than man (world of nature), and on many other extraordinary gifts. Apostle Paul said about it with the words of the ancient prophet Isaiah: "Eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and it has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him" (1 Corinthians 2:9).

But all similar testimonies will remain "external," meaning nothing to those who never came into contact with the world of mysterious Divine beauty. Without a living connection to God, without having studied the ascetic experience of the Fathers, a person cannot understand religion will inevitably develop a highly distorted view of it. The most common human errors that result from this can be well seen in the typical examples of the views on religion of three German thinkers: Kant, Schleiermacher and Hegel.

(For an analysis of this issue see for example: P. Florensky Cult and Philosophy // Theological works, Coll. 17. Moscow 1977. p.119-135).

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is a well-known German philosopher and scientist. Kant's philosophy is well presented in two of his main works: "Critique of Pure Reason" and "Critique of Practical Reason." In "Critique of Pure Reason" he came to the conclusion that, as a matter of principle, the human mind cannot know the essence of things. It is only possible to know "phenomena," i.e. what appears as a result of interaction of the real world (so called "things in themselves," beyond the reach of cognition) and our cognitive ability. Because "things in themselves" cannot be known, Kant concludes that it is in principle impossible to come to know God, soul, the world. Therefore he criticizes the so-called proofs of the existence of God and immortality of soul.

However, proceeding from the moral law, which exists in us and requires compliance, Kant in his "Critique of Practical Reason" asserts the necessity to postulate both the existence of God and immortality of soul. Because attainment of the highest moral ideal, striving for which is inherent in the human nature, becomes possible only through accepting the existence of God, Who is willing and able to ensure goodness and truth, and immortality of soul, which allows the soul to be perfected without limit.

Kant gives his view on the essence of religion in the above mentioned works as well as in "Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone." In Kant’s opinion, the content of religious consciousness is the understanding of God as a moral legislator, and religion lies in recognition by the person of all his or her moral duties as commandments of God. In "Critique of Practical Reason" he writes: "Moral law through the understanding of the highest good as the object and the ultimate goal of pure practical reason leads a person to religion, i.e. to the recognition of all his moral duties as commandments of God, — not as sanctions, i.e. as arbitrary determinations of somebody’s will, but as essential laws of any free will in itself." "Religion, in its subject matter, does not differ from morality, because the common subject of both of them is the moral duty; the difference between religion and morality is only formal" [N.P. Rozhdestvensky Christian Apologetics: In 2 vol. St. Petersburg 1884. Vol. 1. p. 149].

Thus, according to Kant, the essence of religion lies in the fulfillment of the moral duties as "the commandments of God." Kant himself, when explaining his understanding of religion, says that a reasonable person may have religion, but he shouldn’t have any relationship with God, because the man knows nothing for sure about actual existence of God. In place of God in religion Kant places a man with a moral law inherent in him. Thus, Kant creates some "universal" notion of religion that can exist without acknowledging the existence of God. It is for a reason that he "wrote repeatedly: "I am God," in his last large work "Opus postumum."" [Stanly L. Yaki. God and Cosmologists: Dolgoprudny, 1993. p. 23].

Many share Kant’s view on religion as the fulfillment of certain moral duties. Its main idea is that for a person it is enough to be good, because this is the essence of religion. It is not necessary to be religious. Therefore all specific requirements of religion to a person, such as belief, doctrines, commandments, worship services and prayers, norms of church life are superfluous. These are all superstition, philosophy, and one can neglect them. From here comes the idea of so-called universal morals, non-dogmatic Christianity, unity, in essence, of all religions etc.

A serious error of this understanding of religion consists in ignoring the fact, that a person’s morals and way of life are ultimately determined by his or her worldview, an understanding of the supreme ideal which may be God or "god." Both ideals define their respective morals.

If a person's god is glory, mammon, authority and stomach, then there is no doubt about the character of such person's morals. A good illustration of this is a speech by Rockefeller before the students of a Sunday school in the US, in which he, among other things, said: "Growth of business activity is simply survival of the strongest... The American rose can be brought up in all the magnificence of its beauty and fragrance that causes delight among those who admire it only by ruthlessly cutting off weak shoots around it. It is just the law of nature and of God in action!" [Quoted by: K.R. Hill. Christian Defense of Morals and Democracy.//Dispute. 1992. №1. p. 138]. Adoration of a golden idol makes a person ruthlessly cruel. This goes to show that morals depend on what kind of "god" we are talking about.

But even high morals do not in themselves bring a person closer to God, because it is not good deeds that cleanse the heart of a person, but the struggle against passions and the humility resulting from this struggle. Venerable Isaac of Syria wrote: "The person does not receive the award for his deeds till he becomes humble. The award is given not for the deeds, but for humility... The merit is given not to the virtue and not to the work for the sake of it, but to humility that is born from virtue and labor. But if humility is lost, both virtue and labors will be in vain." [Saint Isaac of Syria. Selfless Words. Moscow.1858. Word.34. P.217]. Prophet John speaks similarly of highly moral deeds: "The true labor may not be without humility, because labor itself is vain and is not worth anything." [Barsanuphius the Great and John. A Guide to Spiritual Life. SPb. 1905. Answer 274.] Therefore St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov) even says: "Unhappy is one who is satisfied with own human righteousness: he does not need Christ." [Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov). Writings in 5 volumes. SPb. 1905. Volume IV, p. 24. ].

Virtues and labors are necessary and useful only when they are done out of love for a person and are the means to acquire humility.

Paul Florensky very well expresses the unspiritual and, in essence, atheistic nature of Kant's views on religion. Analyzing the concept of holiness, he writes: "Our modern thought is inclined to equate this reality [of the other world] to moral power, understanding holiness as the completeness of moral perfection. Thus Kant tries to get to religion via a back door, so to speak, for in this approach morality is thought of as the power of the same earthly world, a subjective power ... But fruitless are the powerless attempts at the concepts of holiness... Even the word usage testifies against such attempts: when we speak of holy vestments, holy vessels, holy water, holy oil, holy churches and so on and so forth, it is obvious, that we not at all mean ethical perfection, but ontological. And this means, that if in these cases the positive side of holiness also contains this ontological superiority over the world and an ontological existence outside this world, then on a broader scale the focus of this concept of holiness is not in ethics, but in ontology...

And if we call a person "holy" we do not point to his morals, for which there exist appropriate words, but to his original powers and deeds, qualitatively not comparable with the ones of the world, to his being above this world, to his being in the spheres inaccessible to usual understanding... morality of such a person, which itself is not a component of his holiness, partly serves as one of the favorable conditions for his being above the world, and partly is revealed as a consequence of such a state. But the connection of these two concepts must be established by gentle and very flexible threads... Therefore, when we call a moral action a "holy deed," we mean not its Kantian moral orientation, which is immanent to the world, but anti-Kantian transcendental to the world unification with the energies of the higher world. By calling God "Holy," and Holy by superiority, the source of any holiness and completeness of holiness... we sing not His moral nature, but His divine one...” [Priest Paul Florensky. Sanctification of the Reality//Doctrinal works. №17. Moscow, 1977. p. 150-151].

Substitution of morality for holiness and spirituality is a great mistake of Kant and all his followers. Execution of moral duties without God is like navigation of a ship without a rudder and sails.

Schleiermacher’s view on religion and its value for man differs from Kant’s in form, but it is the same in essence.

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1786-1834) was a theology professor in Berlin, a secretary of the philosophical department of the Academy of Sciences. His main writings are "Discourses on Religion to the Educated who Despise it," "Monologs," his fundamental theological work "Christian Faith," and numerous sermons. Schleiermacher’s general philosophical views are given in his "Dialectics" (by dialectics he implied the art of philosophical substantiation).

Schleiermacher’s idea of God and His relation to the world almost coincides with the pantheistic understanding of Spinoza. At the same time, acknowledging God to be absolutely transcendent to the human mind, Schleiermacher directly joins Kant. And in his understanding of religion Schleiermacher is as single-sided as Spinoza and Kant.

According to Schleiermacher, the basis of life is the absolute global unity, "wholeness," or God. All depends on God, but this dependence is expressed in the general internal relationships within nature, but not in the Revelation or grace, because God is impersonal.

Schleiermacher’s expressions "God," "world spirit," "world completeness" are used as synonyms. God’s activity is equivalent to causality in nature. "God never existed outside the world, we cognize Him just in ourselves and in things." Everything happens necessarily, the human being does not differ from other creatures either by free will or eternal existence. As all individual creatures, people are just a transient state in the life of the Universe, which having appeared, should perish. Common ideas of immortality along with a hope for a reward in the afterlife are wrong.

The philosopher writes that "the purpose and the nature of religious life is not immortality in the form, as it is believed... but the immortality that we already have in this temporary life, i.e. to merge with the infinite among the finite and to be eternal in every moment — this is the immortality of religion" [F. Schleiermacher. Discourses On Religion To the Educated People. Moscow 1911. P. 111]

The essence of religion is contemplation of the infinite and "the feeling of dependence" on it in the inseparable unity. He wrote: "Religion is a feeling and a taste to the eternal... This is life in the infinite nature of the one whole and in everything, the life that sees everything in God and God in everything... It is a direct perception of the existence of all the finite in the infinite and though the infinite of all the temporal in the eternal and through the eternal..." [Ibidem. P. 39].

Religion originates from striving for the eternal, for the absolute unity: it is a direct cognition of world harmony. Religion brings man to a relationship with the absolute and teaches him to feel and see himself as a part of the whole.

Schleiermacher thinks that one common eternal religion has always existed in the world. The variety of religions shows only the difference in power and direction of those religious feelings that inspired creative geniuses, who created religions, but has nothing to do with any religion being true or false. As one of the religious researchers wrote, "according to Schleiermacher, religion is a feeling of eternal in temporal or the feeling of unconditional dependence, and, consequently, each religion is a true religion, because it is the matter of feeling, but it has nothing in common with the true knowledge" [O. Pfleiderer. On Religion and Religions/ Translated from German. St. Peterburg 1909. p. 45].

According to Schleiermacher doctrines in religions do not have any religious meaning at all. Doctrines and canons are just a shell allowed by religion, but this shouldn’t be done. Hopefully in the future religion will not need the Church. Actually the more religious a person is, the further away he should stay from the Church. Moreover in order to contribute to religion an educated person should fight against the Church — the carrier of dogmatism, strict morality and canons, which enslave the feelings. A true religion, i.e. a free feeling of reverence and delight before the eternal Universe, its harmony and beauty is possible only with the abolishment of the Church.

Schleiermacher’s views fully coincide with those ideas, which began to be spread in Russia since the end of 18^th century by the freemasons and liberal nobles and to bring their "fruits." Their essence was very well expressed by archpriest George Florovsky, who wrote about the views of Labzin (1825), the head of the Rosicrucian Lodge in St. Petersburg: "It is not the doctrines or even visible ordinances that are important, but this very life of the heart, because it is impossible to please God with "opinions." "We will not find any Savior’s discourses on dogmas..." and therefore all the separations between confessions are from the pride of mind. The true Church is broader than these external divisions and consists of all true followers in spirit, contains the entire human race. This truly ecumenical or "universal" Christianity blurs, in Labzin’s interpretation, into some trans-temporal and trans-historical religion. It is always the same in all societies... the one religion of the heart…" [Archpriest George Florovsky. Path of Russian Theology. The 3^rd edition. Paris, 1983. p. 137].

This very well demonstrates what is represented by a religion, in which nothing remains but the "high" feelings of a person. This is a total adogmatism, destruction of any individual religion as a worldview, and a direct statement of what hieromonk Seraphim Rose called "the one religion of the future" [See his "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future"].

Orthodox Christianity teaches that the essence of religion consists in experiencing the Kingdom of God, which is inside of us (Luke. 17:21). But at the same time it says that the feeling of the Kingdom is not an involuntary experience of something exalted, but experience of God. Abba Dorotheus says: "Being passionate, we should not at all trust our hearts, because the curved ruler curves the straight line." [Venerable Dorotheus. Lectures Beneficial for the Soul. Moscow. 1874. Teaching 19. p. 212]. And St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov) writes: "If good deeds initiated by the feelings of the heart could deliver salvation, the coming of Christ would be unnecessary" [Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov). Writings in 5 volumes. SPb. 1905. Volume. I, p. 513.] At the same time Orthodoxy specifies quite certain conditions for achieving communication with God (see chapter VII on Spiritual life). The feeling of experiencing God is completely different from the one described by Schleiermacher, because it is the consequence of a holy life in the Church, but not a result of contemplation of the harmony of the whole world in its infinity.

A prominent representative of yet another very widespread, especially among the educated people, understanding of religion was Hegel (1770-1831) — a great German philosopher-idealist, protestant and apologist. His main works are "Phenomenology of Spirit," "Science of Logic," "Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences," "Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion," "Philosophy of Law," etc.

The foundation of his philosophical system is the doctrine of the so-called Absolute idea (or Universal mind, Universal spirit, Absolute, God) as the initial category, which exists before the world, nature and society and dialectically evolves from abstract to concrete. Its evolution is carried out through the tree-like system of logical categories (which replaced in Hegel's philosophy everything that exists in reality) in the following way: each concept assumes and gives birth to an opposite one, and they both lead to the third, higher, concept, which reconciles and contains them in itself as its own components (for example, existence — nonexistence — temporary existence). The third concept, in its turn, becomes the beginning of a new triad and so on. Continuous change of three components: thesis, antithesis and synthesis (position, opposition and their unity), is the dialectic law (method) of the development of the Absolute idea. The dialectic method lies in the basis of the construction of the whole philosophical system of Hegel. It is divided into three parts:

1. The doctrine of the Absolute idea in itself as it develops in the form of pure logical essences (logics);
2. The doctrine of the Absolute idea in its alternative existence, i.e. the doctrine about the nature (philosophy of nature);
3. The doctrine of the Absolute idea as various forms of concrete spirit (philosophy of spirit). Here the Absolute becomes reasonable in human consciousness and it is revealed in three forms: in art, religion and philosophy. In art it cognizes itself in the form of contemplation through a sensual image, in religion — in the form of imagination, and in philosophy — in the form of concepts.

According to Hegel religion in comparison with philosophy is a lower step of self-disclosure of Absolute spirit, because in religion the knowledge is at the level of imaginations only, which are imperfects modification of philosophical concepts. Therefore religion should be finally abolished by philosophy (certainly, the one of Hegel) — this perfect form of knowledge of the Absolute.

Hegel offered unusual interpretations of dogmatic Christian doctrines. Thus, he interpreted the doctrine of the Trinity as a symbolic expression of the dialectical development of the Absolute idea according to the principle of the triad. Naturally, in this interpretation the basic Christian truths lose their original meaning and turn into allegories of philosophical categories.

Hegel's view on religion is interesting not so much for its peculiarities of philosophical understanding, as for its basic idea of the essence of religion. Religion is viewed here as a certain system of thinking, and the main goal of the believer consists in its understanding, in discursively logical understanding of its truths. However, given such an approach, the soul of religion, the personal experience of God, is expelled and is replaced by doctrinal and religiously philosophical "computerized" arguments about Him. The result is that religion as a live, real connection with God ceases to exist for a person.

Such deeply false understanding of religion is one of the widespread illnesses among theologians, priests, and secular educated people. They "know" Christianity and there their religious life often ends. Reformation is an especially good illustration of such mentality. Protestantism may be fairly called a "professor’s religion," considering its rationalistic character. This fatal mistake was exposed by Apostle Paul: "…Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God" (1 Corinthians. 8:1-3).

Saint Seraphim of Sarov clearly spoke of the results of the rational cognition of Christianity and condemned reduction of religion to so-called education: "Nowadays, due to our almost total coldness to the holy faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and due to our carelessness to the actions of His Heavenly Providence for us, we have reached the state where we almost fail to understand the words of the Scripture. Some say: this passage is not clear, therefore did the Apostles really so obviously could feel the Holy Spirit near them? Is there any mistake here? There was not and there is not any mistake... It all happened because, little by little, we distanced ourselves from the simplicity of Christian knowledge, under the pretext of education we came into such darkness of ignorance, that what seems to us unclear now was clearly understood by the ancient Christians to whom God's presence among people did not seem strange." ["About the Purpose of Christian Life." Conversation of Saint Seraphim of Sarov with N.A.Motovilov, Sergiev Posad.1914. p. 33, 10].

Ignatius Brianchaninov († 1867) writes about how deeply this illness may strike a person: "The word of Christ comes true: will Son of God find faith on earth in the last times? Sciences exist. There are academies, masters, doctors of theology (really it is but laughable!), these degrees are given to people... [And] if something happens to this theologian, it becomes clear that he does not even have faith, not only theology. I have met such people: a doctor of theology who doubts whether Christ came to earth or not, whether it is a fiction, whether it is a fantasy like a myth! What kind of light can we expect from this darkness?!" [Bishop Ignatius. Letters to Different People. Issue II. Sergiev Posad. 1917. pp. 78-79].

Reformation is an especially clear illustration of extreme rationalistic thinking. Unfortunately, neither Hegel, nor all the later "hegelians" understood it.

The question of the origin of religion is one of the keys to understanding religion. In response to the statement of the religious consciousness regarding the origin of religion in the mankind and the theanthropic character of religion, a negative critic would present a number of so called natural (i.e. purely human) explanations for the origin of the idea of God. Their essence can be summed up by L. Feuerbach’s statement: "God did not create man, but man created God." Therefore, before presenting the positive view on the origin of religion, let us go through the most common atheistic hypotheses: naturalistic, animistic, anthropotheistic hypothesis of Feuerbach (†1872) and social.

The naturalistic (from Latin "natura" — nature) hypothesis, suggested by the Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius (1 c. B.C.), claims that the idea of God and religion appeared as a result of man’s fear of severe natural phenomena (timor primus fecit deos — fear created first gods), as a result of man’s failure to understand the causes of these phenomena and the laws of nature.

However, this psychological explanation does not takes into account the fact that fear is more likely to lead to a desire to avoid these phenomena and to hide from them, rather than venerate and treat them as persons and pray to them. A man was afraid of many things, but yet he did not idolize all the objects of his fear: predators, natural forces, his human enemies etc. — but only some, and very often the most harmless, of them (a stone, a tree, etc.). Perhaps, it was not fear that caused religious attitude to these objects. The Soviet researcher of religion V. Timofeyev observes: "The existence of natural phenomena by themselves, even so catastrophic as floods or earthquakes, does not necessarily lead to religious fabrications" [Basic Issues of Scientific Atheism / Edited by professor I.D. Pantskhav. Moscow 1966. p. 36]. His colleague, A. Sukhov, who holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy, makes a similar statement: "And nevertheless, even in the era of primitive state, humans were never completely suppressed by natural forces. This suppression was never absolute" [Natural Science And Religion. 1970. No. 3. p. 10].

The lack of scientific knowledge on the part of the ancient man cannot account for the origin of the concept of God, either. A primitive man sensed his knowledge subjectively, perhaps even better than the modern man (who faces a huge number of problems, and their number is continually increasing with each new discovery), and he had his own explanation for everything that he encountered in his life. This is well demonstrated by the following real life story. A researcher, who studied the primitive Kubu tribe on the Island of Sumatra, once asked a native:

— Have you ever walked in forest at night?

— Yes, often.

— Have you heard moans and sighs there?

— Yes.

— And what did you think?

— A tree was crackling.

— Did you hear screams?

— Yes I did.

— What did you think?

— An animal was crying.

— And if you do not know which animal is crying?

— I know all animals’ voices...

— So, you are afraid of nothing in the forest at night?

— Nothing.

— And you have never met there anything unknown that could scare you?

— No, I know everything...

[Folz V. Rimba/ Translated from German. Moscow; Leningrad, 1931. p. 100. Quoted by Svyetlov E. Magism And Monotheism. Brussels, 1971. p. 37-38].

It is obvious that for a man with such a mindset the idea of God is absolutely unnecessary in explaining unusual natural phenomena.

This hypothesis does not stand for yet another reason. Science has been around for centuries, and man noticed long ago that he gradually acquires an ever-increasing capability to explain natural phenomena. However, this discovery, which is probably most important for man, and which freed him from "mystical fear" of nature, did not affect his being religious. The overwhelming majority of people, among them some of the greatest scientists, believed and continue to believe in God even as we enter the XXI century.

The naturalistic hypothesis does not at all answer the main question: how fear (or, on the contrary, delight, admiration) of the surrounding earthly, material, visible, audible and tangible world could cause in the primitive man’s mind the idea of the existence of God, a radically different Being: spiritual, invisible, inaudible, intangible.

But while the phenomena of this world are not themselves capable of giving birth to the idea of God and the other world, i.e. religion, in the mind of man, yet the presence of such an idea in the soul of man enables him to not only believe in God, but also to idolize any natural phenomenon, any creature, any of man’s fantasies. And then the existence of religion in all nations of the world and religious diversity become quite explicable.

The animistic hypothesis (from Latin animus — spirit) was suggested and thoroughly developed in the 19-th century by the English ethnographer E. Taylor (†1917) in his main work "Primitive Culture." The Soviet researcher of religion S.Tokarev characterizes his view on religion in the following way: "Taylor understood religion mainly as a belief in spiritual beings or as animism, which he called "minimum of religion." He saw the source of animistic beliefs in the inability of primitive man to understand such biological phenomena, as sleep, dreams, illnesses, faintings, and death. In Taylor's opinion, "savage philosophers," while trying to explain these phenomena, came up with the idea of soul as a small double that exists in every person. Then, by analogy, they attributed the similar souls to animals, plants, and inanimate objects; thus gradually a belief than nature had a soul was formed, and this made possible the development of mythology, and later lead to the higher forms of religion, even polytheism, monotheism and complex doctrines." [S.A.Tokarev. E.B.Tailor // Brief scientific — atheistic dictionary. Second edition. Moscow, 1969. p. 691-692. Also see his "Animism" Ibidem. p. 27].

That this hypothesis is poorly substantiated is obvious from the following:

1. First, it would be too much to assume that not one person or two, but the whole mankind was so feeble-minded that it could not distinguish dreams from reality and took hallucinations and night visions for real. Besides, such a backward mind would be very unlikely to be able to reach so abstract an idea as existence of God, and to firmly maintain it throughout history.
2. Even if we were to accept, against all logic, that a man in that distant past actually combined, inconceivably, feeble-mindedness of a savage with philosopher’s wit and took his fantasies, dreams, etc. for real, it would still not necessitate a religious attitude to these things. There is a huge difference between admitting that something really exists and adopting a religious attitude to it and idolizing it. But unfortunately the animistic hypothesis does not notice this difference.
3. It is difficult to imagine that a man, even having recently left the animal state as the supporters of the animistic hypothesis claim, could believe in the reality of existence of the things, which he had imagined or dreamt of. First of all, a dream is not something absolutely unexpected by man, something that suddenly appeared before his consciousness and struck him with its suddenness and exclusiveness. On the contrary, this phenomenon is quite usual. It is characteristic even of animals. And it is possible to say that a man is born and dies with it. Secondly, the overwhelming majority of dreams is a haphazard combination of thought fragments, emotional experiences, feelings, scenes from everyday life, etc. All of this can in no way be understood as a whole and therefore win one’s confidence. Thirdly, many dreams should have caused man’s direct distrust to them. For example, having had a filling meal in his dream, man might still be hungry after he wakes up. Or having overcome his enemy in his sleep, he might find everything in the same state after awakening. Could he still believe in dreams after all that? Could he have any religious attitude toward them?
4. In the framework of the animistic hypothesis the fact of universality of religion among mankind seems to be quite mysterious and inexplicable. It is well known that it is difficult to convince somebody of something that exceeds the bounds of everyday experience. It is especially strange that some dreams and fantasies of a man could convince of the existence of God not one or two people, not just the man’s family, and not even individual tribes, but the whole mankind.

Flaws of the animistic hypothesis are so significant and so indisputable that even in serious atheistic circles it has ceased to enjoy confidence. S. Tokarev is very clear about it: "Now it has become out of date, its lack of methodological substantiation has become obvious" [See: Tailor. Short Scientific-Atheistic Dictionary. 2nd edition. Moscow. 1969 p. 692].

L. Feuerbach (1872), one of Hegel’s followers, suggested a somewhat different idea on the origin of religion. He derived his hypothesis from the old thesis about personification of forces of nature by man as a basis of ancient religious beliefs. In his opinion religion arose directly from personification of separate aspects and features of the abstract nature of man and its false interpretation. Feuerbach asks: "What is spirit if not a spiritual activity, that obtained independent existence due to human fantasy and language, a spiritual activity personified as a creature?" [L. Feuerbach Lectures on the Essence of Religion // Works: in 3 vol./ Translated from German. Moscow. 1923-1926. vol 3. p. 168. 11, Ibidem p. 192. 12, Ibidem p. 169.] Aссording to him, God and gods are personified projections of characteristics of man and nature, changed into independent beings by human thought.

Feuerbach divides religions into "spiritual" (Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam) and "natural" (all the primitive and ancient pagan beliefs). According to Feuerbach, in the "spiritual" religions "God, being distinct from nature, is nothing else but the proper essence of man," and in the "natural" religions "god, being distinct from man, is nothing else but the proper essence of nature" [Ibidem p. 192].

So how, according to Feuerbach, did these supernatural beings appear in the mind of man? It’s very simple. They owe their "existence" just to "man’s ignorance of biological processes behind thinking and fantasizing," because Divinity is a "personification of man’s ignorance and fantasy" [Ibidem p.169 ]. Brain activity, which is in fact, "corporal" activity of a certain organ was perceived by man as "incorporeal," because this "brain activity is the most hidden, remote, quiet, and elusive." So man "made [it] into an absolutely incorporeal inorganic abstract being, which he called God" [L. Feuerbach. Lectures on the Essence of Religion // Works: In 3 vol./ Translated from German. Moscow. 1923-1926. Volume 3. p. 169]. He writes: "The essence of the power of imagination, when not counterbalanced by senses and reason, consists exactly in what the imagination presents to the mind." [Ibidem p. 214]

Such was in general Feuerbach’s point of view regarding the origin of religion. It can be summarized in his following thesis: anthropology constitutes the mystery of theology. This thesis comes directly from his understanding of the essence of religion, which can be defined by one word — anthropotheism. Feuerbach tried to create a new anthropotheistic religion with the cult of man. S. Bulgakov defines Feuerbach’s religious views as follows: "Thus, homo homini Deus est (A man to a man is God) — this is a laconic formula expressing the essence of Feuerbach’s religious views. This is not a denial of religion and not even atheism — this is, in contrast to theism, anthropotheism, where anthropology appears in the role of theology." [S. Bulgakov The Religion of Anthropocentrism of L. Feuerbach // Two Cities: In 2 vol. Moscow. 1911. vol. 1. p. 14]. "Homo homini Deus est should be translated here as: humankind is a god to an individual person." [Ibidem p. 17].

What is the major error in Feuerbach’s and his followers’ view on the origin of religion? It is in the assertion that religion is a fantasy reflection in man’s consciousness of the consciousness itself and of all of the earthly reality. And that was claimed despite the fact that there are a great number of geniuses and great people who confessed their faith in God.

Speculative nature of Feuerbach’s hypothesis became obvious when his works "The Essence of Christianity" (1841) and "Lectures on the Essence of Religion" (1849) were published. Even supporters of the Hegel school, from which he came out, criticized his views on religion. And this is not surprising. The statement that God is an imaginary personification of the abstract concept of a person equals to the accusation of all humankind of insanity. A professor of the Moscow Theological Academy, V. Kudryavtsev (†1892), correctly remarked: "What, if not insanity, can we call such a state of the soul, when man considers a fruit of his imagination to be a really existing object and allows this idea to permeate all the aspects of his life?!" [V.D. Kudryavtsev. Initial Ground of Philosophy. 9-the edition. Sergiyev Posad, 1915. p. 125].

Indeed, only a mentally ill person may regard his fantasies as real living beings and treat them as such. Creation of abstractions and belief in their objective reality, and especially in their divinity, are quite different things to be as easily confused as was done by Feuerbach. This hypothesis can only explain the process of degradation of religion and development of various pagan religions, but by no means can it explain the origin of the idea of God.

The social hypothesis is the last word in the negative criticism on this issue. Its main idea is quite clearly revealed from the following statements.

"As a form of public consciousness, religion originated as a product of society, a result of its historical development. It is different from other forms of public consciousness in that it offers a distorted view of life in the form of ideas about the supernatural. A religious view of life is in turn rooted in social phenomena: in a primitive society it is rooted in man’s feeling of helplessness in the face of natural forces, and in class-structured societies—in the feeling of weakness in the face of social oppression." [A. F. Anisimov The Stages of Development of Primitive Religion. Moscow, Leningrad. 1967. p. 34].

"Due to a low level of development of productive forces, people did not have reliable sources for securing necessities of life... Because of that, man felt totally dependent on the forces of nature and thought that they stood high above him and were of supernatural character.

The social roots of primitive man’s religion lie in the poor development of public production. However... for religion to originate, certain gnoseological pre-conditions had to be met. A religious explanation of the world first of all requires a man to understand his own personality as something separate from the surrounding nature and, secondly, requires an ability to formulate quite abstract notions regarding general properties of phenomena and objects" [Basic Issues of the Scientific Atheism / Edited by professor I.D. Pantskhav Moscow. 1966. p. 37].

Thus, the content of this new hypothesis can be summarized in the following main points:

1. Religion "could originate only at a certain stage of development… of society and human being himself" [Ibidem p. 169], that is it is not a primordial phenomenon in the human society.
2. The origin of religion is conditioned by:

1. social factor — "due to the undeveloped public production" (in the primitive society by the feeling of person’s weakness in the struggle with the nature, in the class societies by the feeling of weakness in the face of social oppression);
2. gnoseological factor—the capability to "formulate quite abstract notions" as a result of development of "human ability to think abstractly." [Ibidem] Abstract thinking gives rise to "fictional reflection of reality" in human mind, i.e. supernatural, religious reflection of reality.

A quick review of the main points of this hypothesis makes its eclectic nature obvious. However, since this hypothesis claims to be not only novel but also scientifically sound, it should be examined in more detail.

