Konstantin Antonov

Ethos of Religion and Forms of Rationality

Konstantin Antonov - Head of Department of Philosophy of Religion and Religious Aspects of Culture, Faculty of Theology, St. Tikhon's Orthodox University (Moscow, Russia), konstanturg@yandex.ru

The article examines the relationship between religion and science (or rational activities as a whole) as two irreducible basic aspects of human existence and two subsystems of culture, constituted by different systems of values and norms. Theories postulating their harmonious coexistence are failures, and we need to understand the profound causes of conflicts. These causes are not in the sphere of particular or general cognitive disagreements, but in fundamental difference of spiritual settings, that stand behind both religion and science. The article distinguishes between the two main types of religious life and ethos - one connected with "faith" and the other with "religious experience". It further distinguishes four basic forms of rationality: hypothetic-deductive (in natural sciences), hermeneutical (in human sciences), philosophical, and theological. Using these typologies helps showing the ways not so much of resolving particular conflicts that inevitably emerge, but rather of creating a mutual recognition in spite of fundamental differences.

Keywords: religion, faith, religious experience, science, rationality, ethos, value, natural science, humanities, philosophy, theology, conflict.

Antonov K. Ethos of religion and forms of rationality // State, religion, and Church in Russia and abroad. 2015. N 1 (33). pp. 95-135.

Antonov, K. (2015) "Ethos of Religion and Forms of Rationality", Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom 33 (1): 95 - 135.

page 95
The separate directions of the spirit do not complement each other, marching peacefully side by side, but each becomes what it is only by demonstrating its inherent strength in opposition to others.

E. Kassirer

Religion and rationality: Problematic relationships

THE relationship between religio and ratio, two fundamental, independent, and irreducible aspects of human life, has been far from serene throughout history. The need of a person to turn to something that, being above him, determines his life, and the need to navigate in being, to organize and comprehend the reality around us in its entirety complement each other, intertwine with each other and inevitably collide. These conflicts have become particularly acute within the framework of European culture, and therefore in this article the focus will be on the relationship between Christianity and European rationality, and with special attention to their current Russian state.

I will immediately note that from the point of view developed in this article, our life in its concrete manifestations can be considered as a complex interweaving of these, as well as other basic aspects of human existence, which can only be abstracted from it and considered separately or in their particular interactions. It is clear that what complicates human life most is not the direct clashes of rationality, which criticizes the religious view of things, with