Thus, the first question is: what does science know about the time of the origin of religion? Is there any evidence of a time when mankind was without religion?

The question of when religion developed in human history is directly related to the more general problem, one of the time of appearance of man on this planet [See, for example, on this: S. S. Glagolyev The Past of Human Being. Sergiyev Posad, 1917]. As we know, science has no final answer to this question. In the Soviet ethnography it is assumed that humans appeared on Earth about one million years ago. However, this estimate refers to the time of the appearance of contemporary man. But in fact it seems more likely that this happened no earlier than about 150 thousand years ago. A well-known Soviet expert in religion, V. F. Zybkovets, states this carefully: "there are reasons to believe that ethnography can be traced back to the musterian epoch, which is separated from our time by about 100-150 thousand years." [V. F. Zybkovets Man Without Religion. Moscow. 1967. p. 78] According to scientific data, Homo sapiens appeared no more then 30-40 thousand years ago. Thus, for example, academician N.P. Dubinin wrote: ."..During 10-15 million years a giant leap from animal to human being was made. This process was accompanied by internal bursts of impulsive evolution, among which the most important was the leap that created the modern man and … was made 30-40 thousand years ago." [N. P. Dubinin. Social and Biological in the Modern Problem of Human Being // Issues of Philosophy. 1972. No. 10. p. 53].

Similarly, professor William Howells, the president of the American Anthropological Association, a world-renowned expert on the prehistoric man believes that ."..about 35 thousand years B. C. the Neanderthal men suddenly gave up their place to people of an absolutely modern physical type, who did not virtually differ from today’s Europeans, except for a stronger body build" [Kuryer. 1972. No. 819. p. 12. See also: Human Being // Comprehensive Soviet Encyclopedia 3rd edition. Vol. 29. Moscow. 1978. p. 50-54].

What can we now say about religion in the human race within the time "reachable" by ethnography? A Soviet expert on religion, S.A.Tokarev, thought that even "the Neanderthal man who lived about 100-140 thousand years ago and had a relatively developed consciousness and elements of human speech perhaps already had rudimentary religious beliefs." [The Origin of Religion // Abbreviated Dictionary of Scientific Atheism. 2nd edition. Moscow. 1969. p. 565.] Undoubtedly, people that lived 40-30 thousand years ago, i.e. Homo sapiens, posessed religios beliefs. Soviet scientist V. Titov wrote: "Archeological research indicates that biological development of modern man was complete about 30-40 thousand years ago. Modern man’s bones were first discovered in France near Cro-Magnon. Thus this man was called the Cro-Magnon man. Excavations of Cro-Magnon sites has yielded rich material pointing to Cro-Magnon man’s relatively developed religious ideas." [V.E. Titov Orthodoxy. Moscow. 1967. p. 301]

Many other Russian and most foreign scientists support this opinion (for example, famous ethnographer W. Schmidt, professor K. Blacker and others). V. F. Zybkovets, actually, sums up the problem in the following words: "Discussion among Soviet scientists concerning religious beliefs of the Neanderthal man is still going on. A. P. Okladnikov, P. I. Borisovsky and others believe that Neanderthal burial sites prove existence of religion among the Neanderthal people." [V. F. Zybkovets Man Without Religion. Moscow." 1967. p. 161]. Thus researchers disagree only about religious beliefs of the Neanderthal man, while the question of religion among Homo sapiens, that is humans proper, has been solved unambiguously: science does not know of any pre-religious state of Homo sapiens!

The question of whether the so called ancestors of man, such as pithecanthropes, misanthropes, atlanthropes, heidelberg man, giantopithecus, australopithecus, and others had religion or not is actually vain until the degree of their "humanity" is clarified. If these man-like creatures, which lacked reasoning capability and other characteristics of a human being, did not have religion, this is not surprising, neither is it any surprise that chimps and gorillas do not have religion. But let’s assume that these "pithecuses" and "anthropes" were man’s ancestors. Are there any grounds to say that they did not have religion? No, there aren’t. The previously cited words of V. F. Zybkovets regarding ethnography being traced back to only 100-150 thousand years confirm this convincingly enough.

Thus, the second premise of the social hypothesis — about the social factor in the origin of religion — is meaningless due to indisputable scientific evidence of the primordial existence of religion among humans. Therefore there is no ground left to claim that the appearance of religion is a result of man’s weakness in the face of social oppression in class society. Religion is much older than class societies and social oppression. V. F. Zybkovets states: "The history of class society is at most six thousand years old..." [Religion // Abbreviated Dictionary of Scientific Atheism. 2nd edition. Moscow, 1969. p. 597]. And religion is at least 30-40 thousand years old.

But maybe religion developed "as a reflection of man’s weakness in the face of nature, a weakness resulting from a low level of development of material production"? [Ibidem p. 110]

But where did the idea of weakness and fear of the primitive man in the face of nature come from? Did it not come out of a comfortable office and a soft armchair? It seems to be the case. Just as the city with all its factories, cars, tangled streets, crashes, accidents and victims does not provoke panic fear and weakness, not to mention religious worship, in a city dweller, so the wildest jungles are a home to a man of nature. It is quite possible that some "savage" rationalist, could come up with a hypothesis that religion in highly developed societies originated from the human fear and weakness in the face of civilization, and this hypothesis would be as well justified as those of today’s experts on religion.

But who of these thinkers is right? Apparently, none of them is right. Fear does not generate the idea of God (although it often makes us remember about Him). Moreover there is no reason to say that the primitive man experienced weakness before nature or special fear that he would have no food to fill up his stomach the next day. All these fears are natural for the "displaced" man of XIX-XX centuries, who lives in abnormal social conditions. In the primitive communal society with its low level of material production a man had greater opportunities for finding food, than do people of the "high-tech" societies of our time, who live with a fear of loosing their jobs.

The premise of "weakness" in this case truly confirms the social origin, though not of religion, but of the hypothesis itself.

The final argument of this hypothesis is a gnosiological one. It claims that the origin of religious concepts is determined by the development of man’s ability to formulate abstract notions. The logic here is right — only abstract thinking enables a man to move from impressions of material world to generating a world of ideas, including religions ideas.

However, this argument is just a return to the old idea of Feuerbach once again, which is unsound from both psychological and historical points of view. He and his followers relate the appearance of religion to such a long past time and to men so distant from us, that all the reality of these "notions" is lost. The period of dozens, hundreds and thousands of millennia, as it is estimated, since the origin of mankind does not allow us to reliably determine the psychology of man of that time. Therefore one can claim here almost anything. But are not these claims themselves fruits of imagination? It is necessary to chose between two alternatives: either consider the mentality of the first people as terra incognita and admit that the origin of religion cannot be solved by science at its current stage of development; or consider the mentality of the first people as similar to that of modern man and decidedly discard fabulous statements that the first people deified their abstractions, hopes, dreams and fears.

Moreover scientific research indicates that religious consciousness of man is much older than a developed abstract thinking. Undeveloped, from the European point of view, nations, though being religious, did not typically have abstract notions, and they often do not have them at present time. The Russian philosopher V.L.Timofeyev reports the following interesting fact: "The study of cultures and languages of nationalities at their early stages of development proves that the development of people’s consciousness was moving from concrete, visual notions to more abstract generalizations, which were a deeper reflection of the essence of the phenomena and objects surrounding people. Ethnographers point out that the language of such peoples lack many words, necessary to denote abstract notions and types of things. Thus, the African tribe of Eve has 33 words to characterize different types of a walk. But their language has no word to denote the process of walking itself regardless of its type. The people of Kanaka have, for example, special words to denote bites of various animals and insects, but there are no words to denote a bite, a tree, an animal etc. in general.

"It is obvious that the first religious images that appeared in the mind of primitive man should have had concrete visual nature and could not be a kind of faceless and abstract supernatural force that had no analogy among material objects surrounding primitive people" [Basic Issues of Scientific Atheism / Under the editorship of professor I.D. Pantskhav. Moscow. 1966. p. 36].

As one can see from the above quote, even some modern peoples and tribes still do not have highly abstract notions. But the level of development of these tribes is definitely higher than that of those that lived 35 thousand years ago and therefore could not have abstract concepts. Yet both ancient and modern peoples had/have religion, which includes such notions as "God," "spirit," "soul," "angel," etc.

There is a clear inconsistency in this view on the man of the original religion: on the one hand he is viewed as an absolutely undeveloped half-animal creature that hardly understands "his personality as something separate from the surrounding nature," and, on the other hand, he is seen as a philosopher with bold, original mind and abstract thinking. This inconsistency does not allow us to take seriously the final argument of this hypothesis — the gnosiological one.

Thus, the social hypothesis, too, failed to give an answer to the question about the origin of religion. Its disadvantages are obvious. It is eclectic; all its elements became out of date a long time ago. The only new element of the hypothesis — the social one — is not a real reflection of the state and level of the development of man of the original religion, but just a simple projection of the present into the dark night of past millennia.

Universality of religion in mankind is one of the most impressing facts of world history. Such a phenomenon could not be a result of an accident, someone's imaginations or fears. Its cause could only lie in something fundamental; it had to be rooted in the human nature itself, in the essence of being.

Negative hypotheses of the origin of the idea of God have played a great role in solving this problem. They once again powerfully and persuasively demonstrated that religion is not is a fruit of "earth." But where is then its source?

There is, then, only one logically justifiable answer to the question of the origin of religion: there is God, Who affects man in a special way, and man is capable of perceiving these God’s actions under certain conditions.

Thus, answering the basic general question: "How can religion be possible?" we say: "Religion is a direct identification of God and a living connection with Him, which is possible due to religious endowment of a man, due to the existence of a religious organ, which perceives God and His influence. Surely, without this organ that splendid and colorful development of religion, with its special nature, that we can see in the history of mankind would not have been possible." [Quoted by S. Bulgakov, "Unvesper Light," Sergiev Posad, 1917, p.7].

So, what factors inside man make this experience and development of the faith in God possible, thus giving rise to religion?

First of all it is a sincere search for the truth and for the meaning of life. For one who searches thus shows that he is spiritually alive. On the contrary, one who is spiritually dead does not search and therefore does not find. That is why Jesus did not allow a disciple of His to first go and bury his father; He told him: "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God" (Like 9:59-60), in order to prevent this disciple from spiritually dying among the dead. The command of Christ the Savior: "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened" (Mathew. 7:7-8), is the first and necessary condition for coming to God.

So, what is this way like? It starts with an understanding of the abnormality of one’s own life and a realization of the gospel morality, which substantially differs from the generally accepted or so-called universal moral values and has the following main characteristics:

1. Sincere repentance of all the evil, unfair and dishonest deeds previously commited that wound the conscience: inner repentance, repentance before the offended ones, repentance before the priest if the soul allows do so.
2. Determination to fulfill all those norms of morality that are contained in the New Testament and can be summarized in the commandment "Let us love one another" (1 John. 4:7). Sincere repentance is again required if any of the moral norms have been violated. Thus, obedience to commandmants and repentance, repentance and obedience — this is the beginning of the Christian morals that open God to the seeking person, because only "the pure in heart …shall see God." (Mathew. 5:8)
3. Of course, it is also necessary to read and study the Holy Scripture, mainly the New Testament, as well as the writings of holy fathers and venerable ascetics and teachers of the Church, and to attend divine services. Sincere words addressed to the yet unknown God, "Lord, if You exist, reveal Yourself to me, for I am sinful and weak," will be definitely heard and answered.

Of course, these are just the very first steps toward God and a personal experience of Him. However, without these it is extremely unlikely that the truly genuine faith and religion will be ignited inside man.

A mere confidence in the existence of God or just of "something supernatural" does not make one a Christian. It is necessary to know the basics of the Orthodox faith and the resulting principles of spiritual life, compliance with which brings a Christian into the mysterious world of the Church as opposed to world outside the Church.

Today it is not easy and simple for people to reach this world of the Church. Even having believed in God, one still has to choose a religion. And, having become convinced of the validity of Christianity, one still has to find the Church. To accomplish this one has to impartially study the faith and ascetic experience of the ancient Church (of the time of the Ecumenical Councils) in order to see the falsehood of Roman Catholicism causing great damage to spiritual life and its arrogant claims of absolute authority in the Church; the rational secular nature of Protestantism; mystical groundlessness and often open syncretism of today’s countless sects. One has to see all this in order to consciously and of free will accept the Orthodoxy.

Determining the nature of the first religion is quite important, because this defines an understanding of the essence of religion and its meaning to a person. This question can be examined from several perspectives: scientific, ideological (on philosophical grounds), and Christian.

Science. Homo Sapiens that, according to modern science, appeared about 35 thousand years ago, had "rather complex religious ideas" (see the Social hypothesis) in the form of a solar cult (sun worship). But who or what did he really worship? Was it the sun or "the Sun of Righteousness," God? Science has nothing to say about this.

Archeological and ethnographical research traces the sources of the European civilization no further back than the ruins of Malta’s temple culture (4-2 thousand years B.C.) From Crete to Mycenea (3-2 thousand years B.C.) only a few household notes and some undeciphered texts have been preserved, while not a single written character is left from the Malta ruins, so we can only guess about the nature of religious beliefs of that time. Therefore, if we don’t take the Bible into account, the written history of European religion begins with Homer’s "Iliad," approximately dating back to VIII-VII centuries B.C.

The Hindu Vedas were written no earlier that 2 thousand years B.C., and they tell us about God and gods. Many researchers believe that older texts are actually closer to monotheism, whereas more recent ones have a tendency toward polytheism and pantheism.

The same picture is seen while studying religious sources from other civilizations, such as Assyrian-Babylonian, Roman, Chinese, American and others. Beneath a layer of polytheism researchers find obvious traces of older monotheism. [For example see A.I. Pokrovsky. Biblical Doctrine About Primitive Religion. The Holy Trinity-St.Sergius Lavra, 1901. Archimandrite Chrisanf (Retivtsev). Religions of the Ancient World In Their Relation to Christianity. Volume I-II. St. Petersburg. 1873; 1875. E. Svetlov. Magic And Monotheism. Brussels, 1971. (See: Notes and Brief Bibliography.)] The earliest date piece of religious literature, a collection of texts from the pyramid of king Unas (mid-XXIV century B.C.) clearly mentions a single Creator of "the visible and invisible world" Ra-Atume. (See: A.M. Zubov. Victory Over the Last Enemy // Theological Herald. 1993. No.1)

Materialist ideology, based on its belief in universality of evolution and unquestionable validity of the evolution theory, treats the development of religion using the same evolutionary approach, tracing it from the lowest forms (fetishism, animism, sabeism, etc.) to the highest one, monotheism.

However we can see at least two basic errors in this approach.

The first one is an unsubstantiated application of evolution approach to such a special aspect of life as religion.

The second mistake is the ignoring of the fact of existence till now of the lowest forms of religion and obvious degradation of religious ideas in the more advanced societies. The modern civilization is obviously decaying spiritually, and this is caused, first of all, by its religious degeneration. Christianity is pushed away by a variety of pseudo-religions, occultism, magic, astrology, i.e. by all that, which from the ideological point of view belongs at the initial stage of development of religious consciousness of man at the lowest stages of his existence. There is an obvious involution, not evolution of religion.

The Christian point of view is based on the testimony of the Bible, the very first lines of which clearly tell us that monotheism came first. The commandment to worship the One and Only God is the first among the ten most important commandments given through Moses and is emphatically reiterated in various forms and contexts throughout both the Old and New Testaments.

An objective basis for accepting the Biblical evidence is the fact that Bible is one of the most ancient written sources, and its trustworthyness is confirmed by a large body of scientific and archeological evidence. [See, for example, K. Keram. Gods, Tombs, Scientists. Moscow. 1960; L.Wully. Chaldean Ur. Moscov, 1961; E. Tseren. Biblican Hills. Мoscow 1966] Therefore there are sufficient grounds to say that monotheism is the oldest religion in the world, and other religious forms appeared later for several reasons. Let’s name some of them.

The Bible names moral corruption of people as the main reason why monotheism faded and a variety of other religious beliefs appeared. Apostle Paul in the epistle to Romans wrote: "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed forever. Amen" (Romans 1:21-25).

These words uncover the psychological basis and sequence of spiritual degradation of a person, which happens when the worldly (1 Corinthians 3:3) pagan element develops inside man and the spiritual needs are unmet. In this case the Apostle writes only about one kind of paganism, the one most widely spread in the Roman Empire. But the reasons he stated: pride and disrespect for God (they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to him), unbelief, concentration of all effort on worldly objectives (they claimed to be wise), moral dissoluteness (through the lusts of their own hearts) (compare: Luke 4:1-13; John 2:15) have lead to the appearance of other numerous kinds of paganism.

Ancient non-biblical authors also pointed to the moral cause of distortion of man's religious views. Thus, Cicero wrote: "Many think incorrectly about gods, but this usually comes from moral corruption and depravity. However all are confident that there exists Divine power and nature" (Cicero. "On the Nature of Gods" Quoted by: V Kudryavtsev Initial Grounds of Philosophy. Sergiyev Posad, 1910. p. 176-177).

There are a number of secondary reasons for the development of new religious beliefs. Among these are separation and isolation of nations that contributed to a loss of purity of the original Revelation of God, which they spread only orally, as well as anthropomorphic way of thinking. But one of the more significant among these reasons is an allegorical nature of the ancients’ languages, since they expressed their understanding of God in terms of natural phenomena, human nature, nature of animals, birds etc., which gradually assumed a sacred character and were deified. For example, the sun as an image of God – a source of life and light – became an especially common subject of religious veneration. In this manner the images of supreme gods (Zeus, Jupiter) and different other gods and goddesses appeared.

"God is spirit" (John 4:24), and knowing Him depends on the degree of a person’s spiritual purity: "For into an evil soul wisdom shall not enter; nor shall it dwell in a body that is subject unto sin. For the Holy Spirit of wisdom will flee from deceit, and remove itself from thoughts that are without understanding, and will be ashamed of approaching unrighteousness." (Wis. 1:4-5). "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God." (Matthew 5:8). Therefore, depending on the level of righteousness (or depravity) of a nation, new ideas about God were born: about one God or many; kind or malicious, righteous or wicked, etc. Every nation, having a sense of God, created His image in accordance with the level of its spiritual, moral and intellectual development. The various "natural" (pagan) religions thus appeared.

Another category of religions, to which belong the Jewish religion of the Old Testament and Christianity, are the religions of Revelation. They are monotheistic, and the source of their teaching is a direct Revelation of God recorded in sacred books. The basic distinguishing characteristic of these religions is that their tenets are not results of human dreams, fantasies or philosophical conclusions that ascribe properties of man and nature to God, but come from a direct Revelation of God Himself. This Revelation came in two quite different stages.

The first stage, the Old Testament Revelation, was ethnically limited. It was given in the language and in forms appropriate to the psychology of the Jewish people, considering their spiritual, moral, intellectual, and aesthetic potential. Therefore in many ways it had a limited nature (see The Religion of the Old Testament).

The second stage, the New Testament Revelation, was not specific to any particular nation, but was universal in nature. All of its basic truths testify to its Divine purity and show it to be unpolluted with any human additions. These truths have no precedents in all of history of religious consciousness! Apostle Paul wrote: "we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Corinthians 1:23).

§9. What Religion Is Not

Despite all the diversity of religions, they have certain common characteristics that set them apart from all other worldviews. (See 4. Basic Truths of Religion). Teachings that reject at least some of the basic religious truths cannot be categorized as religious teachings. Some of these actually hide materialism and atheism behind a mask of religion. Others combine an emphasis on mysticism with a conscious and open fight agains God. Still others, mainly religious-philosophical systems of thought, lack the very idea of a necessary spiritual connection between man and God.

The following examples will suffice to illustrate the first two categories. The Judaic teaching of the Sadducees, though observing the cult of the Old Testament religion, rejects the most important truths: existence of a spiritual world, human soul, eternal life (they "say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit" (Acts 23:8). Therefore the teaching of the Sadducees, being a part of a religious system, is not a religion, but is obviously materialistic and, in fact, atheistic.

Another example is Satanism, which accepts the existence of God, but preaches hatred to Him and any good and truth. Thus Satanism is a denial of the very essence of religion and is nothing but a criminal ideology.

Quite unnatural with respect to religion and especially Christianity are such well-known phenomena as extrasensory perception, the teachings of Roerich, Scientology and others, which offer various mystical methods of "curing" a person from all sorts of ailments.

Equally distant from religion are some of the well-known religious philosophical thought systems that are centered on the idea of the existence of God, yet are not truly religious. Examples of such systems are deism, pantheism and theism. These have a long history and are widely spread.

1. Deism (from Latin Deus — God.) This religious and philosophical school appeared in England in the 17^th century, but became especially widely spread in Europe in the following century. Deism acknowledges the existence of God, but considers Him to be only the Creator of the world and its laws. Deism completely rejects a possibility of any Revelations, miracles, or any providential acts of God. God is outside the world. He is transcendental (from Latin transcendere — to exceed the bounds of something), i.e. absolutely uncognizable for a person, and no communication between man and God is possible.

In the deistic view, the created world is similar to a perfect clock mechanism left to itself by its creator. Man is absolutely autonomous, independent from God. For a full spiritual and physical life no prayers, worship, sacraments, God’s help or grace are needed, as they would violate man’s freedom. The whole religious experience of mankind is simply abolished by a willful denial of it. Therefore religion with all its dogmas, commandments and establishments appears to be a wrong and senseless teaching. Naturally, the Church is also seen as redundant and harmful.

Thus, appearing to accept the existence of God, deism completely denies man’s needs in God, thus opening a direct way to open fight against God. It is not surprising, then, that Voltaire, who was a deist, proclaimed such a blasphemous slogan with respect to the Catholic Church: "Crush the serpent!”

Deism is not an accidental fruit of thought of some "strange" philosophers. Its psychological roots are as old as the first man, who started to dream of become "like God" without God, against God and who began a "new life" (=death) in a "new" world. This inherited "self-sufficiency," which got a fertile soil for its development in the worldly church life of that epoch in the West, gave birth to a multitude of painful phenomena in human mind and heart: deism, atheism, materialism, freemasonry, etc.

2. Pantheism (from the Greek word (pan) pan — all; and (o Qeoz) theos — God) — is a religious-philosophical teaching, which in essence identifies God with Cosmos (nature, man). In pantheism God is not viewed as a Person existing in Himself independent from the world. God is completely immanent (from Latin immanens — internally inherent to something) to the Cosmos. Jewish philosopher Spinoza (†1677) claimed that "God is nature" (Deus sive natura). According to pantheism a person is a particle of the divine and is aware of itself only for a moment of its earthly life in order to later be dissolved forever in the infinite ocean of Spirit. In essence pantheism denies not only freedom of the man’s will, but also the reality of either world or God.

A famous Russian philosopher L.M. Lopatin (†1920) fairly noted, that in pantheism "there is apparently only one way out for a thought: either to proclaim the world a phantom and destroy it in God, or to force God to disappear in the world to such an extent, that only His name remains." [L. Lopatin. Positive Problems Of Philosophy. Moscow, 1911. Part I. p. 277-278]. In practice pantheism usually takes this latter path. An original attempt to smooth this tendency is the so-called panentheism (from Greek pan en Qev - all in God), a religious-philosophical teaching of the German philosopher Krauze, which he presented in 1828. According to it everything that exists abides in God, but God remains a personality and is not dissolved in the world.

Pantheism has a long history and comes in a variety of forms. It is especially developed in Hindu systems of thought. It has existed in India for thousands of years. In the West different philosophers created various forms of pantheism (for example, Spinoza, Hegel, Schleiermacher).

In Russia it was primitively developed by Leo Tolstoy. He replaced God with an "understanding of life," which is love; religious life for him is a life, the good of which lies in suppressing in oneself an "animal personality," "in the good of others and in suffering for this good." The one who lives this way has God in himself and is the "son of God" just like Christ is. Death returns the "son of God" into the bosom of the Father - God, in which the son disappears like in a universe. Thus, according to Tolstoy, there is neither personal God, nor personal immortality. Consequently, there is no real meaning in life. For what meaning can there be in disappearing?

Like deism, pantheism does not provide a basis for a living personal relationship between man and God, thus making regilion practically impossible. Religion appears only where an impersonal beginning (such as Brahman) incarnates and becomes a personal deity (such as Krishna).

3. Theism (from Greek o Qeoz (theos) – God) as a system of thought acknowledges, unlike pantheism, the existence of a personal God and, unlike deism, asserts the possibility and necessity of His revelation and providence for the world and man. God is not only transcendental to the world, but also immanent to it. Acknowledgement of the free will of a man and the possibility for him to communicate with God are important features of theism. There exist various theistic systems and since their fundamental notions are also present in religions, religions themselves are usually treated as theistic world views.

However, being only a theory, theism is not a religion, as religion first of all is a special spiritual life of a person that includes prayer, ascetic labor and living experience of the person’s relationship with God.

Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy M. A. Starokadomsky (†1973) gave a brief and precise characteristic of these three concepts in his speech prior to defending his doctoral dissertation. He said: "Only theism, which asserts the existence of the Absolute all-perfect Personality, Who by the free creative act calls the world and man from non-existence and takes care of them, can satisfy the living religious feeling. Prayer as the main manifestation of religious life can be addressed only to the all-good Supreme Ruler of the world, capable of granting help in grace. Neither pantheism, nor deism can serve as a basis of religious life. In the "Absolute Substance" of Spinoza God and the world represent a single whole, in which everything is bound by the unbreakable law of necessity, and there is no place for impulses of free attractions. And both Spinoza’s and the stoics’ Amor Dei – love for God –represents just a voluntary submission to the inevitable fate. The same applies to the Hegel’s "Absolute," which is originally represented by an abstract, senseless notion, and reaches self-consciousness only at the end of the process of dialectic development. Since logical laws strictly determine the motion of the notions, a free communication of a person with the Absolute cannot take place.

Deism draws a similar picture, according to which the world represents an ideally build clock, and its precise motion does not need intervention of the Supreme Master" [M. A. Starokadomsky Experience Of Speculative Reasoning Of Theism In Works of the Professors of the Moscow Theological Academy. Moscow 1969. Typescript, the library of the Moscow Theological Academy].

1. Kant’s View (For an analysis of this issue see for example: P. Florensky Cult and Philosophy // Theological works (Coll. 17. Moscow 1977. p.119-135).

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is a well-known German philosopher and scientist. Kant's philosophy is well presented in two of his main works: "Critique of Pure Reason" and "Critique of Practical Reason." In "Critique of Pure Reason" he came to the conclusion that, as a matter of principle, the human mind cannot know the essence of things. It is only possible to know "phenomena," i.e. what appears as a result of interaction of the real world (so called "things in themselves," beyond the reach of cognition) and our cognitive ability. Because "things in themselves" cannot be known, Kant concludes that it is in principle impossible to come to know God, soul, the world. Therefore he criticizes the so-called proofs of the existence of God and immortality of soul.

However, proceeding from the moral law, which exists in us and requires compliance, Kant in his "Critique of Practical Reason" asserts the necessity to postulate both the existence of God and immortality of soul. Because attainment of the highest moral ideal, striving for which is inherent in the human nature, becomes possible only through accepting the existence of God, Who is willing and able to ensure goodness and truth, and immortality of soul, which allows the soul to be perfected without limit.

Kant gives his view on the essence of religion in the above mentioned works as well as in "Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone." In Kant’s opinion, the content of religious consciousness is the understanding of God as a moral legislator, and religion lies in recognition by the person of all his or her moral duties as commandments of God. In "Critique of Practical Reason" he writes: "Moral law through the understanding of the highest good as the object and the ultimate goal of pure practical reason leads a person to religion, i.e. to the recognition of all his moral duties as commandments of God, — not as sanctions, i.e. as arbitrary determinations of somebody’s will, but as essential laws of any free will in itself." "Religion, in its subject matter, does not differ from morality, because the common subject of both of them is the moral duty; the difference between religion and morality is only formal" [N.P. Rozhdestvensky Christian Apologetics: In 2 vol. St. Petersburg 1884. Vol. 1. p. 149].

Thus, according to Kant, the essence of religion lies in the fulfillment of the moral duties as "the commandments of God." Kant himself, when explaining his understanding of religion, says that a reasonable person may have religion, but he shouldn’t have any relationship with God, because the man knows nothing for sure about actual existence of God. In place of God in religion Kant places a man with a moral law inherent in him. Thus, Kant creates some "universal" notion of religion that can exist without acknowledging the existence of God. It is for a reason that he "wrote repeatedly: "I am God," in his last large work "Opus postumum."" [Stanly L. Yaki. God and Cosmologists: Dolgoprudny, 1993. p. 23].

Many share Kant’s view on religion as the fulfillment of certain moral duties. Its main idea is that for a person it is enough to be good, because this is the essence of religion. It is not necessary to be religious. Therefore all specific requirements of religion to a person, such as belief, doctrines, commandments, worship services and prayers, norms of church life are superfluous. These are all superstition, philosophy, and one can neglect them. From here comes the idea of so-called universal morals, non-dogmatic Christianity, unity, in essence, of all religions etc.

A serious error of this understanding of religion consists in ignoring the fact, that a person’s morals and way of life are ultimately determined by his or her worldview, an understanding of the supreme ideal which may be God or "god." Both ideals define their respective morals.

If a person's god is glory, mammon, authority and stomach, then there is no doubt about the character of such person's morals. A good illustration of this is a speech by Rockefeller before the students of a Sunday school in the US, in which he, among other things, said: "Growth of business activity is simply survival of the strongest... The American rose can be brought up in all the magnificence of its beauty and fragrance that causes delight among those who admire it only by ruthlessly cutting off weak shoots around it. It is just the law of nature and of God in action!" [Quoted by: K.R. Hill. Christian Defense of Morals and Democracy.//Dispute. 1992. №1. p. 138]. Adoration of a golden idol makes a person ruthlessly cruel. This goes to show that morals depend on what kind of "god" we are talking about.

But even high morals do not in themselves bring a person closer to God, because it is not good deeds that cleanse the heart of a person, but the struggle against passions and the humility resulting from this struggle. Venerable Isaac of Syria wrote: "The person does not receive the award for his deeds till he becomes humble. The award is given not for the deeds, but for humility... The merit is given not to the virtue and not to the work for the sake of it, but to humility that is born from virtue and labor. But if humility is lost, both virtue and labors will be in vain." [Saint Isaac of Syria. Selfless Words. Moscow.1858. Word.34. P.217]. Prophet John speaks similarly of highly moral deeds: "The true labor may not be without humility, because labor itself is vain and is not worth anything." [Barsanuphius the Great and John. A Guide to Spiritual Life. SPb. 1905. Answer 274.] Therefore St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov) even says: "Unhappy is one who is satisfied with own human righteousness: he does not need Christ." [Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov). Writings in 5 volumes. SPb. 1905. Volume IV, p. 24. ].

Virtues and labors are necessary and useful only when they are done out of love for a person and are the means to acquire humility.

Paul Florensky very well expresses the unspiritual and, in essence, atheistic nature of Kant's views on religion. Analyzing the concept of holiness, he writes: "Our modern thought is inclined to equate this reality [of the other world] to moral power, understanding holiness as the completeness of moral perfection. Thus Kant tries to get to religion via a back door, so to speak, for in this approach morality is thought of as the power of the same earthly world, a subjective power ... But fruitless are the powerless attempts at the concepts of holiness... Even the word usage testifies against such attempts: when we speak of holy vestments, holy vessels, holy water, holy oil, holy churches and so on and so forth, it is obvious, that we not at all mean ethical perfection, but ontological. And this means, that if in these cases the positive side of holiness also contains this ontological superiority over the world and an ontological existence outside this world, then on a broader scale the focus of this concept of holiness is not in ethics, but in ontology...

And if we call a person "holy" we do not point to his morals, for which there exist appropriate words, but to his original powers and deeds, qualitatively not comparable with the ones of the world, to his being above this world, to his being in the spheres inaccessible to usual understanding... morality of such a person, which itself is not a component of his holiness, partly serves as one of the favorable conditions for his being above the world, and partly is revealed as a consequence of such a state. But the connection of these two concepts must be established by gentle and very flexible threads... Therefore, when we call a moral action a "holy deed," we mean not its Kantian moral orientation, which is immanent to the world, but anti-Kantian transcendental to the world unification with the energies of the higher world. By calling God "Holy," and Holy by superiority, the source of any holiness and completeness of holiness... we sing not His moral nature, but His divine one...” [Priest Paul Florensky. Sanctification of the Reality//Doctrinal works. №17. Moscow, 1977. p. 150-151].

Substitution of morality for holiness and spirituality is a great mistake of Kant and all his followers. Execution of moral duties without God is like navigation of a ship without a rudder and sails.

Schleiermacher’s view on religion and its value for man differs from Kant’s in form, but it is the same in essence.

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1786-1834) was a theology professor in Berlin, a secretary of the philosophical department of the Academy of Sciences. His main writings are "Discourses on Religion to the Educated who Despise it," "Monologs," his fundamental theological work "Christian Faith," and numerous sermons. Schleiermacher’s general philosophical views are given in his "Dialectics" (by dialectics he implied the art of philosophical substantiation).

Schleiermacher’s idea of God and His relation to the world almost coincides with the pantheistic understanding of Spinoza. At the same time, acknowledging God to be absolutely transcendent to the human mind, Schleiermacher directly joins Kant. And in his understanding of religion Schleiermacher is as single-sided as Spinoza and Kant.

According to Schleiermacher, the basis of life is the absolute global unity, "wholeness," or God. All depends on God, but this dependence is expressed in the general internal relationships within nature, but not in the Revelation or grace, because God is impersonal.

Schleiermacher’s expressions "God," "world spirit," "world completeness" are used as synonyms. God’s activity is equivalent to causality in nature. "God never existed outside the world, we cognize Him just in ourselves and in things." Everything happens necessarily, the human being does not differ from other creatures either by free will or eternal existence. As all individual creatures, people are just a transient state in the life of the Universe, which having appeared, should perish. Common ideas of immortality along with a hope for a reward in the afterlife are wrong.

The philosopher writes that "the purpose and the nature of religious life is not immortality in the form, as it is believed... but the immortality that we already have in this temporary life, i.e. to merge with the infinite among the finite and to be eternal in every moment — this is the immortality of religion" [F. Schleiermacher. Discourses On Religion To the Educated People. Moscow 1911. P. 111]

The essence of religion is contemplation of the infinite and "the feeling of dependence" on it in the inseparable unity. He wrote: "Religion is a feeling and a taste to the eternal... This is life in the infinite nature of the one whole and in everything, the life that sees everything in God and God in everything... It is a direct perception of the existence of all the finite in the infinite and though the infinite of all the temporal in the eternal and through the eternal..." [Ibidem. P. 39].

Religion originates from striving for the eternal, for the absolute unity: it is a direct cognition of world harmony. Religion brings man to a relationship with the absolute and teaches him to feel and see himself as a part of the whole.

Schleiermacher thinks that one common eternal religion has always existed in the world. The variety of religions shows only the difference in power and direction of those religious feelings that inspired creative geniuses, who created religions, but has nothing to do with any religion being true or false. As one of the religious researchers wrote, "according to Schleiermacher, religion is a feeling of eternal in temporal or the feeling of unconditional dependence, and, consequently, each religion is a true religion, because it is the matter of feeling, but it has nothing in common with the true knowledge" [O. Pfleiderer. On Religion and Religions/ Translated from German. St. Peterburg 1909. p. 45].

According to Schleiermacher doctrines in religions do not have any religious meaning at all. Doctrines and canons are just a shell allowed by religion, but this shouldn’t be done. Hopefully in the future religion will not need the Church. Actually the more religious a person is, the further away he should stay from the Church. Moreover in order to contribute to religion an educated person should fight against the Church – the carrier of dogmatism, strict morality and canons, which enslave the feelings. A true religion, i.e. a free feeling of reverence and delight before the eternal Universe, its harmony and beauty is possible only with the abolishment of the Church.

Schleiermacher’s views fully coincide with those ideas, which began to be spread in Russia since the end of 18^th century by the freemasons and liberal nobles and to bring their "fruits." Their essence was very well expressed by archpriest George Florovsky, who wrote about the views of Labzin (1825), the head of the Rosicrucian Lodge in St. Petersburg: "It is not the doctrines or even visible ordinances that are important, but this very life of the heart, because it is impossible to please God with "opinions." "We will not find any Savior’s discourses on dogmas..." and therefore all the separations between confessions are from the pride of mind. The true Church is broader than these external divisions and consists of all true followers in spirit, contains the entire human race. This truly ecumenical or "universal" Christianity blurs, in Labzin’s interpretation, into some trans-temporal and trans-historical religion. It is always the same in all societies... the one religion of the heart…" [Archpriest George Florovsky. Path of Russian Theology. The 3^rd edition. Paris, 1983. p. 137].

This very well demonstrates what is represented by a religion, in which nothing remains but the "high" feelings of a person. This is a total adogmatism, destruction of any individual religion as a worldview, and a direct statement of what hieromonk Seraphim Rose called "the one religion of the future" [See his "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future."].

Orthodox Christianity teaches that the essence of religion consists in experiencing the Kingdom of God, which is inside of us (Luke. 17:21). But at the same time it says that the feeling of the Kingdom is not an involuntary experience of something exalted, but experience of God. Abba Dorotheus says: "Being passionate, we should not at all trust our hearts, because the curved ruler curves the straight line." [Venerable Dorotheus. Lectures Beneficial for the Soul. Moscow. 1874. Teaching 19. p. 212]. And St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov) writes: "If good deeds initiated by the feelings of the heart could deliver salvation, the coming of Christ would be unnecessary" [Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov). Writings in 5 volumes. SPb. 1905. Volume. I, p. 513.] At the same time Orthodoxy specifies quite certain conditions for achieving communication with God (see chapter VII on Spiritual life). The feeling of experiencing God is completely different from the one described by Schleiermacher, because it is the consequence of a holy life in the Church, but not a result of contemplation of the harmony of the whole world in its infinity.

A prominent representative of yet another very widespread, especially among the educated people, understanding of religion was Hegel (1770-1831) - a great German philosopher-idealist, protestant and apologist. His main works are "Phenomenology of Spirit," "Science of Logic," "Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences," "Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion," "Philosophy of Law," etc.

The foundation of his philosophical system is the doctrine of the so-called Absolute idea (or Universal mind, Universal spirit, Absolute, God) as the initial category, which exists before the world, nature and society and dialectically evolves from abstract to concrete. Its evolution is carried out through the tree-like system of logical categories (which replaced in Hegel's philosophy everything that exists in reality) in the following way: each concept assumes and gives birth to an opposite one, and they both lead to the third, higher, concept, which reconciles and contains them in itself as its own components (for example, existence - nonexistence – temporary existence). The third concept, in its turn, becomes the beginning of a new triad and so on. Continuous change of three components: thesis, antithesis and synthesis (position, opposition and their unity), is the dialectic law (method) of the development of the Absolute idea. The dialectic method lies in the basis of the construction of the whole philosophical system of Hegel. It is divided into three parts:

The doctrine of the Absolute idea in itself as it develops in the form of pure logical essences (logics);

The doctrine of the Absolute idea in its alternative existence, i.e. the doctrine about the nature (philosophy of nature);

The doctrine of the Absolute idea as various forms of concrete spirit (philosophy of spirit). Here the Absolute becomes reasonable in human consciousness and it is revealed in three forms: in art, religion and philosophy. In art it cognizes itself in the form of contemplation through a sensual image, in religion - in the form of imagination, and in philosophy - in the form of concepts.

According to Hegel religion in comparison with philosophy is a lower step of self-disclosure of Absolute spirit, because in religion the knowledge is at the level of imaginations only, which are imperfects modification of philosophical concepts. Therefore religion should be finally abolished by philosophy (certainly, the one of Hegel) - this perfect form of knowledge of the Absolute.

Hegel offered unusual interpretations of dogmatic Christian doctrines. Thus, he interpreted the doctrine of the Trinity as a symbolic expression of the dialectical development of the Absolute idea according to the principle of the triad. Naturally, in this interpretation the basic Christian truths lose their original meaning and turn into allegories of philosophical categories.

Hegel's view on religion is interesting not so much for its peculiarities of philosophical understanding, as for its basic idea of the essence of religion. Religion is viewed here as a certain system of thinking, and the main goal of the believer consists in its understanding, in discursively logical understanding of its truths. However, given such an approach, the soul of religion, the personal experience of God, is expelled and is replaced by doctrinal and religiously philosophical "computerized" arguments about Him. The result is that religion as a live, real connection with God ceases to exist for a person.

Such deeply false understanding of religion is one of the widespread illnesses among theologians, priests, and secular educated people. They "know" Christianity and there their religious life often ends. Reformation is an especially good illustration of such mentality. Protestantism may be fairly called a "professor’s religion," considering its rationalistic character. This fatal mistake was exposed by Apostle Paul: "…Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God" (1 Corinthians. 8:1-3).

Saint Seraphim of Sarov clearly spoke of the results of the rational cognition of Christianity and condemned reduction of religion to so-called education: "Nowadays, due to our almost total coldness to the holy faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and due to our carelessness to the actions of His Heavenly Providence for us, we have reached the state where we almost fail to understand the words of the Scripture. Some say: this passage is not clear, therefore did the Apostles really so obviously could feel the Holy Spirit near them? Is there any mistake here? There was not and there is not any mistake... It all happened because, little by little, we distanced ourselves from the simplicity of Christian knowledge, under the pretext of education we came into such darkness of ignorance, that what seems to us unclear now was clearly understood by the ancient Christians to whom God's presence among people did not seem strange." ["About the Purpose of Christian Life." Conversation of Saint Seraphim of Sarov with N.A.Motovilov, Sergiev Posad.1914. p. 33, 10.]

Ignatius Brianchaninov († 1867) writes about how deeply this illness may strike a person: "The word of Christ comes true: will Son of God find faith on earth in the last times? Sciences exist. There are academies, masters, doctors of theology (really it is but laughable!), these degrees are given to people... [And] if something happens to this theologian, it becomes clear that he does not even have faith, not only theology. I have met such people: a doctor of theology who doubts whether Christ came to earth or not, whether it is a fiction, whether it is a fantasy like a myth! What kind of light can we expect from this darkness?!" [Bishop Ignatius. Letters to Different People. Issue II. Sergiev Posad. 1917. pp. 78-79.]

Reformation is an especially clear illustration of extreme rationalistic thinking. Unfortunately, neither Hegel, nor all the later "hegelians" understood it.

§1. Proof

§2. There Is No God, Because...

§3. God exists

There is no question more important to man than this one: what is the meaning of life? And this question is ultimately reduced to the question about God: does He exist or not? An answer to this question cardinally affects a person’s attitude towards life. Some people die in severe pain for the faith in Him, but do not renounce Him. Others severely torture and kill for the same faith and do not regret. Some claim that they got to know His existence, and they have proved it with their own life and death. Others regard this as nothing more than fanaticism that should be rooted out without mercy. So, who is right?

There are two ways of learning. One is direct seeing, usually preceeded by faith. This way is the main one both in life and in religion. The other one is rational, a way of logical deductions. It is indirect, auxiliary and is only meaningful prior to acquiring a confirmation by experience.

Relatively few people have a religious experience (vision) that leaves them without a doubt about God’s existence. Most of mankind believes in the existence of God. On the contrary, a minority of mankind believes that God does not exist. In both groups there are people seeking an "exact knowledge." They need arguments and proofs to justify the efforts necessary to acquire an experience of knowing God. But what is a proof, and what can be proved?

First of all, the word proof can be used in either a broad or a narrow sense. A proof in the broad sense is any process of verifying an opinion with the help of logical reasoning or by reference to perception of objects and environmental factors that affect the senses.

A proof in the narrow sense is demonstrating that the statement being proved logically follows from propositions, the truthfulness of which has already been established or accepted. The initial propositions in a proof in the narrow sense are called premises or arguments, while the statement being proved is called the proof’s conclusion. It is in this narrow sense that the term proof is understood in formal logic.

Secondly, there are significant differences between proofs in different fields of human thought (scientific, social etc.). These differences are found in different nature of premises and conclusions.

Role of experience in proofs is especially manifest in sciences, in particular those sciences where facts known from experience are directly used as premises substantiated by means of human perceptions, as well as those sciences, in which facts learned from experience are used in a generalized, abstract and idealized form.

The first type of sciences includes natural sciences, such as experimental physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, as well as social sciences, such as archeology and history. Proofs based on experience, whether direct or indirect, are called empirical. They mainly involve inductive reasoning.

The second type of sciences includes mathematics, modern formal logic, some areas of computer science and theoretical physics. These sciences do not directly deal with objects perceivable by human senses, but with so called abstract concepts, such as the mathematical abstraction of a point that does not have physical dimensions, the abstraction of perfect geometric shapes etc. Therefore these sciences cannot make use of empirical inductive proofs; instead they use deduction.

1. Proof and Verity

The goal of a proof is to establish the verity of its thesis. However, the verity of a judgment substantiated by means of a proof is usually not unconditional, i.e. a proved statement is typically just a relative truth. The relativity of the verity of proved statements is due to the following.

First, premises of proof only approximate reality, i.e. are, in turn, relative truths. This is especially evident in empirical sciences.

Second, the applicability of a logical approach to one class of objects does not imply that it is applicable to a broader class. For example, the logic applied to finite objects may turn out to be inapplicable to infinite ones. Thus, medieval scientists considered it to be a paradox that the set of all natural numbers has the same cardinality as its own part, the set of all even numbers. They were mistaken in applying properties of finite objects to objects infinite.

Third, there is a wide range of concepts that, not being well defined, can lead to contradictions when used in the framework of common human logic. For example, the notion of God’s omnipotence, wrongly understood as an unlimited ability to perform any actions, leads to paradoxes such as the well-known question of whether God can create a rock He can’t lift.

Therefore guaranteeing the verity of a proved statement requires clear definitions of the concepts involved, applicability of the logical approach used to the class of objects involved, and a demonstration of the consistency of the system used. The latter is particularly difficult, even for the formal arithmetic.

As proved by Goedel, the statement of consistency of a formal system is unprovable within the framework of the system itself, if the system is consistent. A great German mathematician Hilbert (1943) was distressed over this: "... Just think about it: in mathematics, in that model of reliability and verity, the formation of notions and the course of reasoning… lead to nonsense. Where on earth shall we seek reliability and verity, if even the mathematical thinking itself fails?" [Y. Popov, Y.Pukhanchev. Paradoxes //Nauka i zhizn (Science and life). 1971.No. 1. p. 102].

"Development of the (modern) cognition theory has shown that no form of reasoning can give absolutely reliable knowledge." [B. V. Akhlibinsky Miracle Of Our // Cybernetics and Problems of Development. Leningrand, 1903. p. 91.For more detail see lower in the chapter. V, §1, p. 5: Reliability of Scientific Knowledge].

In the final analysis, empiric proofs appeal to experience, i.e. to something that is directly or indirectly (via a device, for example, or trust in authority) experienced by people. It is experience that is the most reliable criterion of truth, rather than theoretical considerations, no matter how trustworthy they may seem. "Znaniye Sila" magazine (Knowledge is Power) [Znaniye sila. 1967. No. 5. p. 28; 1968. No. 6. p. 49] published articles that jokingly "proved" that giraffe is a myth, because, the article claimed, an animal having such a long neck would not have any chance to survive during a long evolution and struggle for existence. Even more outstanding examples are Zenon’s paradoxes "proving" for example, the absence of motion in the world. These paradoxes-proofs remained unsolved for 2.5 thousand years without shaking anyone’s confidence in the existence of motion.

What was the reason of such a skeptical attitude to the conclusions of, as it may seem, unquestionable logical proofs? It was experience. These proofs contradicted experience, and therefore no one would believe in their verity, for "only practical verification of a statement serves as its final proof." [See: Proof // Encyclopedic dictionary: In 2 vol./ Under editorship of B. A. Vvedensky. 1963-64. Vol. 1. p. 343].

Of course, not all experience can serve as a sufficient argument. A single isolated experience is especially unconvincing. It is not always easy to prove that something is a fact, to prove the correctlness of conducting an experiment and to show that all factors affecting its results have been accounted for. Finally, what we see in our experiences and experiments can be often interpreted arbitrarily.

Yet despite all of their relativity, empirical proofs remain the most trustworthy and most widely used in all natural sciences.

Proof is a substantiation of verity (or falsity) of a statement. A proof establishing the falsity of a claim is called disproof.

Strictly speaking, proofs only exist in mathematics and logic. But these proofs deal with idealized notions, symbols that have nothing to do with real objects, although seem to be related to them.

Empirical proofs lack such a logical persuasiveness. When it comes to natural phenomena, insufficiently substantiated premises have to be used in proofs, thus reducing reliability of conclusions. Yet all natural sciences use this type of proof. It is even more difficult to prove something in the fields of history, philosophy and worldview. The latter covers the question about the existence of God. [For more detail see: Proof // Philosophic encyclopedia. Moscow, 1962. Vol. 2. p. 42-48].

However, the complexity of this issue has never been an obstacle for human mind in seeking the truth via comparative assessment of arguments of the two mutually exclusive worldviews, religious and atheistic. There can be only one truth. One possibility is that God exists and, consequently, there is eternity and meaning of life. The alternative is: there is no God, no eternity, and a meaninglessness of death awaits us. What are the arguments in favor of each of these worldviews? First let us consider the best known arguments for the faith in the non-existence of God.

This statement is based on nothing and is pure propaganda. Not only there is no scientific proof of God’s non-existence, but there can in principle be none for at least the following reasons.

First, by definition, science studies the physical world. Therefore the main religious truth, namely the existence of God, cannot in principle be disproved by science. [The great French scientist and Christian Paster, 1895, speaking about science and his scientific conclusions, wrote: "There is neither religion, nor philosophy nor atheism nor materialism, nor spiritualism here. This is a question of facts and nothing but facts." Quoted by: Vasilyev L. Hypnosis at a distance. Moscow, 1962. P. 18].

Second, it is scientists, the people of science, that best know what science really proves or disproves. That’s why the fact that there is a large number of great scientists who believed in God and in Christ, is the most convincing indication that science does not disprove the existence of God. It’s enough to list just a few names of world-famous believing scientists: N. Copernicus (died 1543), a church official, known for a breakthrough in astronomy; J. Kepler (died 1630), who substantiated heliocentric system; B. Pascal (died 1662) a physicist, mathematician, religious thinker, the founder of classical hydrostatics; I. Newton (died 1727), a physicist, mathematician, and astronomer; M. Lomonosov (died 1765), a scientist; L. Galvani (died 1798), a physiologist, one of the founders of the electric current theory; A. Amper (died 1856), a founder of electrodynamics; A. Volta (died 1872 ), also among the founders of the electricity theory; G. Mendel (died 1884), an Augustine monk, the founder of genetics; J. Duma (died 1884), the founder of organic chemistry; S. Kovalevskaya (1891), a mathematician; L. Paster (died 1895), the founder of modern microbiology and immunology; A. Popov (died 1906), the inventor of radio; D.I. Mendeleyev (died 1907), the creator of the periodic table; I. Pavlov (died 1936), the father of physiology; P. Florensky (died 1937), a priest, theologian, and scientist; V. Vernatsky (died 1945), the founder of geochemistry, biochemistry, radiology and the teaching on biosphere; E. Schrodinger (died 1955), a founder of quantum mechanics; B. Filatov (died1956), an ophthalmologist; L. Brol (died 1987), one of the founders of quantum mechanics; Ch. Townes (died 1988), one of the founders of quantum electronics; and many other.

Third, from the point of view of modern science, "at any stage of human civilization’s development our knowledge will be just a small island in an infinite ocean of the not-cognized, unknown, unexplored." [Nain God, Bible, Infinity //Nauka i religiya (Science and religion). 1959. No. 3. p. 23]. Scientific knowledge will never enable a person comprehend all that exists. Hence it will be never possible, in principle, to scientifically prove the non-existence of God, even if there were no God. Atheism, which states the opposite, turns out to be a concept directly contradicting one of the most basic scientific conclusions.

This statement is naïve, to say the least. We believe in the existence of many things no one has ever seen and, in fact, no one can ever see, such as sub-atomic world, infinite Universe, our own intelligence (the existence of which one would hardly doubt) and so forth. Yet God is Spirit, Who can be "seen" not with eyes, but with a spirit, which is a dispassionate mind and a pure heart (Mt. 5:2). History has preserved for us countless examples of such vision of God.

Presence of contradictions in the Bible could be relevant for denying its inspiration by God, but not for addressing the question about the existence of God. Christians are not the only ones who believe in God. Besides, the overwhelming majority of these so called contradictions and inconsistencies are either imaginary or stem from a basic misunderstanding of the text and the causes of variant readings. However, isolated formally contradictory passages (e.g., was there only one demoniac of Gadarene, or two; did the rooster crow once or twice before Peter denied Christ thrice; and so on) are not only negligible in number, but also serve as importance evidence of authenticity of the gospels’ testimony. Besides, none of these variant readings affect what is the most important, namely, the foundations of the faith and life that make the Bible the Holy Scripture.

A lot of innocent people unjustly suffer in this world. Isn’t that a sufficient argument for rejecting the faith in God’s existence? This is one of the most common objections. It comes from a lack of understanding of the Christian teaching on God’s love, human freedom, and the nature of sin.

Christian theology uses the term synergism (from Greek for cooperation) to characterize the relationship between God and man. Synergism means that neither a man can save himself, nor can God save him without the participation of the man’s will. Salvation is carried out by God, but only on the condition that man desires it and does his best to become God-like in terms of his spiritual and moral characteristics. These characteristics are laid out in the Gospels in the image of Christ and in His teachings. God cannot forcibly bring an evil soul into His Kingdom of love. The sould has to change first. Until it does it will be tormented by the evil in it. Human sufferings come from a lack of harmony between human spirit and God, Who is the Law of our being (just as the law of gravity leads to grave consequences for someone jumping out of a third story window). Here lies the main cause of all human woes.

The causes of human sufferings and the nature of God’s involvement in them were very clearly explained by St. Anthony the Great (4th century). "God is good, dispassionate and unchanging. Someone, accepting as blessed and true the belief that God is unchanging, may be wondering why He, being unchanging, rejoices about the good, turns away from the wicked, is angry with sinners and shows Himself merciful to them when they repent. We ought to say in response to this that God neither rejoices, nor gets angry, for both joy and anger are passions. It would not make sense to think that Deity can feel good or bad depending on what men do. God is good and does only good and causes no harm to anyone, always being the same. But we, when we are good, enter into communion with God, being similar to Him, and when we become evil, we separate ourselves from Him, being dissimilar from Him. When living a life of virtue, we become God’s, and when becoming evil we are thrown away from Him. This does not mean that He is angry with us, but that our sins keep God from shining in us and unite us with demons, which torment us. If we then acquire absolution from sins by means of prayer and good deeds, this does not mean that we won God’s favor and got Him to change, but that, having been cured of the evil in us by means of such actions and our conversion to God, we again became capable of enjoying God’s goodness. Thus, to say that God turns away from the wicked is the same as saying that the sun hides itself from those deprived of eyesight." [The Philokalia. 4-th edition. Moscow, 1905. Vol. 1. § 150. p. 90.].

Other Fathers of the Church explain the causes of human sufferings (God’s "punishments") similarly.

"Sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4) Therefore sin in itself carries disease and punishment for man. Suffering is a consequence of sin. In the case of some passions, such as drunkenness and drug addition, the cause of suffering is obvious. In the case of other passions, especially those of the soul, it is more difficult to see, yet their effect on a human being is as severe. Think of all what is caused by envy, selfishness and greed. Don’t they lead to quarreling, animosity, murders, wars and the like? That is what Apostle James says: "God… tempteth no man. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." (James 1:13-14)

On the other hand, the purpose of man’s life on earth is, according to Christian teaching, to prepare for eternity. Just as children require preparation for their life as adults, so each person, in order to prepare for eternal life, needs labor, patience, compassion, love for other people, needs to struggle agains evil arising in his or her mind and heart. Also needed are tribulations that remind man that this life itself is short and meaningless. They educate and discipline man. Apostle Paul writes, "Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." (Hebrews 12: 7-11). St. Isaac of Syria warns us that "Whoever abides in his virtue without tribulation has the doors of pride wide open for him." [Abba Isaac of Syria, Words of an Ascetic. Moscow, 1858, Word 34, pp. 218-219.] "It is not the spirit of God that lives in those who are in peace [without tribulations], but the spirit of the devil." [Ibid. Word 36, p. 228.]

Sufferings of children, righteous people, saints, and those who are innocent are of a somewhat different nature. Their sufferings are sacrificial, because they are mainly caused not by personal sins, but by the sins of "neighbors" (Luke 10:25-37). For like in a living body healthy organs suffer with the ill ones and perform as far as possible the sick organs’ functions, so in the living body of human society a similar process of healing co-suffering (though not yet understood by children on earth) takes place, in which spiritually healthy members co-suffer with the sick. The healing effect of these sufferings is of a spiritual nature. Children themselves do not realize that now. But it will be revealed to them in eternity what God has done for their loved ones through their sufferings, and what good came out of these sufferings for the children themselves. And throughout the endless ages they will keep thanking God for their sufferings.

Not all children are allowed to suffer, but only those who will become capable of receiving their sufferings as a gift from God, as a unique opportunity to suffer for their loved ones. Indeed, children, by their sufferings, help their relatives to become cleansed and to stop and think. Many people, thanks to their children’s sufferings, started thinking about the meaning of life, the inevitability of death, and came to faith in God.

It is well known that love is stronger than death. But true love is sacrificial, and only people, first of all children, who are more pure spiritually are capable of it. Their sufferings are like those "innocent" sufferings endured voluntarily by people who lay down their lives for others or give their blood or healthy organs to save a victim. These people, in their fervent love, sacrifice without even asking if the victim is to blame for his own suffering and if it is fair to suffer for him. True love does not ask questions like that. It has only one goal: to save a person. The ideal of such sacrificial love is found in Christ, Who "hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." (1 Peter 3:18)

The meaning of innocent sufferings can only be understood with the faith in that the death of the body does not mark the end of life, but only the end of a serious stage of preparation for eternal life and that not a single act of suffering for the sake of others will be left without a great eternal reward from God. St. Apostle Paul wrote thus about this: "The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us" (Romans 8:18).

The holy Fathers of the Church provide us with an in-depth spiritual explanation of the meaning of tribulations, illnesses and sufferings that befall the righteous. The essence of this explanation was clearly expressed by St. Isaac of Syria: "The reason God allows His saints to be tempted by all types of grief is because… as a result of these temptations they acquire wisdom." [Ibid. Word 37, pp. 229-230] If you desire virtue, then give yourself to all kinds of tribulation, for tribulation begets humility." Indeed, just as gold is purified by fire, most of those who, by human standards, suffer innocently are cleansed of the remaining traces of sins and passions and advance closer to spiritual perfection. This perfection of spirit fills them with such love and joy, that they are sometimes willing to take any suffering. This can be clearly seen from the history of Christian martyrs and ascetics.

For example, St. Isaac of Syria tells us of "Agathon, who said, "I wish I could find a leper, give him my body, and take his for myself." That is perfect love." [Ibid. Word 55, p. 362] Now, when St. Isaac was asked, "What is a merciful heart?" responded: "It is when a person’s heart is on fire for all that is created, for humans, birds, animals, demons and all creatures, and it cannot tolerate to hear or see any creature being hurt or saddened. That is why at every hour it tearfully prays for speechless things, for enemies of the truth and those who cause it suffering. And this prayer is offered with great compassion, which is endlessly nurtured in the heart to the point that it becomes God-like in this respect… And here is a sign of those who have achieved perfection: even if they were burned on the stake ten times in a day for their love for people, they won’t be satisfied." [Ibid. Word 48, pp. 299,300]

Thus one can see that the question about so called innocent sufferings, which at first appear to indicate that there is no loving God, comes from a misunderstanding of the nature of these sufferings and an attempt to think of them from a legal point of view, according to which they are "illegal" and "unfair." Yet in reality we can only understand this when we acknowledge love as the highest law of life and when we believe in life everlasting. Then the deep meaning of all human suffering is revealed to us, along with the moral beauty of suffering for one another and, especially, of a righteous man suffering for the wicked.

On the contrary, if there is no God and no eternal life, then what is the meaning of all this innocent suffering? Is it a play of blind forces of nature, a coincidence, an unpunished and unchecked human cruelty? What meaning, one can ask, is there in the life of these innocent sufferers and their often cruel, inhumane torments? It appears there is only one answer an atheis could give: no meaning at all. [On this issue, see, for example: Bishop Theodor (Pozdeyevsky). On the issue on sufferings // Bogoslovskiy vestnik (Theological herald). 1909. No. 10. p. 286-311; A.I. Vvedyensky On so called innocent sufferings // Dushepoleznoe reading for the soul. 1891. Book 12. p. 505; Archpriest P. Svyetlov. Christian dogma in apologetic statements. Kiev, 1910. p. 697].

* * *

Such are the most common arguments against the existence of God. Of course, these are clearly insufficient. But every seeking person should satisfactorily answer for himself the question about God’s existence. Christianity provides specific means of verifying its claims. Atheism does not offer such means and, in fact, cannot offer them in principle. For, in order to learn about non-existence of God, one would need to learn about everything that exists. But that is impossible due to the cognizable world being infinite. Therefore atheism cannot answer its main question: "What can a person do to come to a conviction of non-existence of God?" It can only offer one thing: "Follow the path shown by religion, and then you will learn if God exists or not." There is no other way.

Remarkably, both religion and atheism together (!) offer the same response to the question that is most important for each human being, and the response is to encourage practical and personal verification of religious conditions for coming to know God.

Yet there are even purely theoretical arguments that help an unbiased person to see that acceptance of God’s existence is not a result of unfounded human fantasizing, but a logically justifiable postulate in solving the question about the meaning of human life and the life of the world. Let us examine some of these arguments.

The cosmological argument (from Greek kosmos — order, universe, world) along with the theological one was already expressed by the ancient Greek philosophers Plato (347 B. C.), Aristotle (322 B. C.) and other ancient thinkers. Afterwards it was further refined by many others. It is based on accepting causality as a universal law of existence. It is concluded based on this law that there must be the first cause of everything that exists. Such a cause, naturally, can be only a super-existence that itself has no cause and exists eternally (i.e. it is the "cause" of existence itself). This super-existence is God.

In considering this argument, one should take into account a variety of ways in which philosophers have historically interpreted the concept of causality and its objective relevance to all phenomena in the world. For example, Englishman D. Hume (died 1761) and German I. Kant (died 1804) denied objective existence of causality in the world: the former considered it to be a side effect of human habit, while the latter believed it to be an a priori quality of human reason. Modern physics also describes a number of phenomena where usual cause-and-effect relationships appear to be broken. N. Bohr (died 1962), Heisenberg (died 1976) and P. Dirac (died 1984), who represent the two schools of thought in quantum mechanics, claim that causality in the realm of atomic and sub-atomic phenomena is no longer unconditional [[V. Heisenberg Physical principles of quantum theory / Translation from German. Moscow; Leningrad, 1932. p. 61]; statistics, not causality, rules in the world of atoms. Yet most scientists and thinkers consider causality to be a universal law.

Should the world as a whole have a cause for its existence? This is, essentially, a philosophical, not scientific, question. Soviet Academician Y. Zeldovich remarked: "The question about the initial conditions is still beyond physics. And unless we postulate that the beginning came from some sort of divine force, then we ought to seek a scientific approach to the problem of choosing the initial conditions." " [Y. Zeldovich. In-house Life Of the Idea // Literaturnaya Gazeta. February 9, 1972 p. 11].

Yet there is no scientific answer to the question about the initial cause of the world’s existence, and such an answer can hardly ever be found. However, most thinkers in antiquity and today see God as this "initial" Creator or, as Aristotle put it, the First Moving Force. Even though from a purely theoretical perspective, of course, one cannot rule out other possible approaches to understanding the first cause, such as the universal soul of the stoics, or Harmann’s (died 1906) unconscious, or eternally existing matter.

The teleological argument (from Greek telos — finish, complete; logos — word, judgment, proof, reason), is based on rationality and perfection of the observed world. It is one of the most widely spread owing to its simplicity and persuasiveness. It has been known since ancient times. Religious thinkers and philosophers of almost all times and nations of the earth know it. It can be summarized as follows. The world in parts and as a whole (i.e. its known whole) is strikingly harmonious and well organized, which testifies to the super-intelligence and omnipotence of the force that created it. Only God could be such a force.

There is no factual basis for rejecting the idea about rational organization of the world. However, from the formal logic point of view this argument has a weakness as it is impossible to prove rational structure of the world as a whole and of all its parts. There are other ideas, too. For example, Kant, based on his philosophical system, spoke of patterns of reason, not the world. "Reason does not draw its laws (a priori) from nature, but prescribes them to it." [I. Kant. Works: In 6 vol./ Translation form German. Moscow, vol. 4. part. 1. p. 140]

However, patterns observed in the world have always amazed all naturalists and thinkers, including Kant himself, leading them to the idea about the existence of a Divine Creator.

Here are some statements by well known modern scientists on the subject. "Balance between gravitational and electromagnetic interactions inside stars," — P. Davies wrote – "is incredibly precise. Calculations show that changing any of the interactions by only 10^-40-th of its value would entail catastrophic consequences for stars like the Sun." [P. Davies. Superforce. Moscow 1989. p. 265]. Dr. M. Rues, reasoning about possible initial cause of the world, wrote: "The notion about such a reason leads us back to accepting the existence of the Highest Power of some kind that could be called God. By the way, it seems to me, that this argumentation falls into a class of arguments, traditionally known as teleological." He continues: "Generally speaking, the assumption that beyond the present existence of the universe, beyond its organization there ought to be some Higher Reason nowadays seems increasingly plausible." [M. Ruse. Science and Religion: War as Before? //Questions of philosophy, 1991. No. 2. p. 30-40, 42].

A well-known Russian scientist L. S. Berg (1950) wrote: "The main postulate, with which a natural scientist comes to an understanding of nature is that Nature in general makes sense, that it can be understood, that between laws of thinking on the one hand and the order of Nature, on the other, there is a certain predetermined harmony. Without this silent assumption no natural science is possible" [L. S. Berg. The Evolution Theory. Petrograd, 1922. p. 67-68]. In other words, the basis of science is a scientist’s faith in the rationality of the world. A. Einstein expressed this idea quite elloquently: "My religion is a deeply felt assurance of the existence of the Highest Reason, Who opens Himself to us in the cognizable world" [K. Selig. Albert Einstein /Translation from German, Moscow 1966. p. 44].

It is worth mentioning the so called Anthropic Principle. When the values of universal constants (speed of light, charge and mass of an electron) were analyzed, it turned out that if these had just slightly different values, the Universe would have been completely different, and the life as we know it, and man in particular, would not be able to exist. A well-known American scientist Ralph Estling, commenting on this principle, wrote: "Absolutely in all, beginning with the constants determining gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear interactions, and right up to the basic principles of biology, we discover that the Space in general, and the Sun in particular, and especially the Earth are so precisely adjusted to us, that it begs the question, was it not God or someone else like Him that created all of this, keeping us in mind first? This is too much of a coincidence, it is hard to believe it happened by pure chance" [P. Davies Selected Works p. 261].

All this agrees well with the words of Apostle Paul: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Romans 1:20).

The value of the teleological argument consists in that it offers a person a choice: one can either accept that a Higher Reason is behind the wonderful laws, by which the world operates or, alternatively, believe that the source of this is "something as yet unknown." The first option reveals to a person a higher and sacred meaning of life; the second leaves one in a state of inner confusion and a feeling that life is a dead end. ["At one time some mathematicians estimated the probability of life emerging on Earth by chance. It turned out that according to the laws of numbers, we did not have the right to emerge, but even if we had emerged, we should not have survived" (Newspaper "Izvestiya." 21 VIII. 1970. No. 189). The probability of life developing from a chance combination of molecules is equal to 10^-255. (Populated Space / Edited by V.D.Penelis. Moscow, 1972). The probability of a DNA molecule appearing by chance is 10^-80,038 (V. I. Kurashov, Y. I. Soloviev. On the Problem of "Reducing" Chemistry to Physics //Questions of philosophy. 1984. No. 6. p. 96)]?

Ontological argument reasons from the idea of a perfect Being and was first stated by Archbishop Anselm of Canterberry (died 1109). Its logic is the following. If there is in our mind a notion of an all-perfect Being, then such a Being must necessary exist, because, if it did not have the property of existence, it would not be all-perfect. We consider God to be an all-perfect Being; consequently, He must also have the quality of existence.

R. Decartes (died 1650) supplemented this argument with the idea that it is impossible to imagine the origin in man’s mind of the idea of God, unless He actually exists [See Sec. 4: Psychological Argument]. Leibniz (died 1716) added to this argument that God ought to exist because the notion on Him is not inherently inconsistent. Many Russian theologians and philosophers made an effort to better understand this argument. For instance, Russian philosopher S. N. Trubetskoy (1862-1905), developing an idea proposed by V.S. Soloviyev and reasoning from the notion of God-Absolute as "One and Complete Being," accepted the ontological argument as the basis in addressing the question of the existence of God.

The main idea of this argument was expressed by Blessed Augustine (died 430) and further developed by Decartes. It can be summarized as follows. Because the idea of God as the all-perfect eternal Being is present in human mind, and such an idea could have originated neither from impressions of the ouside world, which is so much different from the notion of God [See chapter II, §6, p. 1: Naturalistic hypothesis], nor as a result of man’s thinking, or his psyche [See chapter II, §6, p. 2 and 3: Animistic hypothesis and Feuerbach’s Hypothesis], then the source of this idea must be God Himself.

Well-known Roman orator, statesman and thinker Cicero (died 43 B. C.) expressed a similar idea. He wrote: "If the truth of the existence of God had not been understood and accepted by our soul, then the opinion alone could have been neither permanent, nor tested by time, nor grown old in the course of time and the passing of generations; for we can see that other fantasies and vain ideas disappear with time. Who now believes that hippocentaurus or chimera exists? Time exposes false opinions, and confirms natural truths." [Cicero. On the Nature of Gods. Quated by: V. Kudryavtsev. Initial bases of philosophy, the7-th edition. Sergiev Posad, 1910. p. 176-177].

This argument gains even more weight in connection with the historical argument.

Cicero refers to this argument, as the most reliable. "We think," — he says, — " that it necessary to point out the fact that there is no tribe so savage, the no person who has lost awareness with regard to moral duties to such an extent that their soul is no longer illuminated with thoughts about gods. Many think about gods incorrectly, but this usually results from moral corruption and vice. However, all are convinced that there is divine power and nature. And such an acceptance results not from prearranged plan or agreement amongst people. This rememberance of gods became firmly established not due to state decrees or laws, but the unanimity of all nations in any matter should be considered a law of nature" [Ibid. p. 176].

The same idea was expressed by well known Greek writer and philosopher Plutarch (died 120): "If you travel through all countries in the world, you can find towns without walls, without written language, without rulers, without palaces, without riches, without a currency, but none has yet seen a town without temples and gods, a town where prayers are not offered and where people do not swear by the name of a deity..." [V. Kudryavtsev Selected Works p. 177].

In fact, history of mankind does not know a single atheistic tribe. How can one explain this amazing fact? All atheistic hypotheses that offer various so called "natural" explanations of the origin of the idea of God in human mind turn out to be unfounded. [See chapter II, §6: Origin of Religion] Thus we are left with one conclusion, namely to admit that this idea, by which all the human race have lived throughout history is not an "earthy" fruit, but has God Himself as its source.

This argument, depending upon the initial premises, has two variations. One of them reasons from the fact that there is a moral sense in humans (the so called "moral law" [By moral law we mean the quality, peculiar to humans, of differentiating between good and evil; this is the voice of conscience and an inner thirst for truth, mainly expressed in the principle: Don't do to others what you don't want done to you]. Another variation comes from the idea of moral and spiritual perfection of man as the highest goal, to which a moral being aspires.

The first variation is as follows. There is, beyond any doubt, a moral "law" inside of us telling us to do good and condemning evil through the voice of conscience. Everyone knows this from personal experience. There are various views with regard to the origin of this law, the main of them being biological, autonomous, social and religious.

The Biological point of view explains the origin of the moral law in man by man’s aspiration to pleasure, comfort and success in accumulating wealth. Adapting to life is the only criterium of differentiating between good and evil. Anything that helps a person to "live as comfortably as possible" is good and moral, while anything that interferes with that goal is considered to be bad. The very aspiration toward God is explained as just a dream of pleasure. Fullness of so-called happiness on earth is the only criterium of truth, beauty and righteousness.

This point of view is way too primitive. It ignores some obvious facts of life:

1. man may be willing to give up wealth, glory, pleasure and life itself for truth;
2. in any society there are actions that are useful and pleasant to a person carrying them out, yet are not considered moral; in fact, they are often seen as immoral;
3. in even most "libertarian" societies where individuals appear to have achieved the maximum possible "moral" freedom, there is still a concept of a person’s moral dignity that "surprisingly" consists in an individual’s domination over primitive instincts, sensual selfishness and brute force attempts to gain profits.

Kant suggested the hypothesis of so-called autonomous morality. According to him, humans, being rational and absolutely free beings, set moral laws for themselves. And these laws are independent of any external conditions, interests or goals. Thus Kant postulates an independent personal conscience that formulates universally binding moral norms by an internal conviction. Kant called this principle, by which all humans ought to be governed, the categorical imperative. It can be stated in two mutually complementing ways. The first one is: "Act only in accordance with such a maxim, which you want to become a universal law." The other: "Act in such a way as to always treat human kind in your own person and in others as an end, and never treat it as a means only." [I. Kant Works: in 6 vol./ Translation from German Moscow, 1965. vol. 4. part 1. p. 260, 270; Quoted by: Categorical Imperative // Philosophic encyclopedic dictionary. Moscow, 1983].

Kant’s idea of autonomous ethics follows naturally from his deistic views. In this, however, lies its vulnerability. By accepting God as the Creator, we must also accept that all laws (physical, biological, psychological, rational, moral, spiritual) are "given" by God, and not created by man’s will. And as such they only exist because unity is preserved between man and God. Professor of Moscow Theological Academy V. D. Kudryavtsev was right when he wrote: "The true source of the moral law, as well as other laws of nature, is outside of us. It is in that higher nature, to which we owe our existence, — in God. That the origin of the moral law is independent of man is evidenced both by our philological experience, pointing to the existence of this law in us prior and independently from any definitions of our mind and will, and by the ideal character of this law, inexplicable given the present state of human nature" [V. Kudryavtsev. Initial Foundation of Philosophy. 7-th edition: Sergiyev Posad, 1910. p. 434-435]. Moral law always turns out to be broader and higher than those norms, by which man would like to govern his life, and this he is unable to change in spite of all his wishes: even the most hardened of criminals, who chose another law of life, often hear the voice of conscience.

The social point of view mainly comes from the idea that moral law is a product of society. It is dictated by the interests of dominating groups and classed and develops and changes in the course of development of human society. Society is the source of moral law and conscience in a person.

This point of view is nothing but a combination of the previous two, and its weaknesses are obvious.

First of all, moral law inherent in man is broader than the moral norms imposed by society. In human society there is no biological determinism of the kind that characterizes animals and insects that live a "social" life (such as elephants, monkeys, bees, ants). Free will that is inherent in human nature can never be fully "contained" by any social environment. It is always capable of moral acts that exceed the boundaries of what is considered normal and lawful in a given society.

There are numerous examples of people from very different civilizations, cultures, and social classes having the same moral views, and of people from the same society having different morals. The remorse itself arises for the most part due to motives of a personal nature.

Russian writer F. M. Dostoyevsky showed this quite well in his novel "Crime and Punishment." A student named Raskolnikov murdered an old money-lender and her sister. He did so believing that "it is not a crime" to kill "a tuberculosis-stricken, wicked, silly old woman" and that "the old woman is harmful" and that on this "money of the old woman willed to a monastery" it is possible to do "a hundred, or a thousand good deeds and undertakings." And what was the outcome of this plan to commit this "non-crime"?

To Raskolnikov’s huge amazement and horror, in spite of all his most consistent and "reasonable" arguments, justifying and even approving the murder of this creature no more significant than "a louse or a cockroach… an old woman, who isn’t even worth a louse or a cockroach," he suddenly sensed a severe pain in his soul. And not in the least because he thought that he had committed a crime against society, law etc., and not because he was sorry for the old woman — there was nothing of the kind. He could not understand the source of this inner terrible punishment.

"Crime and Punishment" is an especially powerful and vivid illustration of that moral law that is inherent in man, the action of which law is experienced by all in all societies to varying degrees and due to various offences.

Secondly, self-examination or, as the Holy Fathers call it, "attention to oneself," reveals to man an entire world inside human heart, where indeed "devil and God fight one another" (F. Dostoyevsky), uncovers the world of truth and evil, reveals true laws of the life of soul. In the face of this self-examination all the human codes, moral norms, ethics, and rules of behavior appear to be nothing more than a weak and sometimes distorted reflection of the Truth hidden in each person’s heart. Social environment just helps man to realize the presence of the moral law inherent in humans and helps one to develop that law, which is then partly expressed in moral norms, codes etc. Life of society is just conducive to certain moral norms, but it is not a creator of the moral sense or conscience itself. Same can be said of the gift of speech, where society is just a necessary condition for the development of this faculty inherent in man, but society is not a creator of this faculty. A monkey living in human society does not develop a gift of speech.

Conscience as the most obvious manifestation of the moral law is something quite inexplicable by the given hypothesis. A hardened criminal, having lost not only public consciousness, but also, as it seems, human image may suddenly experience remorse. And this remorse arises not from social motives, but from a sudden subconsious vision of inconsistency between what he has done in life and that inner truth revealed inside of him. This feeling appears to be an ideal, the greatness of which immeasurably surpasses all established and socially accepted moral norm. One would have to overlook such facts in order to claim that moral feelings and conscience are just products of man’s social life, and that social moral norms encompass the moral law characteristic of human beings.

Now, what is the Christian view on the origin of the moral law in man? It directly comes out of the Biblical teaching about man as an image of God (Gen. 1:27), the royal greatness of which image (cf. "Kingdom of God is within you" (Lk 17:21)) is revealed to the degree of man’s "strength of living" (St. Isaac of Syria). In this context the moral law is a kind of a protector of man’s purity and holiness. The Christian teaching about the source of the moral law in man is beautifully expressed in the saying, "Conscience is a voice of God."

The second kind of the moral argument was offered by Kant and further developed by Professor V.D. Kudryavtsev.

Kant called his argument the postulate of practical reason. This correctly reflects the nature of the argument, which can be summarized as follows.

The ultimate goal, to which a rational and moral being ought to aspire, is the highest good or, according to V. Kudryavtsev, the absolute perfection. Its main characteristics are knowledge of the Truth, fullness of virtue (holiness) and achievement of happiness. These three elements encompass all aspirations of man as a rational and moral being capable of feeling. Yet it is obvious that achievement of the absolute perfection here on Earth is impossible for man. Hence a question arises: is this aspiration a universal deceit of our nature or does it have a really existing ideal?

If one assumes that this is a deceit, then "everything that man does is a miserable tragicomic pursuit of shadows, aspiration to something that does not even exist in reality" [V. Kudryavtsev. Previously cited work, pp. 194-195]. Indeed, if the fullness of knowledge, virtue and happiness is just an illusion of our consciousness, but not a really existing Ideal, then not only aspiration to them becomes meaningless, but human life itself makes no sense. Therefore, to avoid such an unnatural and illogical understanding of our nature, it is necessary to accept the existence of God as the highest good, in Whom man achieves the ultimate goal of all his aspirations.

On the other hand, the existence of inconsistency in earthy life between the extent of a person’s righteousness and his/her happiness also requires us to postulate the existence of God as almighty, omniscient and just Being, Who wants and is able to establish such consistency for all people in the future eternal life. "The nature," — wrote Kant, "cannot establish consistency between virtue and happiness. This compels us to accept the existence of a cause different from nature and not dependent upon it. This cause must have not only power, but also intelligence. It must be such a force, which is above nature in power, will, and intelligence. And only God can be such a Being. He wants and is able to establish a union between virtue and happiness" [Quoted by: I. M. Andreyev Orthodox-Christian Apologetics. New York, 1965. p. 40].

Indestructible need of humans for continual spiritual and moral improvement also makes us postulate immortality of human soul.

We will start with a brief digression. "In 1790 a meteorite fell near a French town. The Mayor wrote down a statement of the case, which was sighed by 300 eye-witnesses and sent to the Paris Academy of Sciences. Do you think the scientists thanked for the contribution to science? Not at all. Paris Academy not only composed a voluminous treatise "On the Absurdity of Falling Stones from the Skiy," but even adopted a special resolution on this occasion. Many museums threw meteorites out of their collections in order not to "make a laughing-stock out of the museum." And one of the scientists, Deluke, stated: "Even if such a stone fell at my feet, and I had to admit seeing it, I still would not believe it." Another scientist, Goden, added that "It is better to deny such facts, than condescend to attempts at explaining them."

So, what’s going on here? Why did these respected scientists declare war on meteorites? Because ignorant people believe that stones from the sky are sent by the Lord God, and "if there is no God, then there can be no stones from the sky," the Paris scientists decided.

Yes, it is not easy to make someone believe in newly discovered facts that do not fit into an established worldview…

If one carefully looks at history of science, it becomes clear that it has been a history of war against reverence before "obvious" things, which are always advocated by common sense. But the so called common sense is nothing but people’s everyday experience accumulated and generalized over centuries. It might seem that it makes no sense to go against it, because it and only it is the only criterion of truth. It is hard for people to understand that their everyday experience is not at all absolute; that it covers only some superficial aspects of events and phenomena; that everyday common sense is limited, and there are numerous indisputable facts that do not agree with simingly unshakeable and obvious truths." [V. Klyachko. Science Perceives the World // Science and religion. 1967. No. 1. p. 72]

Religion, understood as a real living unity of man and God, is, according to the Fathers of Church "the science of sciences." It is such not only in terms of its exclusive importance for man, but also in view of its natural compliance with empiric sciences, which are all experience-based and verified with experience. "As a matter of fact, when science’s conclusions contradict facts, the preference is given to the facts, provided that the facts are repeated over and over again." [Ibidem]

The existence of God is a fact verified "over and over again" a great number of times. People of different historic eras, from ancient times to our time, of various races, nationalities, languages, cultures, education and social classes, often knowing nothing of one another, testify with startling unanimity about a real, inexpressible deepest personal experience of God, not just of "something supernatural and mystical."

In science facts make a theoretical guess into a commonly accepted truth. It is enough for several scientists to see, by using scientific equipment, a trace of an elementary particle or a new galaxy, and no one will doubt the particles or the galaxy’s existence. What are, then, the reasons for rejecting the experience of a large number of scientists, outstanding in their fields, testifying about a direct (!), not via equipment or a photographic print, vision of God? These scientists are ascetics, who worked miracles, forsaw the future, lived through persecutions and exiles for the word of faith and truth, were patient in torture and ridicule, shed their blood and gave up their very lives for their unshakeable confession of God and Christ. Even in their thoughts they were incapable of deceipt or looking for praise by people.

What are the grounds for the rejecting this? Maybe, apostles Paul and Peter, Justin the Philosopher and Paul the Simple, John Damascene and Macarius of Egypt, Alexander Nevsky and Clement of Rome, Sergius of Radonezh and Andrew Rublev, Seraphim of Sarov, Ignatius Brianchaninov, Ambrosius of Optina and Dostoyevsky, Pascal, Mendel and Mendeleyev (it is impossible to even name the names of only those, who are known worldwide) all believed in God just "because of tradition" or were fantasizers and unilluminated?

How should we view this great fact of human history? Perhaps, it is necessary to think about it or is it better "to deny such facts than condescend to explaining them?" "It is indeed very difficult to make someone believe new facts, which do not agree with the established worldview," especially if believing in these facts requires one to work on his or her spiritual and moral self-improvement.

Is it possible to reject God’s existence just because everyday experience does not prove it to us? But it is known that "everyday experience is not at all absolute, that it covers just some superficial aspects of events and phenomena, that everyday common sense is limited: there are numerous indisputable facts that do not agree with seemingly established truths." Everyday experience proves to us very little of what modern scientists say, but we believe their experiments, we believe the scientists without knowing them, even though we have no chance to verify their statements and conclusions. What are the grounds for not believing a great number of religious experiences witnessed by crystally pure people?

The experience of these men of the science of sciences speaks not of their unfounded faith, or an opinion, or a commonly accepted hypothesis or just a tradition, but of the fact of knowing God.

The main experience of religion is to meet God. This experience, at least at its highest points, possesses such a fiery convincing power that it leaves all other obvious things far behind. It can be forgotten or lost, but not rejected. The entire history of mankind, in terms of religious consciousness, turns into some unsolvable puzzle or nonsense, if one does not accept that mankind bases its religious beliefs on a living religious experience, i.e. all nations somehow saw and knew their deities, knew about them not only from a "catechism." In the books of the prophets of Israel we often read: "And God told me." Have you ever thought carefully about these words? Have you ever tried to understand them, even remotely applying these words to your religious experience? "And God told me!" What is it? Is it just a hallucination, self-delusion, deceipt, trick of a writer or…? And if it is the truth... if what is written in these books is true, then God spoke, and man heard God and listened to Him, not with a physical organ of hearing, of course, but heard with his heart, with all his essence, and the word of God was louder than all the thunders of the world, more convincing and trustworthy than all its understanding. If people of faith started telling about what they had seen and learned with ultimate certainty, then a mountain would grow, under which a hill of skeptical rationalism would have been buried and hidden from the eyes. [Bulgakov S., Svet Nevecherniy, Sergiyev Posad, 1947, p. 14]

Knowledge of God is an exact science and not an exotic mixture of mystical extasy and unhealthy neurotic excitement. Knowledge of God has its own consistency, conditions and criteria. How does one know God? The beginning lies in a sincere search for truth and the meaning of life, for moral purity and forcing oneself to do good for the sake of good. Without such a beginning an "experiment" at knowing God cannot succeed. The Gospels express this condition succinctly and clearly: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." (Mt. 5:8) [See Ch. 2, 6.5, "A Positive Perspective on the Origin of Religion."]

Man is the greatest mystery to... man. His thought is boundless, his creative work endless, his heart capable of accommodating the whole world, God Himself. There is no being like him on earth. This is unwillingly arresting, provoking a natural desire to understand his nature, the reason for his existence, the reasonable goal of his boundless creative activity, the sources of its various forces and capabilities, hidden within.

The direction of man’s activities is multifaceted. Some are determined by the curiosity of his mind, the yearning to know all that surrounds him (science), others — by the necessity of living in this natural world (social, technological and economic activity), still others — by the feeling of beauty, and the desire to reproduce it in his life and activity (art), and lastly – by the indestructible desire to know the sense and purpose of his life, the life of the world, to know the truth (religion, philosophy). Yet the foundation and source all man’s life activity, determining its direction, character and content, is the spiritual and moral state of a person, formed by his freedom, the expression of his will in the face of good and evil, before the mirror of his conscience. For spirit creates forms for itself.

Let us consider separate types of human activity.

When Laplace (1827), the well-known French astronomer, mathematician and physicist, presented his five-volume work, "Celestial mechanics," on the origin and organization of the Universe to Napoleon, the emperor, having familiarized himself with it, noted with perplexity: "I do not find any mention of a Creator here." Laplace, educated in the spirit of so-called free-thinking (during all the political upheavals in France, he changed his views with amazing ease to comply with the ideology of the new regime), proudly answered: "Sir, I have no need of this hypothesis." This is how an alumnus of the so-called Age of Enlightenment expressed his attitude towards the idea of God, which, "having forgotten" about the faith of the Galileos and Copernicuses, Keplers and Pascals, openly declared war on Christianity under the banner of science. But do religion and science really negate one another?

This question arose in human history not long ago. Religion and science always co-existed and developed without any antagonism. A scientist and a believer, as a rule, were combined in the same person. Scientists-atheists were very rare exceptions, but even they did not claim that their scientific data proved the non-existence of God. And only in the XVIII century, especially when a number of French philosophers and public figures, so-called encyclopedists, advanced a motto about the opposition between science and religion, this idea gradually began to capture Europe, and then Russia, where, after 1917, it was raised to the level of a national ideology. Religion was declared to be an antiscientific worldview.

To see the real picture of the correlations between science and religion, it is necessary to look at the foundations on which science stands, what principles govern its development, and what it can truly say about God.

The philosophical encyclopedia gives the following definition of science: "Science is ... the system of developing knowledge, which are obtained by the corresponding methods of study and are expressed in precise concepts, the verity of which is checked and proved through public practice. Science is a system of concepts about the phenomena and laws of the external world or the spiritual activity of people, granting the ability to foresee and transform reality in the interests of society, the historically mature form of human activity, "spiritual production," having, as its content and result, purposefully gathered facts, drawn-up hypotheses and theories with their fundamental laws, research approaches and methods.

The concept of "science" is used to signify the process of producing scientific knowledge, as well as the entire system of knowledge verified through practice, that represents the objective truth, and also to signify individual fields of scientific knowledge, specific sciences. Modern science is an extremely branched whole of separate scientific fields" (Philosophical encyclopedia. Moscow, 1964. vol. 3. Article "Science").

Sciences, in a general classification, are usually divided into natural (study of nature, or exact science) and humanitarian. Physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy and others belong to the first category. The philosophical and social sciences — to the second. This differentiation between sciences is very important for the correct understanding of the problem of "science and religion," because its main problem consists precisely of whether "exact science" (natural science) refutes religion, but not science in general, which, by definition, consists of the entire complex of human knowledge, including religious philosophy and religion itself.

Let us turn to the bases of science.

In science (natural science), as well as in religion, there are such absolute provisions "dogmas," which are not proved (and cannot be proved), but accepted as initial ones, because they are necessary for building the entire system of knowledge. In science, such provisions are called postulates or axioms. Natural science is based on at least two main provisions: first of all, the recognition of the reality of the world’s existence and, secondly, the regularity of its organization and the cognizability of man.

Let us consider the following postulates:

1. Surprisingly, the affirmation of the objective, i.e. independent of human consciousness, existence of the world is an unequivocally obvious, rather than scientifically proven, truth, more the subject of faith than knowledge. The well-known philosopher Bertrand Russell (†1970) wittily remarks regarding this: "I do not believe that I am sleeping and dreaming right now, but I cannot prove that it" [2]. Einstein (†1955) in turn says straight out: "The belief in the existence of outer world, independent of the assimilating subject, is the basis of all natural science" [3]. These statements of well-known scientists clearly illustrate science’s understanding of the reality of outer world: it is a subject of its faith, a dogma (in theological terms), but not knowledge.

2. The second postulate of science — the conviction of the rationality, regularity of the world’s organization and its cognizability — is the main driving force behind all scientific research. But for science, it also turns out to be the same question of faith (dogma), as for the first one. Scientists of authority speak of this unvaryingly. Thus, the Russian academician L.S. Berg (†1950) wrote: "The main postulate, with which a naturalist approaches nature, is that nature makes sense, that one can comprehend it and understand, that between the laws of thinking and cognition, on the one hand, and the system of nature on the other, there is a certain predetermined harmony. Without this silent assumption, no natural science is possible. Maybe, this postulate is wrong (just as, perhaps, Euclid’s postulate about parallel lines is wrong), but it is practically necessary" [4]. Einstein affirmed the same thing: "Without belief in the possibility of embracing reality with our theoretical constructions, without belief in the inner harmony of our world, no science would be possible. This belief is and will always remain the main motive behind any scientific creative activity" [5]. The father of cybernetics, N. Wiener (†1964), wrote: "Without the belief that nature is subordinate to laws, no science is possible. It is impossible to prove that nature is subordinate to laws, because we all know that from the next moment on, the world can become like the croquet game in the book, "Alice in Wonderland" [6]. —The well-known contemporary American physicist, Ch. Townes (†1992), writes, "A scholar should be convinced in advance, that there is an order in the Universe and that the human mind is able to understand this order. It would be senseless to even try to understand a disorderly and inconceivable world" [7].

But even if these postulates are true (and one can hardly doubt that), the question remains — without the solution of which, the very statement of the problem of "science and religion" loses all meaning, — concerning the reliability of scientific knowledge itself. But first, let us say a couple of words about its methods.

The main methods of natural science are: observation, experiment, measurement and guessing (hypotheses, theories). Using them as a guide, it is possible to clearly separate the field of natural science from all other fields of creative human activity: the humanitarian sciences, art, music, etc. Thus, scientific knowledge is just a small part of human knowledge as a whole.

This question is so delicate, and the answer to it is so affects the essence of science, that it is better to let the more competent scientists of the 20th century take the floor.

The academician L.S. Berg: "In science, everything that contributes to its development is true, everything that hinders the development of science is wrong. In this regard, the true is analogous to the expedient ... Thus, truth in science is everything that is expedient, that is justified and confirmed by experience, that is capable of furthering scientific progress. In science, the question of truth is solved by practice.

Ptolemy’s theory in its time promoted the progress of knowledge and was considered true, but when it ceased to serve this purpose, Copernicus suggested a new theory of the Universe, under which the sun is stationary, but the Earth moves. But now we know that this view also does not reflect the truth, because not only the earth moves, but the sun does, also. Any theory is convention, fiction. At the present time, the accuracy of this concept of the truth will hardly be contested, inasmuch as it touches upon theory. But the laws of nature, themselves, in this regard are in the same state: each law is a convention, which survives as long as it is useful. Newton’s laws seemed unshakeable, but nowadays they are considered simply as a known approximation of the truth. Einstein’s theory of relativity overturned not only all of Newton’s mechanics, but all classical mechanics as well...

Usefulness is a criterion of fitness, and therefore, of verity. The human being does not have another way of distinguishing the truth... Truth is a useful fiction; error is a harmful one... Thus, we determined what truth is from the point of view of science" [8].

А. Einstein: "In our desire to understand reality, we are like the man who wants to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees a clock-face and the moving hands, he even hears the ticking, but he does not have the means to open it. If he is smart, he can draw a picture of the mechanism, which would answer to everything that he observes, but he can never be completely sure that his picture is the only one that could explain his observations. He will never be capable of comparing his picture with the real mechanism, and he cannot even imagine the possibility and meaning of such a comparison" [9].

The most prominent American physicist, R. Feynman (†1991): "That is why science is unreliable. As soon as you say something from a field of experience in which you were not directly involved, you immediately lose your confidence. But we must speak about those fields which we have never touched upon; otherwise, science will be useless... Therefore, if we want science to be at all useful, we must speculate. For science not to turn into simple protocols of performed experiments, we must put forward laws, extending to still unknown fields. There is nothing wrong in this, but science is unreliable because of this, and if you thought that science was reliable, — you were wrong" [10].

The hypothetical nature of scientific knowledge is clearly expressed in the microworld. One of the creators of quantum mechanics, V. Heisenberg (†1976), wrote on this matter: "The microworld should be observed by its actions using hi-tech experimental equipment. However, it will not be the subject of our direct sensual perception. A naturalist must reject the thought of a direct connection of the basic ideas, on which he builds his science, — with the world of sensual perception... Our complicated experiments represent nature not as it is, but changed and transformed under the influence of our activity in the experimental process... Consequently, we come up against the insurmountable limits of human knowledge" [11].

R. Oppenheimer (†1967): "I had a chance to consult with forty physicists-theorists... My colleagues, in spite of the differences of opinion, adhere to at least one conviction. Everyone admits that we don’t understand the nature of matter, the laws which govern it, the language with which it can be described" [12].

Russian philosophers speak out in full accord with these views. In the collective work, "The Logic of Scientific Research," compiled under the direction of P.V. Kopkin (†1971), the director of the Institute of Philosophy, we read: "The requirements of precision, straightforwardness and exhaustive clarity were always demanded of the ideal of scientific knowledge. However, the scientific knowledge of any era, striving to this ideal, nevertheless never attained it. It turned out that in any, even the strictest scientific construction, there were always such elements, the validity and strictness of which were in glaring contradiction with the requirements of the ideal. And what is especially remarkable is that the deepest and most fundamental principles of the given scientific construction often belonged to these kinds of elements. The presence of elements of this kind was usually interpreted simply as a result of the imperfection of the knowledge of the given period. In accordance with such opinions, energetic attempts to fully eliminate elements of this kind from science were repeatedly made, and are still being made, throughout the history of science. However, these attempts were not successful. At the present time, one can consider the irreducibility of knowledge to the ideal of the absolute strictness as proven. After a long and stubborn struggle, even "logicists" had to come to the conclusion that it is impossible to fully eliminate the "lax" provisions even from the strictest science — mathematics...

All this testifies not only to the fact that any system of human knowledge contains elements that cannot be proved by theoretical means at all, but also to the fact that no scientific system of knowledge can exist without elements of this kind." [13]

Similar statements of scientists and thinkers become more and more comprehensible in the light of common opinion on the nature of the development of scientific knowledge. It is all divided into two unequal parts: the first one is real knowledge (strictly verified facts, scientific apparatus), having an insignificant range, and the second one — the lack of knowledge, encompassing almost the whole scope of science (theories, hypotheses, models — "guesses," according to R. Feynman). The most curious thing is that the scope of the latter (lack of knowledge) increases dramatically with the growth of the first (knowledge), because the solution of each problem, as a rule, gives rise to a whole range of new problems.

The academician, V.I. Vernadsky, in assessing the process of the development of knowledge in science, wrote: "Only one generally essential, indisputable complex of knowledge and ideas in human society is created for all times and peoples. This overall essentiality and incontestability of conclusions encompasses only a part of scientific knowledge — mathematical thought and the empirical basis of knowledge — empirical notions, expressed in facts and generalizations. Neither scientific hypotheses, nor scientific models in cosmogony, nor scientific theories, giving rise to so many passionate disputes, attracting philosophical quests, have this general essentiality. They are necessary and inevitable, scientific thought cannot work without them. But they are transient, and to a significant extent, insurmountable for contemporaries, they are wrong and ambiguous: like the Proteus of artistic embossing, they are constantly changeable." [14] (The academician G. Naan once observed: "Few people know how much one should know to know how little we know...").

For the very reason that the main driving part of science is never definitive and true knowledge, Feynman spoke of its unreliability. The Polish scientist, S. Lem, called this part of science a myth: "And like each science, cybernetics creates its own mythology. The mythology of science sounds like an internal contradiction in definition. But still, any, even the most exact science, develops not only through new theories and facts, but also through conjectures and the hopes of scientists. Development justifies only a few of them. The rest turn out to be an illusion and are therefore like a myth." [15]

The modern Russian scientist, V.V. Nalimov, concludes frankly, that "the development of science is not so much the accumulation of knowledge, as the unceasing reassessment of the accumulated i.e. the creation of new hypotheses, the rejection of previous ones. But then scientific progress is nothing else than the consecutive process of destruction of the previously existing lack of knowledge. At every step, the old lack of knowledge is destroyed via the building of a new, more powerful lack of knowledge, to destroy which, in turn, becomes more and more difficult as time goes by...

And now a question unwillingly arises: was not the ruin of some cultures, say the Egyptian, and the degradation of once powerful courses of thought, for example the Ancient Indian, the result of their attaining a certain level of lack of knowledge that could not be destroyed? Who knows, how persistent will the power of the lack of knowledge be in European knowledge?" [16]

The conditionality of scientific knowledge becomes even more obvious when examining scientific criteria of truth.

Since sciences are built not only on the basis of observations, experiments, measurements, but also on hypotheses and theories, a serious question about the criteria of their verity arises. Facts by themselves say very little to a researcher until he finds a general law for them, until he "ties" them together with one common theory. After all, any understanding of any group of world phenomena and, moreover, world understanding in general, is nothing but a theory, adhered to by a greater or lesser number of scientists. But is it possible to prove the verity of a theory? It turns out that there is no absolute criterion, with the help of which one could finally determine whether a given theory (picture) corresponds to the objective reality.

The criterion of practice is always considered the main and most reliable one. But even this criterion is often totally insufficient.

The well-known philosopher and physicist Ph. Frank (†1966) wittily remarks on this matter: "Science is similar to a detective story. All the facts confirm a certain hypothesis, but in the end, a completely different hypothesis turns out to be the right one." [17]

It is especially difficult to resolve this question when several theories at the same time explain this phenomenon equally well. "Of course, — a Russian author writes, — the empirical criterion does not work here, because one must choose one of several hypotheses, equivalent in terms of concurrence with empiricism, otherwise the choice would not be difficult. Therefore, the necessity for secondary criteria arises." [18]

There are many of these secondary, or additional criterion, and they are all even more conditional than the empirical criterion.

Let us name some of them as an illustration.

1. The criterion of economy and simplicity (I. Newton, E. Mach). A true theory is one that is simple for work, for understanding, and saves time.

2. The criterion of beauty (H. Poincare, P. Dirac). The beauty of the mathematical machinery, underlying physical theory — is a witness of its accuracy.

3. The criterion of common sense.

4. The criterion of "folly," i.e. non-conformity to common sense. The academician G. Naan writes about this: "...What is common sense? This is the embodiment of the experience and prejudices of its time. It is an unreliable adviser where we come up against an completely new situation. Any sufficiently serious scientific discovery, beginning with the discovery of the Earth’s spherical shape, contradicted the common sense of its time." [19]

5. The criterion of prognosticability — the ability of a theory to predict new facts and phenomena. But, as a rule, all theories have this capability.

And so on, and so forth.

All these criteria are far from being actually able to testify to the incontestable truth of one theory or another. That is why Einstein said: "Any theory is hypothetical; it is never concluded, it is subject to doubt and suggests new questions." [20]

The above statements of scientists and the criteria, used by science, speak eloquently enough on the issue of the reliability of scientific knowledge. It turns out to always be limited, conditional and therefore can never lay claim to absolute truth. Nevertheless, it is able to be such in specifically religious matters, referring to the fields of the other world, with which science does not deal.

The question of science and religion contains a principally methodological problem. Inasmuch as religion is a worldview, then it is natural that it can only be compared with another worldview. Is science one? What is the so-called scientific worldview, so often compared to religion?

Science is, by its very essence, a system of developing knowledge about the world, that is, constantly changing and therefore never capable of giving a full and complete view of the world as a whole. The academician, G. Naan, rightly says: "At any level of civilization’s development, our knowledge will be only a small finite island in the infinite ocean of the unknown, unfamiliar, unexplored." [21]

Another modern scientist V. Kazyutinsky draws the following picture of science: "The object of knowledge in natural sciences are always just those facets, aspects, fragments of the inexhaustible material world, singled out by the subject in the process of social/historical practice. It is true, that the object of scientific research in nature in general, and in each of the natural sciences separately, is expanding, and our knowledge about nature is becoming more adequate for it, nevertheless, natural science, at any moment, deals only with separate aspects of that area of objective reality, which is singled out by the empirical and theoretical methods available at the moment. Cosmology in this respect does not hold any special position among other natural sciences — "all matter" (the material world as a whole) is not now and will never be its object." [22]

But even if all matter, not to mention the spiritual world, is not now and will never be the object of research of natural science, then can a scientific worldview be possible?

To answer this question, it is necessary to consider, what is a worldview?

A worldview is the aggregate of views on the most basic questions of existence as a whole, and man (the essence of existence, the meaning of life, the understanding of good and evil, the existence of God, the soul, eternity). It does not depend on the level of education, the level of culture and man’s abilities. That is why both the scientist and the uneducated person can have the same worldview, and people with a like amount of education — directly opposite beliefs. Worldview always appears in the form of either religion or philosophy, but not science. "In general, the structure of religious teaching, —experts in religion claim, — does not differ very much from the structure of the philosophical system, because religion, like philosophy, strives to give a full picture of the world, a full system of individual orientation, a full worldview." [23]

The member-correspondent of the Academy of Science of the former USSR, P. Kopnin, wrote: "Philosophy by its subject and goals differs from science and is a special form of human consciousness, irreducible to any other. Philosophy as a form of consciousness creates a worldview, necessary for mankind for all its practical and theoretical activities. Religion is closest to philosophy in social function, which also appeared as a definite form of worldview. Therefore, science... alone cannot replace it... Worldview... is not covered by any one science, nor by their sum total." [24]

Therefore, when speaking strictly about a scientific worldview, then such a notion must be admitted to be conditional, used only in the narrowest, most specific meaning of this word — as a sum total of scientific views of the material world, its organization, its laws. Science cannot be a worldview, because:

а) purely worldview issues (see above) belong solely to the jurisdiction of philosophy and religion, and have no relation to the field of natural science;

б) science constantly changes, which contradicts the very notion of a worldview as something finished, completely determined, constant;

в) As V. Kazyutinsky quite justly remarks, "in natural science there are no "materialistic" and "idealistic" theories, but only probable and reliable, true and false " [25].

Man’s ideas (knowledge) about the phenomena of this world can be scientific or antiscientific, but not a man’s worldview, as such (religious, atheistic, etc.). Science and worldview are two different, reciprocally irreducible notions and therefore they cannot oppose one another.

But even if one believes in the infinity of scientific knowledge and in the capability of science to someday resolve all the questions of spirit and matter and achieve the status of a worldview, then in this case, a thinking person cannot wait for this hypothetical future. Life is given just once and therefore, for a person to know how to live and what guidelines to use, what ideals to serve, he needs the answer to the most important questions now: who am I? What is the meaning of my existence? Is there sense in the existence of mankind, the world? Is there eternal life? Quarks, black holes and DNA do not answer these questions, and cannot do so.

"Has not science proved that there is no God, no spiritual world, no soul, no eternal life no Heaven and hell?" — It turns out that not only has it not proved it, but, in principle, it cannot occupy itself with this. These are the reasons.

Secondly, owing to the abovementioned reasons, science will be never able to say: "There is no God." On the contrary, a deep knowledge of the world naturally directs a scientist’s thought to acknowledging the highest Reason-God to be the source of our existence. And owing to this fact, science is increasingly becoming an ally of religion. The Christian belief of very many modern scientists testifies to this. It is not by chance that one of the greatest representatives of "scientific" atheism, Shakhnovich, indignant at the religiosity of outstanding Western scientists, wrote in the heat of polemics: "Many bourgeois scientists speak of "a union" of science and religion. M. Born, M. Plank, V. Heisenberg, K. Von Weiszecker, P. Jordan and other well-known physicists repeatedly declared that science allegedly does not contradict religion." [26] Shakhnovich writes about some modern scientists. But it is a generally known fact, that an overwhelming majority of scientists always supported this union.

The following outstanding words belong to M. Lomonosov: "The Creator gave the human race two books, — he wrote. — The first one is the visible world... The second book is the Holy Scripture. They both certify not only the existence of God, but also His indescribable good works to us. It is a sin to sow tares and discords among them." Science and religion "cannot come into conflict... unless someone out of some vanity and showing off of his wisdom would calumniate them." [27]

But, maybe the religious worldview opposes science, knowledge, progress?

Starting with the broad understanding of science, [28] it is rightful to speak about religion as one of the forms of "spiritual production" of man. Having as its postulates (the existence of God, the immortality of soul), a special method of cognition (the spiritual and moral perfection of personality), its criteria in differentiating the truth from error (the correspondence of individual spiritual experience to the unity of the experience of saints, as the most competent "engineers" of human souls), its aim (the knowledge of God and the achievement of eternal life in Him — en-Godening), — religion does not differ structurally from the natural sciences. Its especially essential similarity with empirical sciences can be observed in the necessity of the correct experience of the proper experience for gaining true knowledge in the learning process. It was not by chance that "academicians" of the Orthodox Church – great saints — called the correct (righteous) religious life the "science of sciences."

However, religion, as a science of experience ("religion-science"), at the same time represents a wonderful exception among all the empirical sciences: religion-science, in contrast to natural science, is a worldview in the full sense of this word. This is why.

If natural science cannot serve as a basis for building a worldview (religious or atheistic), then religion-science — through experience confirming the existence of God, the soul, the pretersensual world — becomes the scientific foundation for a religious worldview. In this sense, religion is indeed a scientific worldview in contrast to all the others: atheistic, agnostic, materialistic, which always remain simply a belief.

At the same time, the religious worldview, in particular the Orthodox one, cannot in principle have any contradictions with natural sciences and, moreover, oppose them, because it does not include either their laws or theories, or concrete "details" of the knowledge of the material world. It remains unchanged, independent of what science asserts today and what it will come to tomorrow. For the religious worldview it does not matter whether the Earth or the Sun is the center of our system, what revolves around what, on what "building blocks" the Universe is built.

And the fact that many clergymen were at the same time great scientists (for example, Copernicus (†1543), St. Metropolitan of Moscow Innocent (Veniaminov) (†1879), Abbot Mendel (†1884), Pater V. Schmidt (†1954), Archbishop Luke of Voino-Yasenetsk (†1961), Abbot Lemetre (+1966) and many others), eloquently testifies to the falsity of the very idea of a struggle between religion and science.

It is true, that indisputable, at first glance, facts of oppression and even the execution of individual scientists by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages are presented as proof. To that one should say:

Firstly, in the description of these facts there are many exaggerations. An insignificant number of scientists were condemned not so much for their scientific views, as for dogmatic and moral deviations from the Catholic faith, that is for heresies (for example, Giordano Bruno, who declared himself "a teacher of a more perfect theology, the son of heaven and earth "). [29]

Next, all this relates to a defective church — the Catholic one, in which one of the most vivid errors was expressed by the fact that it, in fact, dogmatized separate scientific theories of that time (of which it repents now).

Finally, in the Middle Ages, it was not so much a struggle between religion and science, as much as a struggle between old scientific ideas and representatives (with all the daily human passions) with new ones, using religion.

The modern Russian scientist, A. Gorbovsky, wonderfully reveals and illustrates the main reason for the persecution of science.

"Didn’t the idea that there can be "stones, falling from the sky" — meteorites — seem just as blasphemous in its time?

The French Academy of Science declared all similar ideas fiction, and Lavoisier himself, the great scientist [30], branded them as "antiscientific." This term is not an accident. In all times, public consciousness has had a reference point which was declared indisputable and true. Once, such a standard was religious worldview. Everything that was in the channel of this worldview was considered true; everything that was beyond it was declared false.

In the course of time, the place of religious worldview in public consciousness was replaced with the sum of ideas, which is defined by the term "scientific." Now something that corresponds to the given, dominant system of views is true, and everything that contradicts it is false.

That is why, wishing to refute the existence of meteorites, Lavoisier resorted to declaring the statements about them "antiscientific," i.e. contradictory to the canonized system of views.

But let us try to look at today’s surrounding world objectively. We see that it wholly consists of the things that at one time or another were refuted or regarded as false.

In our world, planes fly. Despite the fact that the well-known astronomer Professor S. Newcomb [31] mathematically proved the impossibility of creating flying apparatus heavier than air...

We use radio. Despite the authoritative opinion of the well-known scientist H. Hertz, [32] claiming that it was impossible ("a distant connection, — he wrote, — will require reflectors of the size of a continent").

Nowadays everyone is aware of the monstrous power of nuclear weapons. However, in the old days, leading US military experts claimed that the creation of the atomic bomb was fundamentally impossible.

Nowadays, nuclear power plants are entering the ranks. But certain prominent US scientists, including N. Bohr, [33] considered the practical use of atomic energy unlikely.

We study the chemical composition of celestial bodies. Despite the well-known French philosopher O. Comte, [34] who categorically claimed that man would never be able to do so.

Now, 99% of all the matter of the Universe is considered to be in a plasma state. However, for thirty years after its discovery, the scientific world refused to acknowledge the existence of plasma.

Pasteur’s discovery [35] was rejected by the Academy of Medicine.

The discovery of X-rays was met with mockery.

The discovery of hypnosis by Mesmer [36] was categorically refuted by the scientific stars of that time.

The French Academy of Science rejected the existence of fossilized man for a long time, and explained the finds of stone implements as "a game of nature."

This list can be as long as one wants. A list of anathemas and bans pronounced once upon a time in the name of science. At best, it was the result of the inertia of thinking, when, speaking with A. Schopenhauer’s words, [37] "each person considers the end of his range of vision the end of the world."

Nowadays, with a delay of centuries and decades, we are putting up monuments to those who were an object of these anathemas and banishments in the old days." [38]

Gorbovsky did not mention the most terrible persecutions in history of scientists in the USSR, performed, however, not by the Church, but by the Satanists, who usurped power.

The reasons for the persecution of science were not rooted in Christianity, and all the more so not in Orthodoxy, but in the evil of human passions, in that fanaticism to which they gave birth, which always combats all the true and living.

The significance of faith in religion is so great, that religion itself is very often called faith. This is fair, but not more than in relation to any other field of cognition.

Faith is just as necessary for man in religion. It is the expression of a person’s spiritual aspirations, his searchings, and often begins with trust in those, who already have the corresponding experience and knowledge in it. With the acquisition of his own religious experience, gradually, a person acquires a definite knowledge along with faith, which grows in conjunction with a proper spiritual and moral life, in proportion to the purification of the heart from passions. As a great saint said: "A soul sees God’s truth in the measure of the strength of his life." [39]

On this path, a Christian can achieve that knowledge of God (and the essence of the created world), when his faith merges with knowledge, and he becomes "joined unto the Lord in one Spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17).

In this way, as faith prefaces knowledge, and experience confirms the faith in all natural sciences, so it is in religion: faith, coming from a deeply intuitive feeling of God, acquires its power only in a direct personal experience of knowledge of Him. And only faith in the non-existence of God, in all its variations of world outlook, remains not only not justified by experience, but is also in blatant contradiction with the great religious experience of all times and peoples.

Religion and science are two principally different spheres of human vital activity. They have different premises, different aims, tasks, methods. These spheres can be contiguous, intersect, but, as one can see, they cannot refute each other. At the same time, Christianity professes a duality of the human essence, an inseparable unity in it of spiritual and physical natures. They both answer to the Divine intent for man, and only the harmonious correlation of their activities ensures a normal character of human life. Such a life implies both the "bread" of scientific and technical development for the body, and the spirit of religious life for the soul. However, the moral-rational, spiritual source must always remain the guide for man.

Christianity sees science as one of the means of knowing God (Rom. 1:19-20). [40] But first of all, though it considers science to be a natural instrument of this life, it should be used very circumspectly. Christianity disapproves when this double-edged and terrible, in its power, sword is used independently of the moral principles of the Gospel. Such "freedom" distorts the very purpose of science itself — to serve the welfare and only the welfare of man (as the well-known Hippocratic oath says: "Do not harm!").

But when science develops independently of the spiritual and moral principles of Christianity, having lost the idea of God-Love as the Highest Principle of being and the highest criterion of the truth, and at the same time opening up huge forces of influence on the world and man himself, it easily becomes a destructive weapon, and from an obedient tool of its Creator it turns into his master and… murderer. Modern achievements in the field of physics of elementary particles, microbiology, medicine, military and industrial technologies etc. convincingly testify to the real possibility of such a tragic end.

The Church, receiving the Revelation about the final Catastrophe from the beginning, if the human race does not repent of its materialism, reminds us over and over again: "The mind must observe a measure of knowledge, in order to survive" (St. Kallist Kataphigiot). This measure in this case are the Gospel principles of life, which serve as the foundation for that education of a man of science, with which he, while learning about the world, could never let himself use his knowledge and powers for evil.

[1] Philosophic encyclopedia. Moscow, 1964. Vol. 3. Art. "Science."

[2] Rassel B. Human Knowledge / Translated from German. Moscow. 1957. С. 204.

[3] Einstein A. Collection of scientific works / Translated from English. Moscow. 1967. Т. 4. С. 136.

[4] Berg L. Theory of Evolution. Petersburg 1922. P. 67-68.

[5] Einstein А. Specified works P. 154.

[6] Winer N.Cybernetics and society / Translated from English. Moscow. 1958. С. 195.

[7] Townes Ch. The Merging of Science and Religion / Literary newspaper. 1967. No.34.

[8] Berg L. Science, Its Content, Meaning and Classification. Petersburg 1922. P. 18-23

[9] Einstein A, Infeld L.Evolution of Physics / Translated from English. Moscow. 1966. p. 30.

[10] Feynman Р. Character of Physical Laws / Translated from English. Moscow. 1968. P. 77-78.

[11] Heisenberg В. Philosophical Problems of Atomic Physics / Translated from German. Moscow. 1953. P. 64-66.

[12] Oppenheimer R. On the Necessity of Experiments with Particles of Higher Energies // Technika - molodyozhi (Technology of the Youth). 1965. No. 4. P. 10.

[13] Logic of Scientific Research / Under the editorship of P. V. Kopnin. Moscow 1965. P. 230-231.

[14] Vernadsky B.I. The Problem of Time in Mordern Science // Izvestiya AN SSSR (Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of USSR). The Department of Mathematical and Nnatural Sciences. 1932. No.4.

[15] Lem S. The Sum of Technology / Translated from Polish. Moscow. 1968. С. 127.

[16] Nalimov V.V. What is Truth? // Chemistry and Life. 1978. No.1. С. 49.

[17] Frank F. The Philosophy of Science / Translated from English. Moscow. 1960. С. 76.

[18] Mamchur E.A. The Problem of the Criterion of Fullness of Scientific Ttheories // Questions of Philosophy. 1966. No.9. P. 159.

[19] Naan G. To the Problem of Infinity // Questions of Philosophy, 1965. No.12. С. 65.

[20] Cherkashin R. Gnoseological Roots of Idealism. Moscow., 1961. P. 189.

[21] Discussion with the Academician G. Naan. On the Dialectics of Cognition // Science and Religion. 1968. No.12. С. 23.

[22] Kazyutinsky В.А. Astronomy and Dialectics. Astronomic Calendar. Annual. Issue 73. М., 1969. С. 148-149.

[23] Vasilyev L.С., Furman D.E. Christianity and Confucianism // History and Culture of China/ Under the editorship of L.S.Vasilyev. Moscow 1974. p. 422.

[24] Kopnin P. Philosophy in the Century of Science and Technology // (Literary newspaper. 1968. No.5. Ср. Philosophy // Philosophic encyclopedia. Moscow 1970. Vol.5. P. 332: "By its nature, philosophy exercises special world outlook and methodological functions, not assumed by either separate specialized sciences nor the aggregate of concrete scientific knowledge in general."

[25] Kazyutinsky V.V. Astronomy and dialectics // Astronomic calendar. Annual. Issue 73. М., 1969. С. 146.

[26] Shakhnovich M.I. Lenin and the Problems of Atheism. Moscow-Leningrad 1961. P. 185.

[27] Lomonosov M. Poems / Under the editorship of P.N.Berkov. Publishing House "Soviet Writer" 1948. p. 7.

[28] See paragraph 2: The Concept of Science.

[29] Svetlov E. Sources of Religion. Brussels, 1970. p. 258.

[30] Lavoisier Antoine Laurent (1743-1794), French chemist, a member of the Paris Academy of Science; was executed by the verdict of the revolutionary tribunal. In 1796 he was detemined to be innocent (Encyclopedia: In 2 vol. / Under the editorship of B. A. Vvyedensky. Moscow 1963. Vol 1).

[31] Newcomb S. (1835-1909), American astronomer.

[32] Hertz Henrich (1875-1894), German physicist, specialist in the field of electromagnetic and electrodynamic phenomena.

[33] Bohr Nils (1885-1962), outstanding Danish physicist, the creator of quantum theory of the atom.

[34] Comte Auguste (1798-1857), French philosopher, the founder of positivism.

[35] Pasteur Louis (1822-1895), eminent French biologist.

[36] Mesmer (1733-1815), French physicist.

[37] Schopenhauer Arthur (1788-1860), German philosopher-idealist.

[38] Gorbovsky А. Enigmas of the Most Ancient History. The 2-nd edition. Moscow 1971. P. 77-79.

[39] Venerable Isaac of Syria. Ascetic Words. Word 30. Moscow, 1858. P. 195.

[40] See Chapter IV, 3, p.2: Teleological argument.

It is impossible for man, at one time or another in his life, not to be concerned with the questions: "Why do I live, what is the meaning of all existence, where does it all go to, what is truth?" For many people they became life and death questions.

Here, for example, is how the Hegumen Nikon (Vorobyov, +1963), one of the pious ascetics of the XX century experienced them (See his "Letters to Spiritual Children"). His thirst for the answers to these questions was so great that he, as a student, spent all his money to buy books, often being left literally without a piece of bread. And he was only able to read at night. At first, he was absorbed by science. He followed all its latest achievements. He hoped that science would at any moment say the final word, and all the truth would be revealed. Alas, the more he discovered, the more he became disillusioned with its abilities to say something about the meaning of life. It turned out that science was not interested in this question at all.

He turned to philosophy. He learned French and German. For a while, he took a great interest in A. Bergson. Thanks to his tremendous industriousness and remarkable talents, his knowledge of philosophy achieved such a level that even the teachers sometimes turned to him for consultation. However, immersion into philosophy also did not bring the desired results. "The study of philosophy, — he said at the end of his life, — showed: each philosopher considers, that he has found the truth. But how many philosophers existed? And there is one truth. And the soul strived for something else. Philosophy is a surrogate; it is the same as chewing gum instead of bread. Will you be full if you eat gum? I understood that science says nothing about God, about the future life, and philosophy, also, will not give anything. And it became perfectly clear that one must turn to religion." [41]

In 1914, he, having successfully graduated from the scientific secondary school, makes a last attempt to find the meaning of life outside of God, outside of the Church — he enters the Petrograd Psycho-Neurological Institute. But there he is no less disappointed. "I saw: psychology studies does not study man at all, but the "skin — the speed of processes, apperception, memory... Such rubbish, that it turned me off the same way." He left the institute after the first year. He suffered a tremendous spiritual crisis. He began to think about suicide.

But once, in the summer of 1915, in Upper Volochok, when suddenly he felt a state of full despair, particularly keenly his childhood’s years of faith flashed through his mind like lightning: what if God really exists, then He has to reveal Himself? And he — an unbeliever! —cried from depths of his soul, almost in despair: "Lord, if You exist, reveal Yourself to me. I am not searching for You for some earthly reasons. I need only one thing: do You exist or not?" — ... and the Lord revealed Himself! He revealed himself in such a way that "I cried: "Lord, may anything happen to me, any sorrows, any sufferings, just do not reject me, do not deprive me of eternal life." I fully consciously spoke from the bottom of my heart: "I need nothing, no family life, I want nothing, only arrange it so that I do not fall away from You, that I be with You."

"It is impossible to express, — Father Nikon said, — that effect of grace that convinces a man of the existence of God with power and blatancy, not leaving the least doubt. The Lord reveals Himself like, say, the sun bursts out after a dark cloud: you no longer doubt if it is the sun or did someone light a lamp. And the Lord revealed Himself to me in such a way that I fell to the ground with the words: "Lord, glory be to You, I thank You. Let me serve You all my life. May all the sorrows, all the sufferings, that exist on the Earth, come upon me, but do not permit me to fall away from You, be deprived of You."

"And after that I heard the tolling of a big bell. At first, I did not pay attention to it. Then, when I saw that it was already past 2 AM, and it was still tolling, I recalled my mother’s words, who often repeated that old men used to visit them and relate, how spiritual people sometimes hear tolling from the skies." He was long puzzled about this tolling, being afraid that it was a hallucination. And he calmed down when he read in the autobiographical notes of the well-known Professor-Marxist (later an archpriest), S.N. Bulgakov, who described his conversion to God, the words: "Not in vain did I hear tolling from the skies this whole summer." "Then, I also recalled a story by Turgenyev, "Live Relics," in which Lukerya also said that she had heard a tolling "from above" not daring to say "from heaven." Hence, he concluded "that along with this spiritual experience, the Lord let me associate with heaven in a tangible form." The Lord shows some people special outer signs of certification and support along with inner revelation.

Thus, a radical turn in world outlook took place in a moment, it seems that a real miracle occurred. However, this miracle was the natural, logical completion of the path of reason in his sincere search for truth. The Lord revealed to him the meaning of life, let him partake of His goodness, let him know the truth. Below is what Father Nikon, himself, said about his first experiences after the conversion:

Indeed, at that time, the young man knew nothing about the spiritual path, but pressed close to God tearfully, and the Lord Himself led him. "He led in such a way, that after that I lived in Volochok for two years, studying books and praying at home." That was a period of "burning" of the heart. He did not see or hear what was happening around him. At that time, he was renting one half of a private house in Sosnovitsy (south of Upper Volchok). He was 21. Behind a thin partition there were dancing, singing, laughing, youthful games, fun. They tried to invite him, he was appealing: clever, attractive, educated. But he had lost the taste for the world.

The two subsequent years of his life were a time of constant exploit, real asceticism. It was then that he familiarized himself with the works of the holy Fathers for the first time, as well as, in fact, with the Gospel. This is what he said about this period at the very end of his life:

"Only in writings of the Holy Fathers and in the Gospel did I indeed find value. When a person begins to fight with himself, tries to go the way of the Gospel, the holy fathers become indispensable and his close relatives. A Holy Father is already a dear teacher who speaks to your soul, and it accepts this with joy and takes comfort. Like different philosophies and different sectarian filth caused depression, despondency and retching, in an opposite manner did I turn to the Fathers, like to my own mother. They comforted, helped to understand, nourished. Then the Lord gave me the thought of entering the Moscow Spiritual Academy (in 1917). This meant much to me."

Very interesting and no less dramatic descriptions of the path of his conversion to God and the knowledge of the truth were written, for example, by B.I. Gladkov in the book, "Path to the Knowledge of God". The path of reason in search of the truth of the modern ascetic hieromonk Seraphim (+1982), described in the book by hieromonk Damascene (Christensen), "Not of this World. The Life and Teaching of F. Seraphim (Rose) of Platina" (Moscow. 1995) is also outstanding.

The main difficulty in human cognitive activity lies in the fact that human society in general lives by ideals and principles, quite different from the Gospel. They are wonderfully represented in Christ’s temptations in the desert. The Apostle John expressed them in the following words: "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." (1 John 2:16). And the temptations are not just named, but their interconnection, a definite hierarchy, is shown. In this hierarchy, the crowning, most dangerous passion is called pride. It, more than anything else, distorts the essence of the human spirit and thus hides the final aim and true sense of life and activity in all aspects. Hence, it becomes clear, to what a person’s attention should be paid — to the exposure and objective assessment of everything that feeds this passion, — otherwise knowledge will not only be useless, but also destructive for the person and mankind.

With a wide variety of manifestations of pride, in a human being of our civilization it expresses itself with especial force and straightforwardness in the cult of reason – the reason, of course, of the "old man" (Eph. 4.22), i.e. a reason, that is a slave of its passions (lusts). This reason is declared by the world to be the highest authority in deciding all human problems, and demands obedience to itself by all facets of spiritual life.

Where, according to this reason, is it possible to obtain truth, and along with it the benefits of existence and the meaning of life? — In science and philosophy. Science must provide for the first two "lusts," according to John the Theologian, philosophy — the last one, pointing out the false greatness of man. Earthly pride sees the possibility of realizing of the age-old hope of mankind – to become like gods (Gen. 3:5) particularly in scientific and technical progress and philosophy [42], and not in God and holiness of life. But the result of this idea is shown eloquently enough by the history of the first man. Therefore, for anyone who sincerely searches for the truth, to be able to impartially assess possibilities of both a "pure" reason, and Christian testimony about the Truth, the analysis of human cognitive activity is so important.

Thus, what is truth? [43] In the attempt to answer this question, four main candidates appear in the arena of history: philosophy, science, mysticism [44] and religion.

Their answers can be briefly expressed in the following way.

Philosophy (the one, for which this question exists): truth is a sought result of the activity of a "pure" reason, because the truth is rational and can be expressed in concrete notions and judgments.

Science: the truth is an adequate comprehension of the "objective reality" in an empirical and rational way, or (XX century) a "useful" model of this reality.

Mysticism (in all times): the truth is an inexpressible "nothing" experienced by an individual in the experience of an inner merging with it, in ecstasy. The perception of "nothing" is deeply intimate, therefore it is not connected, in essence, with any "orthodox" teaching, any religion, but, however, being present in each of them.

Christianity: truth is God Himself, inconceivable in His essence, but endlessly conceivable in His activities (energies), being revealed to man in many forms. The fullness of the self-revelation of Truth-God is given to man in the incarnated Logos – the Lord Jesus Christ, the knowledge of Whom is conditional on the strict laws of spiritual life.

In contrast to philosophy and science, whose methods are rational, mysticism is irrational. But religion, which encompasses the entire fullness of the cognitive capabilities of man, at different stages of his spiritual development, offers various methods of cognition of the Truth, both rational (scientific theology), and irrational (spiritual life).

Why does the philosophical method cause serious doubt in the search of the truth? Firstly, because this method, in its essence, is purely rational, including a known logic (judgments) and a definite conceptional mechanism that makes philosophy a formal system. But if logic is purely instrumental and impassive, it is incomparably more complicated when dealing with concepts.

Without touching upon the problem of "universals," one can establish the following fact. Philosophy uses a language, which is a reflection of our activity. And even if one admits the existence of a priori notions, even they would appear to be without object for the human consciousness if not filled with definite, borrowed from "empirics," content, and therefore "non-working." That is, all philosophical constructions and systems are completely limited by the language of our four-dimensional space-time. Therefore, even if someone heard a language or viewed a reality, beyond the conceptional limits of this four-dimensional world, he would not be able to relate them in view of the absence of corresponding words-concepts. The Apostle Paul wrote thus: "And I knew such a man . . . that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." (2 Cor. 12:3-4).

This principal limitation of philosophy becomes more profound by the fact that all words-concepts (except mathematical abstractions) are very ambiguous. In view of this, their use does not allow the drawing of logically straightforward conclusions. V. Heisenberg, in connection with this, comes to a very unpleasant conclusion for philosophy. He writes: "The meanings of all concepts and words, formed by means of the interaction between the world and us ourselves, cannot be precisely defined... Therefore, it is impossible to come to the absolute truth only by way of rational thinking." [45]

It is interesting to compare this thought of a modern scientist and thinker with the statements of a Christian ascetic, who lived a millennium before Heisenberg, knowing neither modern natural science nor quantum mechanics, — the Ven. Simeon the New Theologian. Here are his words: "I ... mourned over the human race, because, in searching for extraordinary proofs, people quote human ideas, and things, and words, and think that they depict Divine nature, the nature that none of the angels or people could see or name." [46]

Both these statements, as we can see, in essence, speak of the same thing: the truth, no matter how we call it, cannot be expressed by words. Moreover, it is impossible to adequately describe realities in an n-dimensional or non-dimensional world using the concepts of a three-dimensional world. Maybe existence is precisely that? In addition, philosophy, asking the question about the verity of knowledge realized in its innermost depths, finds itself in a vicious circle. It cannot prove its verity (like any formal system, which Gödel showed in his second theorem about the incompleteness of formal systems), because in principle it is not capable of going beyond the boundaries of that rational-empirical given, which is drawn around its logical-conceptual mechanism. In fact, philosophy also came to this conclusion in its historical development, while studying the problem of existence.

Schematically, the path of reason in this historical-philosophical direction can be presented in the following way.

"What is absolute being?" —this question was the beginning of European philosophy in ancient Hellas. And since the changing world, this "incorrect" available reality, could not be considered as being, the first thinkers: Melitians, Heraclites, Pythagoras and others — as a first beginning ("one of many") professed only that, which can be seen only metaphysically (water, eternity, air, fire, number).

However, this dogmatic approach, especially in view of conflicting answers, could not satisfy human reason for long. In the search for being, the knowledge of which would give the opportunity to comprehend both the existence of the world, and personal existence, man began to search unconditional proofs of the truth. Thus, in philosophy, there was a fundamental digression from postulating with an ontological aim to its logical justification, and these two dimensions — existentialism and rationality — determined all of its subsequent destiny.

In the West, with the onset of modern times, conjecture embarked upon a path of total doubt. After all, to become an "exact science," philosophy found itself forced to first question the existence of this being itself, the question of the existence of existence, before answering the question about a true being. But here also, before answering this question, it had to make sure of the reliability of human cognitive abilities themselves, to make certain that the thinking is capable of adequately comprehending reality and, first of all, to comprehend itself, i.e. prove the verity of its thinking... through its thinking. The circle closed. The doubt, called to bring philosophy to a the highest level of reliable knowledge about existence, led it into a dead end, to the realization of its full inability to say something reliable about what is most important.

These negative results of western rational philosophy (and in this is its peculiar merit) resulted in searches through other ways of knowledge, not rational, by turning to available existence. These also produced no results. They are the so-called philosophies of culture and philosophies of existence. The former trend took the testimony of collective-historical consciousness, which it finds in settled forms of culture, as a basis. But, having expanded the philosophical subject, cultural philosophy completely abandons the essence of the question: what is at the basis of the world?

The second trend, the philosophy of existence, also comes from available existence, but no longer from the outer, but from its inner given. Returning to the existence of man, existentialism at the same time breaks with the "hostile Universe" and any non- and super-personal existence, and thus, fundamentally, closes the main question of philosophy.

Thus, in both cases, a return from pure reason to "life" occurs, but life that is deprived of ontology, taken at a phenomenal level of "existence": social — in cultural philosophy, individual — in existentialism. In addition, in both cases the question of truth as being completely disappears out of the field of vision of philosophy.

The older Slavophiles (A. Khomyakov, I. Kireyevsky) took an entirely different path. Astutely observing that the roots of the illness of western philosophy are under the dominance of its rational origin, they advocated building philosophy (ontology) on a theistic premise of "volitional Reason" [47]. Because if on the path of reason it is impossible to "prove the truth" reliably, it does not necessarily mean that it does not exist at all and that there is no other way of knowing it. There is another path of knowledge, which is inherent to man from the beginning, as a godlike creature. This path enters a field no less real than the outer world — the spiritual field, and gives the direct seeing of God through appeal to Revelation and the appropriate spiritual life, as they are given in the Orthodoxy.

Thus, the historical movement of philosophizing reason on the path of searching for truth leads a man to the starting point of religious world understanding — the postulating of the Absolute, God, and the necessity of accepting of the religious "method" of comprehending Him.

Reason takes another path in the search for truth in studying the world through natural science. And though this path is historically much shorter than the one of philosophy, however, it is no less effective in its achievements. What are the results of scientific thought in knowledge of existence?

In XVIII-XIX centuries and, partly, "by inertia" in the XX century, science was dominated by purely mechanical concepts, which considered the world no more than a huge mechanism, acting according to strict immutable laws. Laplace’s well-known answer to Napoleon, when the latter asked about the position of God in the world, "Sir, I do not need this hypothesis," —expressed that absolute determinism in the understanding of the world, which is inherent to this concept. It is known that one of Leibniz’s lifelong ideas was the dream of creating so called "universal characteristics" — an algorithm, with the help of which one could "get the entire truth" completely mechanically. But since living nature, without even including mankind, does not lend itself to "calculation," then the notion of possibilities was later added to this concept and everything was explained by a certain (though not lending itself to any measurement) combination of causality and chance, or "Chance and Necessity" (the name of a book by the French biologist J. Monod).

This "scientific point of view of the world" includes the conviction that the only truth is "objective" truth i.e. the one that can be certified by special observations and measurements, accessible to any impartial researcher. All the rest, that goes beyond the limits of the so-called objective observation and experiment, for example, God, spirit, soul, eternity, etc. is subjective, because it does not have any relation to science and truth, and does not deserve attention.

Modern science with all its huge achievements, and more precisely, thanks to them, is more modest than science of the more recent past. Scientists now speak less frequently than in the past about absolute laws, and more often about theories and hypotheses, less about determinism and more about possibility, less about the "truth" and more about "models". And these models are understood to be not intellectual or visual copies of reality, but effective methods of reflection on the problems of reality for achieving the goals set by man. "As quantum theory developed, it became obvious that certain characteristics are coupled in such a way, that determining one characteristic means it becomes it becomes impossible to determine another one. V. Heisenberg expressed this discovery in his principle of uncertainty. It turns out, that we are confronted with uncertainty in the very center of the Universe, which cannot be overcome by any observation. This conclusion contradicts the assumption of the era of modernism, that the world in principle is open to full description. It is suggested, that there is an incomprehensible mystery in the kernel of reality itself" [48].

There are four other main features of modern science, interesting in the context of understanding the extent of the reliability of its conclusions. Firstly, modern scientists very rarely speak about the "scientific method" in the sense of the only universal method of science. They speak about methods, and invent new methods to solve new problems.

Secondly, to describe identical phenomena, scientists create various additional models. One of the more widely known examples refers to the nature of light, where depending on its purpose, light is considered to be either particles moving in space, or waves in the energy field (a wavicle). Both of these, as it might seem, mutually exclusive models result from quantum physics, but individually neither of them represents the scientific notion about light. And although these dialectics of quantum mechanics are incompatible with usual common sense, scientists admit that the use of these models provide the best possibilities for describing the nature of light.

Thirdly, there is overcomprehension of the notion of objectiveness in science. According to traditional thinking, science gave objectivity, completely independent of the observing scientist. But now it is admitted more and more often, that scientific examinations deal with answering questions, set by a human individual, and not by an "objective" reality. The answers being sought are answers to human questions. Moreover, especially after the works by V. Heisenberg appeared, there is an understanding that, at least when for example, conducting delicate experiments connected to the examination of the micro world, the observation itself influences the experimental results, and the knowledge obtained from this experiment is in many ways a relative knowledge.

Fourthly, the rapid process of expanding the limits of science makes it clearer that, practically, no knowledge can be considered final. (A clear example is the evolution of the knowledge of the atom.)

These, as well as other, distinctive features of modern science and the criteria, employed nowadays, enable scientists and researchers of scientific knowledge to make quite definite conclusions about the truth in science: "The truth ... is a useful fiction." [49]

This conclusion testifies that science, even the most theoretical one, is always pragmatic as to its final aims, it is principally locked into in the horizontal plane of interests of only this world, there is no place for the problem of truth, as it stands in religion and philosophy. This two-dimensional aspect of science, the absence of world outlook content in it — this third, vertical dimension — opens the possibility of using its achievements for goals that are directly opposite to the spiritual and ethical.

The ethical aspect is apparent enough (there are nuclear power plants as well as nuclear bombs). It is quite different with spiritual things. Here one can distinguish three main negative tendencies. One of them is the "zero variant," when all questions, connected to the spiritual and world outlook life of man, and the problem of truth itself, are declared non-scientific and pseudo-questions. The essence of this agnostic view is obvious; it is exactly expressed by Christ’s words: "let the dead bury their dead" (Matt. 8:22).

The second tendency, the old as well as the new, is revealed in the attempt to spread the limits of the scientific knowledge of the world at the expense of including elements of mysticism and magic in science.

Mysticism and magic, even though they have common elements (irrationalism, faith in the presence of supernatural forces etc.), differ in the nature of their attitude toward the Highest beginning. Mysticism is impossible without its acknowledgment. Mystical knowledge is carried out only in the state of ecstasy, when "a mystic feels himself to be like an integral Unity." [50] Finally, the mystic is indifferent to all values of this world; he does not even search for them.

But in magic, everything is different. It is mostly distant from accepting the One God; it does not need ecstasy; and its aims are purely of this world. In the latter, according to Fraser, it is identical to science. "When magic, — he writes, — appears in its pure and permanent form, it assumes, that phenomena in nature must follow one another inevitably and invariably, and do not need the interference of a personal or spiritual agent. Thus, its basic foundations are identical to those of modern science." [51] The American, Moody, for example, sees the reason for modern enlightened society’s enthusiasm for magic, sorcery, witchcraft, occultism, etc. in the following: "The distance separating the rational, scientific world from the magic world is not great. Our Western world is filled with a magical world outlook. The Judeo-Christian concept of the world, created by God, is necessarily supplemented by the world, in which the devil reigns; God stands in opposition to the devil, the forces of white light and spirit stand in opposition to the legions of darkness and carnal lusts. It is possible that a similar bipolar division is an innate quality of man, but it is undoubtedly a part of Western tradition." [52]

The task of magic is to make spirits, the higher and lower forces, serve man in his earthly interests, irrespective of their moral content and spiritual values. And a certain category of scientists also thinks that ethical criteria are non-applicable to science and that it should make use of any means, including the "unusual," for achieving health, success and other similar goals.

Thus, certain sociologists and psychologists in the West tend to see positive aspects in magic and magical cults. For example, Moody thinks that, "Satanists, after a cure using magic therapy, become better citizens than they were before." [53] "Perhaps just because of this, — he concludes, — support should be provided for such marginal [54] cults, as the church of Trapezond... Everything that increases an individual’s ability to adapt himself to the world in which he lives, can and should become a criterion when assessing new and initially marginal institutes of our society." [55]

In 1921, Freud wrote about psychoanalysis’ attitude towards occultism: "An increased interest towards occultism should not necessarily mean danger for psychoanalysis. On the contrary, we should be ready to accept the fact that a mutual sympathy between the first and the second might be revealed... The union and co-operation between psychoanalysts and occultists can, in that way, appear to be acceptable and promising." [56]

Before giving an appraisal of this tendency in modern science, let’s speak briefly about the third, "spiritual," trend in it, close to the previous one. It is clearly expressed by one of the eminent contemporary U.S. physicists, Ch. Townes, in his article with a very characteristic title: "The Merging of Science and Religion". [57] The main idea of the article is that science and religion lead a person to the same goal, but in different ways. That is, it asserts the idea of the unity in essence of science and religion.

This idea was repeatedly expressed earlier by A. Einstein and some other prominent scientists, and can be traced back to Aristotle. But in this case, it testifies to a deep misunderstanding of religion in general, and Christianity in particular. Its main error is that religion is regarded as one of the tools of this life; the purpose of religion - man’s preparation for eternal life in God – is totally ignored. This means that here we come upon a frank attempt to turn metaphysics into physics, equate Heaven and earth, and regard God Himself as nothing more than a universal principle of the Universe. This is, perhaps, one of the most widespread mistakes of positivistic reason in its view of the essence of existence and the meaning of human life.

It is obvious, that this is the main danger of the idea of the union between science and magic, which, with its unconditional determinism and its complete confinement to four-dimensional space-time, does not bring scientific reason to "new horizons," moreover, it cannot give it new healthy criteria, a new understanding of the reason for human activity, an understanding of the truth. On the contrary, it will also deeply belittle that understanding of life, which is "impassively" present in science.

Science’s conversion to mysticism is no less dangerous, inasmuch as this will not only not expand the limits of its knowledge, but will also inevitably result in the most harmful consequences for mankind. Mysticism, drawing man down the path of unlawful (John 10:1) penetration into the spiritual world and asserting so-called freedom (basically, arbitrariness) in spiritual life, in this way destroys the very foundations of human life. In this way it differs in principle from positive religion, form Orthodoxy with its strict laws of asceticism.

A mystic does not know God, and therefore he prefers to speak about the divine Nothing, about the Inexpressible, Inconceivable, about the One and so on. [58] An eminent researcher of religion, F. Heiler, in his monumental work "Prayer" rightly points out that, "consecutive mysticism frees the idea about God from all personal attributes, and the "bare" and pure infinity is left." [59] In the final analysis, a mystic considers himself god (compare Gen. 3:5).

It is obvious that the falsity and destructiveness of the consequences of the tendency in science mentioned above can be evaluated in a due manner only through the most serious study of the Orthodox principles of spiritual life and the criteria of knowledge.

The path of reason, not purified from passions by a proper (righteous) Christian life, is very indicative. Its unprecedented in history scientific-technical and other achievements in the XX century are accompanied by the appearance of destruction equally unprecedented in power. And, first of all, these negative forces reveal themselves in the spiritual and moral sphere, where the greatest threat is the process of the destruction of the criteria of goodness, beauty and truth. Nowadays everything becomes fuzzy, turned upside down, mixed. And neither philosophy, excluding the notion of truth itself from the field of its speculations, nor moreover science, the development of which takes place, practically, independently of any ethical and spiritual criteria, is capable of stopping this process. Only he who now letteth (2 Thessalonians 2:7) — Christ of the Gospel— is decidedly, and increasingly consciously, being excluded from society not only by science, philosophy, culture, but also by the atmosphere of modern life in general.

Russia’s best people warned about the fatal consequences for mankind of the development of this process in the West a long time ago. Here is one of outstanding by its prophetic pathos exclamations about this of the well-known Slavophile, I.S. Aksakov "Progress, that denies God and Christ, — he wrote, — in the end, become regress; civilization ends in wildness; freedom — in despotism and slavery. Having removed God’s image from himself, man will inevitably remove – is already removing – from himself the human image as well, and will desire the beast’s image." [60]

The words seem much exaggerated. But do not modern crises, unprecedented in scale and degree: moral, social, ecological, economic, etc., testify to the suicidal nature of progress that denies Christ?

Isn’t propaganda (legalized!) of every kind of immorality and open ridicule of the human body and soul, freedom of every kind of perversion, the rule of the golden calf, the dictate of organized crime families ... evidence of the growing barbarianism of a de-Christianized world?

Isn’t modern democracy, in fact, a despotism of a financial and industrial oligarchy, pursuing only their own goals, and a veiled slavery of people (demos)?

Finally, is not the total permissiveness of occultism, magic, witchcraft, right down to Satanism, - an open trampling of every relic ("religious freedom"), the propaganda of the cult of cruelty and violence— isn’t this putting off the image of God and of man by modern civilized society and the envy for the image of the beast (Rev. 13:1-18)?!

Undoubtedly, in the very idea of unlimited knowledge ("on that side of good and evil"), initially laid in the "draft" of our civilization, human reason permitted a fundamental error. [61] Now that the III millennium has begun, it became an obvious fact.

What is the understanding of truth in Christianity?

Even the confession of the Only Individual God fundamentally changes in comparison with the scientific and philosophic approaches, the comprehension of the problem of truth. God is not just the source of all existence and consciousness, but is Existence itself ("I am that I am" — Ex. 3:14) and Consciousness, i.e. Truth itself. This logically natural conclusion is indisputable for all monotheistic religions. However, in Christianity it fundamentally deepens and acquires a unique character in the history of human thought.

Christianity confesses truth as perfect God-manhood, realized in the non-convergent, unchangeable, indivisible and inseparable joining of the Divine Logos with human nature in the God-man Jesus Christ (by the definition of the fourth Chalcedonic Ecumenical Council of 451). Christ, in Whom "dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9), is the highest, attainable to human comprehension, revelation of God to the world, is the Truth itself: ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, because "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me’" (John 14:6-7; 9:11). Truth, it turns out, is not what, but Who.

In this way, Christianity claims that the Truth is not a changeable created world (including the human being), nor the identity of the reflection of so-called objective reality in human consciousness, nor the highest idea contemplated by the mind, nor a perfect rational model, nor a universal function. It is not even a mono-individual God-Spirit, owing to the Divine transcendence of which, as a matter of principle, is beyond the reach of human knowledge.

Knowledge of the truth is now possible (1John 2:13; 1 Cor. 13:12). Its (His) knowledge is knowledge of God, performed by the entire make-up of man, and not only reason. And it is realized not in the state of ecstatic dilution in the Godhead, or a special experience of one’s existence, but through a special spiritual and physical unity with Christ in the Church in the perfection of personal disclosure, when a person becomes its carrier, its member, its participant. (Anticipation of this fullness of the existence-in-the-Truth for a Christian is his participation in the Eucharist, in which the communicant becomes one in body, one in spirit with Christ).

Christianity claims that the Truth is He, Who is and always is. Understanding the truth occurs only by being God-like. Therefore, it cannot be known on the paths of scientific, philosophic, aesthetic, mystical (occult) contemplation.

What comes of seeing the Truth this way?

Understanding, that

1. The Truth is a spiritual, rational, good, individual Being, and not a human state or thought, a logical conclusion, theoretical abstraction, material object... It is Existence, rather than a process or the result of "mental" human activity;
2. Knowledge of the truth is realized not by any one ability of man (reason, feeling), but with integral human personality, "integral reason;"
3. Knowledge of the truth is realized on the path of a proper (righteous) Christian life, which gradually transfigures man from an impassioned unhealthy state into a new holy and godlike one. "A soul sees God’s truth according to the strength of its life" [62];
4. Only through spiritual unity with Christ does a man begin to uncover a proper vision of the essence of the created world as one with the human organism, and not as an extraneous object of inquiry, experiment and consumption. Such a knowledge turns a man from a greedy and blind exploiter of nature into its loving and seeing cultivator and keeper;
5. Real (earthly) life is not a self-sufficient value, but a transient form of individual existence, a necessary requirement for self-knowledge, the realization of one’s own freedom in this changeable world before one’s conscience, the knowledge of one’s non-self-creation, the "nothingness" without God, and through this — the acknowledgement of Christ’s necessity;
6. This knowledge of Christ-Truth is the perfect, eternal blessing.

Christian understanding of the truth can be also expressed with other, for a Christian the greatest, words: "Christ has Risen!" because they contain an eternal perspective of life, and at the same time its concrete and complete meaning. It — is in life, which only acquires meaning if it is eternal. This life is the achievement of perfect knowledge and perfect love, being a synonym for God Himself, because "God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him" (1 John 4:16). This life — is an inexpressible bliss: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Нim" (1 Cor. 2:9).

But godlike love is not only the moral and emotional blessing of man. It is a perfect "tool" of both the cognition of the Truth itself, and the contemplation of its imperishable beauty, and the knowledge of the essence of all creations.

[41] Herein and later quoted by tape recording.

[42] Because artistic (aesthetic) activity claims not so much to be the knowledge of the truth, as the expression and satisfaction of spiritual needs and the states of the man, it has nothing to do with aesthetics here.

[43] The Priest Paul Florensky gives a rich etymology of the term "Truth" in his theodicy "Pillar and Ground of Truth" in the second letter "Doubt."

[44] The term "mysticism" now and later denotes the wrong, supposed spiritual path, in the terminology of Church Fathers – "self-delusion" — "prelest," in contrast to the experience of the true knowledge of God, theosis (becoming a god.

[45] Heisenberg В. Physicistа and philosophy. Moscow 1963. P. 67.

[46] Venerable Simeon the New Theologian. Divine Hymns. Sergiyev Posad, 1917. P. 272.

[47] Khomyakov A.S. Works. Moscow 1910. Vol. 1. P. 347.

[48] Questions of Philosophy. 1999. No.2. P.115.

[49] Berg L.С. Science, Its Content, Meaning and Classification. 1921. P. 18-20,23. For details see 1: Religion and science.

[50] Quoted by: H. Kung. Does God exist? 1982. P. 296.

[51] J. Fraser The Golden Branch. Part 1. Magic and Religion. Moscow 1931. P. 73.

[52] Quoted by: Grigulyevich I. Prophets of the New Truth. Moscow 1983. P. 191.

[53] Ibidem. P. 193.

[54] Utmost, extravagant, non-traditional

[55] Ibidem.

[56] Ibidem. P. 200.

[57] Literary Newspaper 1967. No.34.

[58] See about this, for example, Bulgakov S. Non-evening light. Sergiyev Posad, 1917.

[59] Quoted by: H. Kung. Selected works P. 297.

[60] Aksakov I.S. Christianity and Social Progress. Quoted by: Palitsky A. About the Spirit’s Demands. Petrograd. 1914. P.7

[61] Venerable Kallist Kataphigiot said: "The mind should preserve a measure of knowledge, so as not to perish."

[62] Isaac of Syria, St. Ascetic words. Moscow. 1858. Word 30. P. 195.

The present message is an attempt at the theological comprehension of one of the vital questions of the Church’s life — that basis, on which its social activity is built. This topic is touched upon, first of all, by the decision of the Jubilee Archbishop Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in the year 2000, which approved the document "The Basics of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church" As it is known, this document is the first in the history of Orthodoxy on this topic, and it sparked a great response in Church and public circles, both in Russia and abroad. The problems, mentioned in it, touch upon many relevant aspects of social life, and the authoritative statement of the Council about them has great pastoral-canonical meaning.

However, understanding the sources of the Orthodox view on social problems may not appear complete enough without clarification of other Christian points of view. The case in point is about the medieval Roman Catholic and the post-Reformation civilization that, basically, determined the entire recent history of European civilization.

These two directions can be characterized in the following way. The Middle Ages and the Modern Age are as opposite and, at the same time, as much alike as concavity and convexity of one and the same bas-relief, viewed from different sides. The Middle Ages asserted only the Divine beginning of life... Striving to suppress the human beginning and his freedom in the name of this Divine beginning, they fell into "holy satanism," into blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (because "where the Lord’s Spirit is, there is freedom"). On the contrary, the Modern Age, in its one-sided reaction against the Middle Ages, tends to completely forget about the Divine beginning; entirely absorbed with the development of pure humanity, it is on the brink of godlessness, practically uncontrollably passing into heathen polytheism, naturalism and idolatry... The Middle Ages accepted an earthless sky, and only tolerated the earth as an inevitable evil; the Modern Age mainly knows the earth, and only remembers Heaven for private personal use, like on holidays in the Church." [63].

The Middle Ages is the era after the split of 1054, when Catholicism’s loss of the connection with the spiritual experience of the Universal Church resulted in the emergence of extreme forms of asceticism.

The transition from the medieval civilization to the new one took place on a religious basis and was, first of all, conditional on Copernicus’ upheaval of the Reformation in soteriology. If, in Catholicism, man had to satisfy God for his sins with corresponding good deeds, exploits, and prayers to acquire the proper merits in His eyes for his salvation, then the conditions for salvation through the Reformation were reduced to a minimum: neither deeds, nor prayers, nor moreover asceticism, but faith and nothing but faith saves man. He cannot do anything himself for his salvation, inasmuch as faith itself, the only thing which saves man, does not depend on him, but only on God. Man, according to Luther, is nothing more than a "pillar of salt," "a block." Therefore, man’s participation in the act of salvation and synergy are out of the question — only God decides his fate. In that way, simply nothing is required from man for salvation. Thus, at last, was found a way to free oneself from any work on oneself, from that, which is called asceticism in the language of all religions. It turns out that one can be saved without saving oneself. In the history of religion, there had never been a greater "triumph of reason".

Hence, the evaluation of all a Christian’s earthly activity in principle is changed, labor motivation itself is changed. Instead of the Catholic understanding of labor as punishment for original sin ("In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread" — Genesis 3:19), and the means of redemption through it of man’s sins, in Protestantism, labor becomes a free activity, directed at the satisfaction of earthly needs. Because Christ had already redeemed every believer from all his sins, sin is no longer assigned as sin to a believer. Labor acquires just earthly value, excluding any eschatological meaning. In this way, the energy of the spirit that medieval man used in asceticism to achieve salvation, now became fully released. All its religious pathos was transferred from heaven to earth, from spiritual goals to practical secular ones. The task of the Church as a community of believers had been, essentially, reduced to social activity.

The consequences to which this soteriological revolution led are quite clear: the distinction between life according to Christ and heathen life was becoming less and less discernible. Protestantism, as opposed to the medieval Catholicism, starts from the fundamental abolishment of the setting against of the church and the secular, or worldly, and in addition, the worldly activities and civic professions… are considered as fulfillment of religious duties, the sphere of which is broadening, in this way, to every worldly activity. [64] Any usual labor and, consequently, worldly life itself and all its values acquire a sort of religious character for a believer. Thus, there is an obvious return to heathenism with its cult of all the worldly. On this ground appear theological, religious-philosophical and philosophical systems of thought, substantiating a new view of the meaning of human life and attitude of man towards earthly Reality. Materialism and atheism are the logical consequence of this process. Protestant churches, in essence, turn into another philanthropic department in the government.

The concepts of "earthless sky" and "spiritless earth," presented above, have found different fates. The first one, considering the body as something despicable, and the care of it and its needs as almost sinful, retreated into the past. But the second one, for which material needs are not just primary, but, in the end, the only ones in this world, has been rapidly developed and at the present time performs its, one could say, triumphal procession through the Christian world. Christ’s words: "seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matt. 6:33); "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" (Matt. 23:23), — are more and more consigned to oblivion.

From the theological point of view, these positions, if one speaks in Christological terms, can be characterized as monophysite and Nestorian. The Orthodox view of this problem could be called Chalcedonic. As it is known, the oros of the IV Ecumenical Council of 451 in Chalcedon determined that in Christ, the Divine and human natures are united "non-convergent, unchangeable, indivisible and inseparable." In that way, it condemned the ideas of both the absorption (in Christ) of human nature by the Divine one (monophysitism), as well as their separation and autonomy (Nestorianism). In the context of the question under consideration, this means condemnation of both the one-sided spiritualism of the Middle Ages, and the factual materialism of the Reformation. From this side, the Chalcedonic dogma acquires not only a Christological meaning, but also an ecclesiological and soteriological one, and in these latter meanings it serves as the basis for Orthodox understanding of the character of the social activity of the Church.

But what does the Church represent as a subject of social activity?

First of all, attention is drawn to the paradoxicality of the inseparable and non-convergent presence in it, on the one hand, of the holiness and verity of the Divine, and on the other – the sinfulness and falseness of humanity. This requires clarification.

The Church is unity in the Holy Spirit of all intelligent creatures, following God’s will and in that way being part of Christ’s God-man Organism — "His Body" (Eph. 1:23). Therefore, man’s presence in the Church is conditional not only on the fact of his receiving Baptism, Anointing and the other mysteries, but also on the special Christian’s association with the Holy Spirit. All the Church Fathers insist on this. The given thought may seem strange: do not Christians partake of the Holy Spirit in the mysteries? And if yes, then what other association can there be? Understanding this question is of principle importance both for Christian life and for theology.

In Baptism, the believer receives a fertile seed of human nature renewed by Christ, i.e. only the real possibility for the beginning of spiritual growth. "Baptism, — writes Venerable Ephraim of Syria, — is just the very pre-rudiment of Resurrection from hell" [65]. The Venerable Simeon the New Theologian explains: "One who came to believe in the Son of God... repents... of his former sins and is cleansed of them in the mystery of baptism. Then the God Word enters the baptized as into the womb of the Ever-Virgin, and abides there as a seed" [66] Being, in that way, only the seed of a new man, God’s gift in Baptism does not automatically turn a believer into a perfect creature, filled with the Holy Spirit: immortal, imperishable, impassive. The gift of Baptism requires, from the man, the cultivation of the field of his heart, the feat of righteous life, only after which the Seed, becoming the tree of Life, will bear its fruit. The Holy Tradition of the Church speaks quite definitely about this.

With references to many Church Fathers, St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov) writes about this: "The quality to give birth to mixed evil and good from oneself is not eliminated in our fallen nature by holy baptism" [67]. "Saint Isaac (Words 1 and 84), in accordance with other fathers, teaches that Christ is implanted in our hearts by the mystery of the holy baptism as a seed in soil. This gift is perfect in itself; but we either cultivate it or choke it, judging by the life we live. By this reason, the gift shines in all its elegance only in those who cultivated themselves with the Gospel commandments, and to the degree of this cultivation. See Venerable Mark the Ascetic, the Word on Baptism, Xanthopulov chapters 4, 5 and 6" [68].

St. Theophan (Govorov) presents the same thought: "Here one should bear in mind, that that this death towards one's sins through baptism is not done mechanically, but everything is done with the participation of the moral-free determination of man himself" [69].

That is, every baptized person unites to God’s Spirit and abides in the Body of Christ to the extent that his fulfillment of the commandments and repentance cleans his soul and becomes humble. And the Church itself abides in a Christian only as much he makes room in himself, by his life, for the Holy Spirit. Thus, the degree of a believer’s unity to the Church, the character of his membership in it, changes constantly, and the amplitude of oscillation can be very great. The absolution prayer, read in the mystery of Penance over a member of the Church: "Reconcile and unite him (or her) to Your Holy Church." The paradoxicality of this prayer is clear. A member of the Church with his sins expels God’s Spirit and falls away from the Church-Body of Christ, but through repentance again joins the Holy Spirit and the Church. The extent of this return to the bosom of the Church is always relative, it directly depends on the sincerity and depth of the spiritual life of the Christian.

However, the Church is also called a visible community (organization) of people, having the unity of faith, mysteries, government and led by a bishop (or bishops, if one speaks of the Universal and Regional Churches). Its members are all the baptized, not only the sincere believers but also the most depraved ones, and only canonically not excluded from it. That is, any visible Church always only partly corresponds to Its Prototype, because by no means are all the baptized true members of the Church-Body of Christ, that realize and express their faith, that are loyal witnesses and doers of the truth It keeps. Understanding this aspect is important when discussing ecclesiological and soteriological aspects of the problem being considered.

The ecclesiological significance of the Chalcedonic dogma in connection with the question of the social service of the Church results from the God-humanity of its nature — by the image of its Head, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord with His earthly life showed that condition of unity of man and God is that Godlike life that He realized in a real, earthly situation among temptations, enticements, hatred, envy and so on, i.e. in that situation, in which His Church has been from the beginning. Therefore, in the persons of Its children, the Church is also called upon to be the image of holiness, and an example of active love to each person in our world. This bears witness that in the life of Church, as well as in the life of Son of Man, there cannot be that monophysitical spiritualism that is sometimes presumed to be in it, and that left an imprint of one-sidedness on the Middle Ages. The Venerable Pimen the Great expressed the Christian attitude to man’s earthly needs in short and precise words: "We are murderers not of the body, but of passions."

However, the visible Church, while waging war against sin, but not celebrated by victory over it, can in different ways correspond to its Ideal: from the fullness of the Holy Spirit abiding in it on the day of Its descent on Christ’s disciples on Pentecost, to the deepest deviations from the purity of apostolic faith and love. History eloquently testifies to this, too. One of the brightest examples is the once-first, in the diptych of Orthodox Churches, Roman one, which was not saved either by its apostolic descendancy, nor by its Orthodox title. It turns out that for the visible Church, the danger of losing oneness with its Prototype is fully real. The visible Church is only able to realize the ideal of its assigned God-humanity under the conditions of undamaged teachings of faith, the basics of spiritual life and the principles of canonic organization in it.

But the dual nature of the Church does not presume the Nestorian division of it into earthly and heavenly either, under which each of them leads a separate life. The "dual" understanding of the Church does not correspond to the integral and single image of Christ. There are no two Churches, there is only the one, and it is God-human. But in its human, visible part only that is connected to the Divine and becomes salutary god-humanity which corresponds to the holy humanity of Christ, His evangelic commandments. In this case, connected to the Divine means not only saints, in contrast to sinners, but also each soul, in which true aspiration to the truth, verity and holiness remains, and which through the feat of fulfillment of the commandments and repentance joins to the Holy Spirit and bears the fruit of humility and love. The measure of this fruit can be different: both an hundredfold, and sixtyfold, and thirtyfold (Matt. 13:8).

The soteriological consequence of the "Chalcedonic" dogma in the aspect of Church’s social activity fully results from the understanding of two fundamental truths of Christian life: the first and great, and the second, like unto it, commandment about love (Matt. 22:38, 39). The Christian understanding of love is far from always coinciding with the common one. By Christian criteria, not any externally good deed is evidence of love, is good. That is, philanthropy and other social activity by itself may be not expression of Christian love. In other words, not all, that by worldly standards is good, is good from the Christian point of view. What can keep an outwardly good deed from being truly good? Of course — pride, vainglory, gain, hypocrisy, craftiness, intrigue, flattery, etc.

"The Lord looketh on the heart" of man (1 Sam. 16:7), not at his deeds. The Savior condemns those, who "all their works do for to be seen of men" (Matt. 23:5) delivers wrathful words about them:

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous" (Matt. 23:29);

"Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Luke 11:42).

Patristic thought thoroughly explains the Evangelical teaching about love, showing its essential distinction from the worldly ideas about it, what Tertullianus, for example, called the "beautiful vice." The holy fathers call the main characteristic of Christian love humility, which is the basis for both pure sacrifice and true unselfishness, inherent to such love. By the spiritual law, revealed by the Fathers, there cannot be any true virtue where there is no humility. Venerable Barsanuphius the Great teaches that, "humility occupies first place among the virtues" [70], and St. Ignatius Brianchaninov says that, "all virtues are seen as following it" [71]. And this, first of all, refers to the peak of virtues - love. "If the highest of the virtues — love, — writes St. Tikhon of Voronezh, — according to the Apostle, suffers long, envies not, vaunts not itself, is not puffed up, never fails, then it is because humility supports and assists it" [72]. That is why the fellow-ascetic of the Venerable Barsanuphius the Great, the Venerable John the Prophet said: "True labor cannot be without humility, because labor by itself is vain, and is not regarded as anything." [73].

The teaching of Church fathers is quite unambiguous: a good deed is only one that is done with Christian love, i.e. with humility. Otherwise, it becomes useless, and even turns into evil, because, according to the Apostle, a fountain cannot send forth sweet and bitter water at the same place (James 3:11). Spiritual law, revealed to us by the Savior Himself, says the same thing in the following words:

"When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation" (Matt.12:43-45).

According to the Fathers, here it is said that a soul, having been cleansed in Baptism, but living not in a Christian way, not filled with the spirit of love, contains spirits that are more evil than before the Baptism. That is why believers are quite often worse than heathens. The reason for this are vainglory, pride, hypocrisy and other passions, increasingly developing in a Christian from the consciousness of his own importance, disfiguring his soul and turning his so-called good into vileness before God.

Jesus "said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God" (Luke 16:15).

St. Ignatius even explains this thus: "Unhappy is who is satisfied with his own human truth: he does not need Christ" [74]. "The doer of human truth is filled with self-importance, conceit, self-delusion... he pays with hatred and vengeance those who would dare to open their mouths to contradict his truth with the most well-grounded and well-meant manner; considers himself worthy, and more than worthy, of earthly and heavenly merits" [75]. The example of the attitude towards Christ of the outwardly righteous, but spiritually decayed high priests, Pharisees and scribes shows what believers are capable of, when filled with a high opinion of their worth, of their service to God and people. The Savior was not only rejected by them, but was also subjected to the cruelest execution. Apparently, there is no question of how "God-pleasing" their social activity was. The given illustration gives the key to the understanding and activity of any Christian and any Christian church.

Hierarchs, clergy and laity are involved in this activity. And its Christian value can be very different. Their deeds can be Church deeds only when they are done not only with the permission of the Hierarchy, but also with Christian love, the presence and level of which, though hidden from people, is evident to God, and directly conditional on the spiritual and moral state of the doers, by their motives and aim. If they act for the sake of God, for the sake of the fulfillment of Christ’s commandments about love for neighbors, and have as their goal the joining to the Holy Spirit, then the Church acts through them, and their deeds bear true fruits both for the well-doers themselves and the indigent. The Venerable Seraphim used to say: "The true goal of our Christian life is to gain God’s Holy Spirit…and any good done for Christ’s sake is a means of gaining God’s Spirit." And he continues: "Note that only virtue, done for Christ’s sake, bears the fruit of the Holy Spirit" [76].

As an example, let us mention the following remarkable event that took place during Ivan the Terrible’s campaign against Novgorod in 1570, after the destruction of which, he came to Pskov.

In Pskov, he was met by a fool-for-Christ, Nikolas Salos. Jumping on a stick, he told Ivan the Terrible: "Johnny, Johnny, eat (pointing to the prepared tables), you probably haven’t eaten your fill of human meat in Novgorod." Then he invited the tsar to his tiny room where there was a piece of uncooked meat on a clean white table-cloth on the table, and again offered: "Eat, eat, Johnny." To the tsar’s reply: "I am a Christian and do not eat meat during the fast," — the fool-for-Christ wrathfully told him: "You don’t eat meat, but you drink Christian blood and are not afraid of God’s justice! Don’t touch us, passer-by, get yourself away as soon as possible! If you dare touch someone in God-sheltered Pskov, you will die that minute, like your horse!" At that very moment, the tsars’s groom runs into the room, pale as ashes, and reports that the tsar’s favorite horse has died. That was the fruit of the social activity of a Christian, a saint. Pskov was saved from the bloody horrors of Novgorod, not one man was injured there.

But the social activity of the Church can be also performed by such clergy and laity, about whom the Lord said: "This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and honoureth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me. But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matt. 15:8, 9).

Needless to say, the activity of such servants, even if it officially came from the highest bodies of the Church, has nothing to do with the Church, except for form, and will bring no good. Moreover, such figures quite often become a direct temptation for those with whom they come in contact, and turn many away from Orthodoxy.

The idea that the social ministry of the Church (as well as its other activities) are always performed by the will of the Holy Spirit and does not depend on the spiritual state of its doers, is Protestant and highly erroneous. The Church is God-human. The deeds of its visible members are the deeds of the Church-Body of Christ, only when the baptized gives the Holy Spirit room in his heart by living a righteous life.

"Wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul, or dwell in a body enslaved to sin. For a holy and disciplined spirit will flee from deceit, and will leave foolish thoughts behind, and will be ashamed at the approach of unrighteousness. ..." (Wisdom of Solomon 1:4-5).

The Spirit creates forms for Itself. And if, having accepted baptism, Christians remain heathens by their lives, then all their activity will be filled with heathen content, will, in the final analysis, be fruitless, even harmful, even if it was carried out in the name of the Church. Because God looks at a man’s heart. There are all sorts of examples of decayed philanthropy and piety. Searching for glory, wealth, rank, authorities’ favor, etc. — what has there not been behind many of the outwardly respectable social actions in the Church’s history.

At present, the character of the activity of many Christian churches, especially in the West, testifies to the sharp slump of their interest in the questions of spiritual life, and the catastrophic enthusiasm for so called "horizontal" or, simply, purely worldly activity.

A good demonstration of this is the World Conference of the World Council of Churches on "Salvation Today" in Bangkok in 1973. Such a topic could be only welcomed: of what should Christians speak, if not about the salvation of human souls. However, those few Orthodox participants who attended the Conference, including those from the Russian Church, were deeply disappointed. Different topics were touched upon — social, political, economic, ecological and other problems of this life, about salvation from every possible misfortune and disaster: poverty, hunger, diseases, exploitation, illiteracy, domination of trans-national corporations and so on. Only not a single word was said about the salvation, for the sake of which Lord Jesus Christ suffered on the Cross — about the salvation from sins, passions, eternal death. The words of A.R. Khomyakov: "There is a deep hypocrisy in the union of religion and social unrest... When the Church interferes in debates about rolls and oysters and begins demonstrating its ability to solve these kind of issues, meaning to so testify to the presence of the Holy Spirit in its bosom, it loses all right to people’s trust" [77].

There is no doubt that such secularization of modern Christianity is a serious step towards accepting the Antichrist. For this false savior will solve (at least, will appear to solve) all the main social and other world problems. And, in that way, for Christians, seeking materialistic salvation today he will become the expected Christ. Thus, insensibly, the denial of Christ the Savior will occur with the Bible in hand.

Our Church repeatedly criticized so-called horizontalism, i.e. hypertrophy of social activity ("religious intrigue," by Y. Trubetskoy) of modern Christian churches-members of the ecumenical movement. It stressed that the main goal of the social ministry of the Church is the aspiration for the spiritual and moral recovery of society, but not the growth alone of its material well-being. The Venerable Isaac of Syria wrote: "People think poverty heinous, but to God the high-seeking soul and soaring mind are much more heinous. People honor wealth, but God honors a humble soul" [78]. The following words of Christ always remain guidelines for the Holy Church:

"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?" (Matt. 6:25).

Material well-being, health, human rights, etc. by themselves, without Evangelical spiritual values, do not make man better. Moreover, as the modern Russian writer M. Antonov rightfully observes, "the man, who no longer lacks material comforts, but who did not cultivate the needs for spiritual development is frightful — this is illustrated clearly by V. Rasputin in the tale "Fire" and Viktor Astafyev in the novel, "Sad Detective Story" [79]. And M. Antonov continues: "Man — is not a slave of requirements and external situations, he — is a free creature, but corporeal, and therefore has a need for satisfying the requirements and the probing influence of the environment. Apparently, there is a certain law of measure, not yet formulated by science, according to which man, the minimum of whose needs are satisfied, must, to avoid self-destruction, ascend at a higher level of spiritual life. If this law is not observed, then the material, physical needs receive a hypertrophied development to the detriment of spiritual essence, which applies to both the individual and society, — the modern stage of the history of capitalistic counties dominated by "mass culture" clearly confirms that provision" [80].

An illustration of this thought can be the modern psychological situation in the materially wealthy West. This is how the Finnish Lutheran bishop K. Toiviyanen characterizes it: "According to certain studies, more than half the population in the West has lost the purpose of life. We are already assured that the object of the work of psychiatrists will be the feeling of despondency and depression, to a far greater extent than suffering itself. The grounds for suicide can often be a man’s existential desolation."

The Church’s social activity can be the Church’s ministry (but not worldly activity) and yield spiritual benefits to people only when it is based on the sincere desire of its servants to fulfill the main commandment of the Gospel, and thereby preach Christ’s name. For the Apostle Paul wrote: "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing" (1 Cor. 13:3).

For the Church, there are no reasons for social activity other than the sermon of Christian love and the conversion to the path of salvation of every person through teaching him the Word, and, especially, through the example of its children’s lives. Christian activity, performed for worldly reasons, leads not to the spiritual benefit and evangelization of the world, but to the secularization of the Church itself. Naturally, these motives are, as a rule, hidden from the view of outsiders, but they are open to God.

At the present time, when by God’s providence the Russian Church has received considerable opportunities to participate in many aspects of social activity of the country, it makes every effort to see that its servants are worthy executors of the commandment of Christ the Savior: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (Matt.5:16).

[63] P. Bulgakov. Medieval ideal and the Latest Culture. // Collection "Two Towns." Moscow 1911. Vol.1. P.169-170.

[64] P. Bulgakov. National Economy and a Religious Individual. // Ibidem. P.190-191.

[65] Salvation and Faith through Orthodox teaching. Moscow 1995. P.60. — Reedition: Moscow 1913.

[66] Quoted by: Moscow Patriarchy Journal.1980.No.3. P.67.

[67] Ignatius (Brianchaninov), St. Works Vol.4.Saint Petersburg 1905. P.369.

[68] Ignatius (Brianchaninov), St. Word about Man. Б.Vol .No. 29.P.317, note16.

[69] Theophan (Govorov), St. Interpretation of the First Eight Chapters of the Epistle of the Holy Ap. Paul to the Romans. Moscow 1890. P. 332.

[70] Venerable Barsanuphius and John. Guide to Spiritual Life. Saint Petersburg 1905. P. 297.

[71] Ignatius (Brianchaninov), St. Works Vol. 2. Saint Petersburg 1905. P. 72, 126.

[72] St. Tikhon of Zadonsk. Works Vol. 2. Moscow 1899. P. 99.

[73] Abba Doroftheus. Beneficial Readings for the Soul. Moscow 1874. P.262.

[74] Ignatius (Brianchaninov), St. Works Vol. 4. Saint Petersburg 1905. P.

[75] Ignatius (Brianchaninov), St. Works Vol. 5. Saint Petersburg 1905. P.

[76] On the Goal of a Christian life. P. 5, 42.

[77] Khomyakov A.S. Complete works The 3-d edition. Moscow 1886.Vol.2. P. 85.

[78] Isaac of Syria, St. Ascetic words. Word No. 57. Moscow 1858. P. 420.

[79] М. Antonov. Perestroyka (Rebuilding) and Worldview. // "Moscow" 1987. No.9. P.157.

[80] Ibidem. P.165

The understanding of freedom has several meanings. Let us consider three of them here. The first — its metaphysical dimension, when freedom is understood to be one of the most fundamental characteristics of human nature — free will, expressed in the inner self-determination of the individual, first of all, in the face of the choice between good and evil. Free will is that characteristic, the loss of which results in the individual’s full degradation. No one has power over this freedom of man: no other person, or society, or laws, or any authority, or demons, or angels or God Himself. Macarius of Egypt said: "You are created in the image and likeness of God, because as God is free and does, what He likes ... you are likewise free." [81] "Therefore our nature easily accepts both good and evil, both God’s grace and the converse power. But it cannot be forced." [82] The classical aphorism of the Church fathers is: "God cannot save us without us," perfectly expresses Christian understanding of the sense and meaning of this freedom.

The second dimension of freedom is the social one. It means an aggregate of certain personal rights in a state, in a society. More difficult questions arise in this field, because in society, many people with free will come into contact with each other. In general, it is a problem of the external freedoms of man, or the problem of permitted (by law, customs, religion, common moral) deeds in the surrounding world.

And the third dimension of freedom — is spiritual freedom. It, in contrast to external freedom, means a person’s power over his egoism, his passions, his sinful feelings and desires — over himself. This freedom is acquired only by living a proper spiritual life, which makes a believer capable of communication with God, Who is the only One with absolute spiritual freedom. Saints, who cleansed themselves from passions, acquired great freedom. [83] Each "ordinary" person has a relative spiritual freedom (compare John 8:34). And only those that became hardened in evil, blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Matt.12:31-32) became incapable of good and lost it. Christianity, in this way, sees the ideal of spiritual freedom in God, and thereby in principle rejects the possibility of the existence of any absolute freedom ("on the other side of good and evil") in man. Man’s freedom is relative... It stands and falls, is overcome and excels on the paths of physical life towards its en-Godening. Freedom is not an autonomous power in itself, and it is a weakness in its contrast to the Divinity. St. Isaac of Syria says: "For there is no perfect freedom in an imperfect era" [86].

The Apostle Paul says: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Cor. 3:17). He calls a man, who has achieved spiritual freedom, "new" (Eph. 4:24), emphasizing by this the renewed state of his mind, heart, will and body. On the contrary, one living a sinful life he calls "old" (Eph. 4:22), "slave" (Romans 6:6,17), as not having the power to follow what both faith, and reason, and conscience dictate, and what he well knows is good for him. This condition of spiritual slavery as the antithesis of the true freedom the Apostle Paul describes in the following picturesque words: "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do... I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." (Rom. 7:15-23).

Kant expressed the difference between spiritual freedom and free will very well: "I understand freedom in the cosmological (metaphysical — A.O.) sense to be the ability to spontaneously begin a condition. Freedom in the practical (moral, spiritual — A.O.) sense is the independence of will from the constraint of sensuality." [87]

These three dimensions of freedom allow us to speak with full certainty about which freedom should be the primary aim of a Christian’s life. Undoubtedly, this is spiritual freedom, which, as mentioned above, is acquired only in the process of living a righteous life. What kind of life this is, what its laws are, what are the criteria for judging the correctness or incorrectness of the chosen path, and finally, what stages does a person go through to achieve this freedom, — this is an important topic, requiring special consideration (See chapter VII).

One should speak in other dimensions about the freedom of the Church. To do so, one should first refer to the understanding of the Church.

Church is a unity in the Holy Spirit of all rational creatures, following God’s will, and in that way being part of Christ’s God-human Organism — "His Body" (Eph. 1:23). [88] The extent of each Christian’s belonging to It ("ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." 1Cor.12; 27) is, naturally, hidden from external view, because the sincerity of faith and a soul’s holiness are invisible and cannot be measured by human criteria.

The external, and always imperfect, representation of this Organism of Christ — the Church — is the visible Christian community with a bishop at its head (Local, Ecumenical Church), having a unity of faith, basics of spiritual life, management and discipline. The membership of this visible Church is no longer a secret: all the baptized, regardless of their holiness or the depravity of their lives, but canonically not excluded from it, belong to it. Therefore, no Local Church is ensured against degradation, including the total loss of the Holy Spirit and turning into a worldly organization by its tasks and purpose, into a "heathen unfruitful church," even while retaining all its Christian attributes.

However, while the visible Church keeps the dogmatic teaching undamaged, the correct teaching on spiritual life, the basic principles of canonic organization and the zeal of its members for living according to the Gospel, even in the presence of natural human weaknesses, the Holy Spirit of the Pentecost resides in it, like the soul in the body, and It is, in a way, the uterine waters, in which the process of birth, formation and salvation of a Christian takes place.

The Church, in this way, is God-human. And owing to its double nature, it has two different freedoms, incommensurable with each other.

The Church as an invisible unity in the Holy Spirit of all those who love Christ ("He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me" — John 14:21) is always free, because "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." It is above all external freedoms, rights and privileges. It is not afraid of any human limitations and oppressions, persecutions themselves serve to its greater glory. Such it was during the earthly life of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, and remained unchanged after His Resurrection, Ascension and to this day, because "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever" (Heb. 13:8).

And the visible church-community, like any public and religious organization, requires the appropriate conditions for its existence, including government-regulated religious freedoms.

Religious freedom is the right to openly confess and practically fulfill one’s religious beliefs both individually, and collectively. In this respect, religious freedom does not differ from those important social, or external, freedoms and rights, which citizens of one or another country of different secular organizations have.

How can these freedoms be assessed?

If we consider them ideally, regardless of the real spiritual and moral condition of man and society, then their necessity for the normal life of society and its members is obvious. However, as soon as the question touches upon the practical implementation of these freedoms in life, they immediately become one of the most serious problems, especially nowadays. The main reasons are the following.

First. Any right is double-sided and can be used by specific people not only for the welfare of the citizens and society, but also to selfish ends, even in directly depraved ones (for example, not only for information, but also for defamation; not only for preaching peace, chastity, but also for the propaganda of violence, depravity, etc.). But laws that are supposed to regulate the mechanism of the actions of these freedoms are, as a rule, very imperfect, and modern real life eloquently testifies to this.

Second. All these rights, by themselves, do not direct man to the main thing — the acquisition of spiritual freedom. Moreover, catastrophic moral degradation of society and the obvious decline of spirituality even in Christian Churches in modern so-called free countries show that external freedoms without He who letteth (2 Thessal. 2:7) not only not raise man up in his dignity, but often serve as one of the effective means of his spiritual and moral corruption and humiliation.

This slippery two-sidedness of external freedoms already shows that they cannot be considered as the primary, absolute and self-sufficient value upon which Western propaganda strongly insists.

The same conclusion also comes from the Christian understanding of man and the meaning of his life. Christian anthropology is based on two positions, equally unacceptable by humanistic consciousness: the "assigned" Godlike greatness of man (Gen. 5:1) and the "present" profound damage of his nature, that the sufferings of Christ Himself were required to "bring back to life the likeness that was lost in the beginning." [89]

A real man is spiritually inferior, ill, subject to the influence of the most varied passions, distorting his soul and activity. And external freedoms have no co-relation to this state of man and are not oriented to his spiritual improvement and development, on the achievement of the highest goal of all public establishments — the raising of each individual to the dignity of a new person (Eph. 2:15).

St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov; +1867) wrote: "As long as the human race is subject to the influence of sin and passions, authority and subordination are necessary. They will certainly exist throughout the whole life of the world: they can only be, are and will be in different forms." "Neither equality, nor absolute freedom, nor the welfare to the extent that enthusiastic false teachers wish and promise, can there be on Earth." "The relationship of authority and subordination will be destroyed with the destruction of the world; then all authority and power will end (I Cor. 15:24); then brotherhood, equality and freedom will be established; then the reason for unity, power and subordination will not be fear, but love." [90]

These ideas allow us to understand the principal Christian position in relation to social political, economic and other external freedoms. It is contained in the assertion that they can be considered only as means, conditions for achieving the meaning of human life, but not as a goal in itself. They cannot be considered as primary guarantees of a normal life of human society. Hence, the most important task of society should be the creation of such a moral and legal atmosphere, in which external freedoms would promote spiritual healing and man’s growth, and not the development of egoism and base passions in him. [91]

What is necessary for this?

In the Orthodox worldview, the answer to this question is found in the fundamental dogma of God-Love: "God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him" (1John 4:16). From this it necessarily follows, that love must be the essence of any human activity. [92] The Christian understanding of love is expressed in by the Apostle Paul: "Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. " (1 Cor. 13:4-7).

Therefore, the fundamental Christian criterion in the assessment of freedoms is the fear of love, being afraid to cause any moral, mental, physical or any other kind of harm to a person (society, nation). It is a true guard of both the proper attitude to things, nature, and to all kinds of human activity. The Venerable Barsanuphius the Great said: "Good is the freedom, which is united with the fear of God" [93]. — This is the Christian maxim, in light of which one can properly understand all human freedoms, rights and duties, including religious freedoms.

Freedom, not "limited" by the love of the fear of God, taking its place above love, is deadly for men. It results in the most negative consequences, [94] first of all, in the spiritual and moral degradation of society, in ideological anarchism, materialism, anti-culture, etc. Where freedom without love is the corner stone, there cannot be true individual freedom, because "everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin" (John 8:34). And the slavery of spirit is the gravest for a man, causing him the most sufferings. A. Solzhenitsyn once observed: "We became infatuated with the ideas of freedom, but forgot that the wisest measurement of freedom — is far-seeing self-restraint." Even heathen sages understood that. [95]

Did not the Apostle Paul write for this reason: "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."(1Cor. 10:23).

However, understanding the necessity of spiritual freedom and its primary importance for a man is, practically, lost by the human race. The Apostle Peter, condemning preachers of external freedom who "forgot" about internal freedom, wrote: "For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." (2 Peter 2:18-19). The same thought is in Apostle Paul’s epistle to the Galatians: " For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another ... This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh..." (5:13-17). Then he lists the "works of the flesh" and concludes quite unambiguously: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." (6:7-8).

How true these thoughts are can be seen in the example of informational freedom, when it is not subordinated to the idea of love for man. Finding itself captive to the ideology of "the golden calf," it easily turns into an instrument of falsehood, the propaganda of depravity, violence, Satanism, etc., i.e. it becomes legalized freedom of evil. Can it, in this capacity, be related to the category of Goodness and be called Freedom, so that it has the right to existence in normal human society? Isn’t it obvious, that all rights are called freedoms precisely because their role is to free society and each person from the slavery of egoism, the tyranny of evil passions, to create and spiritually improve him, and not corrupt him spiritually and physically, not to kill himself and those like him?

What does the so-called freedom of tele-information do? Not inspired by the idea of love to man, it becomes, by the apt expression of one newspaper, the "television plague of violence." One American psychologist characterized television in his country in the following way: "When you turn on a TV set you automatically turn off the process of becoming a Man in yourself." This is true. Because, if according to one of the statistical data in the USA, an 18-year old person becomes a witness of 150,000 violent acts, at least 25 thousand of which are murders, then what spiritual and moral educational meaning of this freedom can one talk about? Tyranny of the darkest demonic instincts develops with such freedom in a young person, and it expresses itself the first chance it gets.

The substitution of spiritual freedom, the fear of love, with the freedom of lusts — is the deadly threat, like the sword of Damocles, that really hangs over the human race.

This explains the paradoxical fact that modern European civilization, having only one goal — man’s earthly welfare, every time more obviously leads nations into the final lap of death. Finally, all modern crises have as their source absolutized external freedom, i.e. the freedom of the flesh, passions, which, having lost the notion of sin, is implacably turning into a cruel exploiter of both man and nature. There, where freedom stands above love, God-like man ends and man-beast, who has no values except his own pleasures, power and fame, and no moral barriers in achieving his aims, begins. An occurrence in New York in 1978 is a marvelous illustration of this. At that time, electrical power was lost for three hours. And the fruits of the "freedom" that grew after the war were revealed in full measured: "Crowds of Americans, — A. Solzhenitsyn said, — started to smash up and rob everything … 40 years ago in New York the power supply was also cut off, but no incidents occurred: people helped each other, lit candles. Today they break shop-windows, rob stores, kill" [96].

Without a spiritual-moral criterion, there is no real possibility of positively solving the question of freedoms. In the modern civilized world, the predominant principle: "freedom for the sake of freedom" i.e. the factual primacy of freedom over love is, for man, a powerful drug which kills and is used to kill an increasing number of people. The entire aggregate of rights, received by a yet young person simply through birth, and not through a corresponding education, moral maturity and moral strength, is one of the effective means of developing in him elemental, instinctive forces, with all the subsequent negative consequences. Does not Ancient Greek wisdom say the same thing: "Everything that is given gratis can corrupt". [97]

That is why such freedom easily sells itself as elementary comfort. One of the contemporary writers rightly said about our era: "Freedom is dying everywhere in the world — political, economic, and personal... It is easier to live without freedom. More and more people willingly give up their freedom in exchange for a comfortable and easy life. It is not necessary to make any decisions. Less responsibility." [98]

And this denial of freedom is quite natural: passions, obtaining freedom and enslaving man from within, make him sensual, egoistic and, thereby, increasingly capable of selling the first-born dignity of his individuality for the pottage of lentils of fleeting comforts and whims. Examples of such deals can be seen in all so-called free countries. The Revelation of the Apostle John the Theologian quite definitely prophesies the general voluntary slavery to the universal tyrant for the promise of paradise on earth: "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life" (Rev. 13:8).

The most astute thinkers always understood this. There is, for example, a clear statement of I. S. Aksakov: "Progress, denying God and Christ, in the end, becomes regress; civilization ends with barbarism; freedom — with despotism and slavery. Having removed from himself God’s image, man will also inevitably remove — is already removing – the human image from himself and will desire the beast’s image." [99]

The propaganda of the freedom of flesh is always hypocritical. The best example is the USA, which cries louder than anyone about the violation of human rights in different countries, but openly violates these rights in their country themselves. Thus, in them "nowadays by the directives of schools almost all manifestations of the Christian faith are banned: it is prohibited to conduct voluntary Bible readings during recess, to pray before meals, to use prayer beads on a school bus, to conduct Christian meetings after classes, even to have a Bible on the desk. The court, as a rule, supports such bans … Images of the Christmas scene, which were put in parks and other public places ever since the country was established, have been banned through the efforts of American Civil Rights Union" [100].

Such an understanding of external freedoms allows us to look at religious freedom more specifically.

The religious freedom of a separate individual in the social aspect does not contain anything essentially different from other external freedoms. But the freedom of religious communities (churches) has already definitely expressed specifications that give birth to corresponding problems.

The first of them, arising in connection with the issue of the recognition of an organization as religious — is an establishment, on the basis of joint authoritative studies of theologians and lawyers, definite and precise criteria of the notion of religiousness itself.

The second, no less relevant problem – is the assessment of the moral side of the teachings of a religious organization, which also requires responsibly accepted moral criteria. The sad example with "Aum Shinrikiyo" is one of the brightest illustrations of the urgent necessity of this. The factual, and also in places the juristic legalization of Satanism — is another example of an open challenge to contemporary social reason, its understanding of religious freedom.

The third, psychologically, perhaps, the most difficult one, is distinguishing the ideas of equal rights and freedom. It is easier to show the difference of these terms with examples.

The first example. In a democratic state, all citizens are equally free, but not equally equal before the law. Its president has many more rights than any citizen of the state. And the law itself gives reasons for this inequality of rights — the will of the majority that gave him these greater, in comparison to others, rights. One of the natural principles of democracy and freedom turns out to be this obvious and "blatant" inequality.

This democratic principle must in the same measure apply to the solution of problems connected with the freedom of religious organizations and their equality in the field of education, formation, telecasting and broadcasting, etc. It is precisely the will of the majority of the population, which must decide to which religious community, subject to the equality of freedoms, to give greater rights in comparison to others. This democratic principle (the acknowledgment of special rights for different religions) is realistically carried out in Germany, France, Greece and other countries (but faces, practically, insurmountable difficulties in Russia!), because it is not a violation of the principles of religious freedom.

In connection with this, it is interesting to note that, for example, Saint John of Kronstadt severely condemned the granting of equality to all religions by the last Russian tsar in 1905. [101] St. Hilarion (Troitsky) assessed it the same way. [102]

The well-known monarchist and theologian, General A.A. Kireyev, commented on the liberation reforms of the Emperor as follows: "The Tsar does not see or understand the deep change that his laws on the equality of rights in faith have brought to our life. He mixed up the understanding of equality with freedom. No one objects to freedom, but equality in propaganda is quite another thing" [103).

The second example. Let us imagine that a certain very wealthy sect, having bought (legally!) the mass media in a free democratic country N., begins to lead a massive propaganda campaign of ideas, alien and hostile to the religious views of the majority of the country’s population. How could one assess this fact? As a normal phenomenon of religious freedom, the equality of rights and democracy or, on the contrary, as evidence of the brute force of money and the trampling of democracy? Evidently, giving a wealthy sect the same rights as the poor church of the people is nothing else than the trampling of democracy (= government of the people!), the trampling of the main constitutional right – the right of the majority in solving the main questions of their lives.

Rights, granted to any religious organization must be, first of all, legally correlated with the extent of its democratic recognition (i.e. recognition by the majority), in which social truth is expressed. [104] Only in this case will freedom and the equality of rights not be in conflict with each other, and religious freedoms will indeed be a manifestation of true love to man.

[81] Macarius of Egypt. Spiritual Discussions... The Holy Trinity-St.Sergius Lavra. 1904. Talk 15, p. 21,. p.121.

[82] Ibidem, p. 23.

[83] Blessed Augustine compares the levels of sanctity and freedom very aptly, when he says: "Great freedom is to be able not to sin, but the greatest freedom is not to able to sin" — Magna est libertas posse non peccare; sed maxima libertas — non posse peccare.

[84] V.S. Solovyev wrote: "Only believing in the invisible God and acting by faith from God, our will truly becomes will, i.e .a free beginning, — free from itself, i.e. from its own given factual state: here will acts not as a psychological phenomenon, but as a creative power, preceding any phenomenon and that is not hidden by any fact, i. e. free in essence" (V. Solovyev. Works. Vol.3. Saint Petersburg P. 293).

[85] Rev. Sergy Bulgakov. The Bride of the Lamb. Paris. 1945. P.521-522.

[86] Isaac of Syria, St. Ascetic Words. М. 1858. Word 28. P. 190.

[87] I. Kant. Works.Vol.3. Moscow. 1964. P. 478.

[88] Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria writes: "Don’t say that people gathered the Church. This is the work of God, the living and fearful God." St. Ecumenius (10^th century) says the same thing: "It is established by God, dedicated to God and has God living in itself."

[89] Troparion of the Preparation of Christmas.

[90] Articles of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov on church and public issues. // L. Sokolov. Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov. His life and moral-ascetic views. Appendices. Kiev. 1915. P. 20, 21.

[91] As it is known, French thinkers of the 18^th century dealt with the issue of human rights especially actively, and most of all Rousseau, in the opinion of whom each person has natural inalienable rights, the protection of which is the most important function of the state. The French Declaration of Human Rights (1789), based on these premises, gave the following definition of freedom (rights): "Freedom consists in the right of doing everything that doesn't harm others, therefore using the natural rights of each person does not have limits other than those that guarantee that other members of the society have the same rights. These limits can only be defined by law."

[92] The idea of the supremacy of Godlike love in man as a requirement of his freedom and the development of normal human society was particularly developed and promoted by Russian thinkers-Slavophiles of the 19^th century: A. Khomyakov, I. Kireyevsky, Konstantin and Ivan Aksakovs, Y. Samarin. Looking at the Church as a unified source and in this capacity as a prototype of the ideal human society, Khomyakov, for example, names the following two main constitutive qualities: "We confess the only and free Church" because "freedom and unity are two powers that are rightly given the mystery of human freedom in Christ." But the main principle, ensuring the preservation of these bases in the Church is, in his opinion, love. "This principle, — he wrote, — is the basis of mutual love in Jesus Christ" (A. Khomyakov. Theological and church and publicity articles ed. Soykina, pp. 109, 205, 44).

[93] Ven. Barsanuphius the Great and John. Guide to spiritual life in answers. Saint Petersburg 1905. Answer No.373. P.253-254.

[94] Indeed, the aspiration to so-called fullness of life, to pleasure is unthinkable without the fullness of social and political freedoms. The maximal fullness of rights and freedoms is a requirement of materialistic paradise. However, this axiom of materialism is utopian. Kant spoke very well about this: "In fact, we find that the more man’s enlightened reason indulges in the thought about the pleasures of life and happiness, the farther the man is from true satisfaction" (I. Kant. Works. Vol.4, part 1. Moscow 1965. P. 230).

[95] Epictetus, for example, wrote: "He who is free in body and not free in soul is a slave; and, in turn, who is constrained bodily, but is free spiritually, is free." Roman stoics. Moscow 1995. P. 252.

[96] Hieromonk Damascene. Not of this world. Moscow. 1995. P. 980.

[97] In a society, truly interested in the upbringing of Man, not all rights can simply and absolutely be givens, their boundaries must gradually widen and deepen according to the moral and spiritual growth of the man and society.

[98] P. Kalinovsky. Transition. Moscow. 1991. P.15

[99] I. Aksakov. Christianity and social progress. // A. Palitsky. On spiritual requests. (Anthology). Petrograd.1914. P.7.

[100] Hieromonk Damascene. Not of this world. Moscow 1995. P. 870-871.

[101] See, for example, A Pillar of the Orthodox Church. Petersburg .1915. P.402.

[102] In February 1917, when the Regional Council opened, he wrote: "The Imperial resolution of March 31, 1905 during the report of the Holy Synod on the convening of the Council: "I consider it impossible to perform such a great deed at this time... I leave it to myself, when a favorable time comes for that... to convene a Council of the Russian Church." Years passed by... the situation of the Orthodox Church was becoming unbearable. Church life was falling into growing disorder... Formerly persecuted religious communities obtained freedom. In ancient Orthodox Moscow councils of schismatics convened, conferences of Baptists were conducted without difficulties. Only for the Orthodox Church was the time not yet favorable... The attitude of the reigning dynasty to Orthodoxy is a historic example of ingratitude. The Petersburg period of Russian history ends in awful disgrace and grave national disaster." Quoted by: "Church and society." 1998. No.4. P.60. See also: No.3. P.57.

[103] Diary of A.A. Kireyev. Quoted by R. Firsov. The Orthodox Church and the State in the Last Decade of the Existence of Autocracy in Russia. Saint Petersburg 1996. P.315.

[104] Venerable Mark the Ascetic wrote: "Lord, having given many commandments about love, ordered us to search for God’s truth, knowing that it is the mother of love" (Venerable Mark the Ascetic. Moral-ascetic Words. Moscow 1858. P.251).

One of the most important and integral provisions of any religious teaching is the faith in the possibility and necessity of Divine Revelation. Each religion has its own distinctive teachings about it, conditional on the specific understanding of God and man. Christianity is completely based on Revelation, it owes its origin to Christ, it "lives, moves and exists" by Him. To see the main distinctive features of Christian teaching on Revelations, it is necessary to consider a number of issues.

It is necessary to distinguish supernatural Revelation from the so-called natural knowledge of God, also often called Revelation.

Supernatural Revelation means an act of God that gives man knowledge necessary for salvation. In connection with this, Revelation is divided into general and individual.

General revelation is given via specially selected people — prophets and apostles — to proclaim truths of faith and life to a wide range of people (individual nation, all mankind). Such by importance, first of all, is the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition of the New Testament, and secondly, "the law and the prophets" (Matt.7:12), the Old Testament Bible.

Individual revelation is given to a man for his edification (and, sometimes, for the edification of those nearest him). Many of these revelations, specially granted to saints, are "not lawful for a man to utter" (2 Cor.12:4) to another person. For this reason, though the patristic writings and hagiographies tell about different experiences, visions and states of saints, they still convey only their external side. Individual revelations do not impart any fundamentally new truths, they only give a deeper perception of what is already found in general Revelation.

Natural revelation, or natural knowledge of God, usually refers to those ideas about God, mankind and existence in general, that man obtains in a natural way, on the basis of his cognizance of self and the surrounding world. Apostle Paul wrote concerning this: "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen" (Romans 1:20). This process of the natural searching for God, and knowledge of God, always had its place in history, it is inherent to man. And to this day, many people come to faith in God and in Christ, essentially, knowing nothing about religion, Christianity, not having even read the Gospel.

Christianity asserts, that general Revelation was given only through the prophets of the Old Testament and Christ’s Gospel. What special indications are present in Christian Revelation, allowing one to distinguish it from human conjectures, fantasies, intuitions, philosophical insights and so on?

The first thing that attracts the attention of anyone reading the Gospel is holiness, the moral and spiritual height of its teaching and the staggering example of that ideal to which man is being called — Jesus Christ, obviously singles out Christianity from among all the teachings of the world and its ideals. Not one religion knew it (including the one of the Old Testament), not one philosophy.

Its fundamental religious truths about:

• God the Trinity,
• Incarnation of God,
• The Savior, Crucified and Risen,
• Universal resurrection and others

These central truths of Christianity are as different in their essence from the religious and philosophic analogues preceding them as, figuratively speaking, a child differs from a doll with which a woman played in childhood. It is not by chance that the Apostle Paul exclaims: "we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness" (1Cor.1:23). The subsequent history of Christianity confirmed this thought in full measure. The fact that they have been and are trying to "improve" the Christian dogma and make it (to avoid the "stumbling block") a natural continuation of Judaism, deleting from it the faith in the Divine and messianic merits of Jesus Christ, or (to avoid "foolishness") make it one of the teachings of this world (heathenism), is clear evidence of the fact that the Revelation of the New Testament is not a fruit of human wisdom or fantasy. The unique, in its own way, dissimilarity of Christianity among all other religions, its philosophic "absurdity" (let us remember Tertullianus’: credo, quia absurdum est) once again points to the unearthly source of Christian teaching, to that "foolishness of God," that turned out to be "wiser than men" (1 Cor.1:25).

Prophecies are clear evidence of the supernatural nature of Christian Revelation. In this case, prophecies should be understood as predictions that were not based and could not be based on any scientific calculations, or on any knowledge of psychology, history, economics, politics, etc. This prevision of future events, unexplainable by any natural reasons and extending many years, decades, centuries and millenniums ahead was always one of serious arguments for the truth of the Christian religion. Let us give several examples of such predictions.

The Gospel according to Luke (written in 63 AD [1]) says that the Virgin Mary, in a state of particular spiritual zeal, says: "from henceforth all generations shall call Me blessed" (Luke 1:48). The Evangelist did not have any doubts about recording these words of the young Girl, though, in the natural order of things, doing so, and all the more so, being accepted by the subsequent generations of Christians, was equal to insanity. But what do we see? Ever since then and to this day, all Christian nations indeed glorify Her.

In the Gospel according to Matthew, we find prophecies of the Lord Jesus Christ about the future of His Gospel: "And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations" (Matt.24:14); about the destiny of the Jewish people and Jerusalem: "verily I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down" (Matt.23:35-38:24, 2; Luke 21:20-24:32) ("Matthew compiled his Gospel, most likely, about 62 AD" [2], but the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 70 AD); about the Church: "and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt.16:18); about the future of Christianity: "when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8); about the appearance of antichrists and false prophets (Matt.24:23-26; Luke 21:8); about the future persecutions of Christians (Luke 21:12-17); about the fact that "some … shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark 9:1; this refers to all the saints, beginning with the Virgin Mary and the Apostles, who "saw" both the glory and bliss of Christ’s Kingdom come with power within them before their deaths). Every contemporary person can see the fulfillment of these prophecies (and not just believe in them). We find the prophesy about the end of the world in the writings of the Apostle Peter (But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up — 2 Peter 3:10), which, in light of modern scientific and technical "possibilities," sounds sufficiently timely. Many of the prophesies of the Revelation of St. John the Theologian have a similar meaning (See, for example, chapter 16).

But, naturally, it is not always easy to differentiate between a true prophecy and a false one. An example, given by St. Hippolytus of Rome (III century) illustrates this well. He writes about one fully righteous bishop: "There was church hierarch in Ponta, a godly and humble man, but who did not study the Scriptures diligently, but trusted more in his visions. Having experienced success in one, two, three dreams, he ... once said in self-delusion that the Last Judgment would come year later... and he created such fear in these brothers, that they left their houses and fields, and many of them also destroyed their property... and later found themselves destitute." [3] Another no less demonstrative event took place with the brothers, who came to ask Venerable Anthony the Great about some prophecies given to them which did come true, but which, as it turned out, were also from demons. [4]

In connection with this, it is necessary to point out the distinctions between predictions of different kinds and true prophecies. False predictions, first of all, do not contain the main element — the stimulus to the moral change of a man and his spiritual renewal (repentance); secondly, they, with rare exceptions, simply do not come true (it is enough, for example, to check the percentage of accuracy of astrologers’ predictions); thirdly, the overwhelming majority of them have such a vague, indefinite character, that they can be understood any way one likes and be applied to a wide range of different events. In this respect, the admissions of Nostradamus (XVI century), one of the most famous prognosticators, are very revealing.

"I testify, — he writes, — that... the greater part of prophecies was accompanied by the movement of the heavenly firmament, and I saw as if in a shining mirror in a misty vision great, sad, astonishing and unfortunate events and adventures, which were converging on the most important cultures...." [5]

"I think that I can predict many events, if I will be able to conform innate instinct with the art of long calculations. But to do so it is necessary to have great spiritual balance, a state of mind predisposed to prophecies, and a soul freed from all concerns and worries. The greater part of my prophecies I predicted with the help of a bronze tripod "ex tripode oeneo," though many ascribe the possession of magic things to me...." [6]

"All the calculations are made by me in accordance with the movement of heavenly bodies and the interaction with feelings, enveloping me in hours of inspiration, and my moods and emotions were inherited by me from my ancient ancestors" (Nostradamus was a Jew). [7]

"And I unite much in the Divine with the movement and course of heavenly bodies. One gets the impression that it is as if you are looking through a lens and seeing great and sad events and tragic incidents as if in a fog...." [8]

This "confession" of Nostradamus does not leave doubts about the source of his astrological and computational "prophecies." This is magic and cabbalism.

The following fact shows to what degree his specific predictions came true. In his book "Centuries" he specified the exact date of the end of the world. It will occur in the year when Good Friday will be on St. George’s Feast Day, Easter on St. Mark’s Feast Day and the Feast Day of the Body of Christ on the Day of St. John the Baptist. This combination has already occurred repeatedly [9].

However, how can one explain the fact, that some predictions such as these nevertheless come true? One of reasons for this is, that each person, as the image of God, has a natural attribute of prevision, presentiment. And in some people, this attribute manifests itself to a particularly powerful degree. However, in a man, not purged of sinful lusts (carnality, vainglory, pride etc.) this attribute works as if you "are looking through a lens and seeing as if in a fog...." 

In addition, the overwhelming majority of these prognosticators, owing to their sinfulness, come (some unconsciously, other consciously) under the influence of the dark spirits of falsehood with all the consequences stemming from it. Therefore, all these kinds of predictions (of magicians, astrologists, sorcerers, fortunetellers, etc.), as a rule, are not only erroneous, but also disastrous. Many people, who believed them, came to bad ends. For this reason, the mutual voice of all the Church fathers forbid referring to them, believing them, spreading their "prophesies." "If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch" (Matt.15:14) of deceit, emotional and spiritual disorder, error, despair, to the point of suicide.

Miracles were of a great importance for the contemporaries of Christ and the apostles, and are still important to this day for persuasion in the Divine nature of the Christian Gospel.

A miracle should be understood as such an extraordinary influence of God on man or nature that, as a rule, it exceeds the bounds of known natural rules, and puts a man obviously and undoubtedly before the real presence of God. There are external miracles (the resurrection of the dead, the cessation of a storm, the healing of one incurable) and internal (moral rebirth, the sudden rise of firm faith in God, etc.). A true miracle is always accompanied by certain spiritual and moral changes of a man (repentance, thinking about God or, on the contrary, bitterness, theomachy) (compare Luke 19,8 and John 12,10). This is how it differs from the tricks, hallucinations, hypnosis, clairvoyance and "miracles" created by human fantasy (Buddha, for example, as proof of the verity of his teaching, reached the back of his head with the tip of his tongue; or, according to an apocryphal story, little Jesus Christ made birds of clay and then gave them life, etc.) that affect only man’s imagination, psyche and nerves, but do not change his moral and spiritual state, the nature of his life.

Venerable John Cassian of Rome names three reasons for miracles. "The first reason for healings — he writes, — is grace, performing miracles and given to chosen and righteous men ... The second reason is for the edification of the Church, or the faith of those who bring the ill to be healed or those who wish to be healed. In this case, the power of healings sometimes comes even from the unworthy and from sinners, about whom the Saviour speaks in the Gospel... (Matt.7:22-23) ... Healings of the third kind happen through delusion and the tricks of demons. A man, dedicated to evident vices, can sometimes perform astonishing deeds and therefore be treated as a saint and a servant of God... This occurs because demons, crying out the names of people, having no properties of holiness and no spiritual fruits, pretend that their holiness is scalding them, and they have to run away from those they are obsessed with." [10]

In connection with this, it is necessary to mention that one of the most important indications of a true miracle is the truly holy life of the person through whom it is performed. If there is no such life, particularly if there are facts testifying to the contrary, then, by the advice of the Church fathers, it cannot be accepted (see, for example, "About Miracles and Signs" by St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Vol. IV). There can be exceptions, when a true miracle is performed by a sinful man or even an animal (for example, the biblical event with the ass of Balaam) in the presence of faith and the retained ability to repent in those with, or before, whom a miracle takes place. Therefore, miracles are also performed in a non-Orthodox environment, and to th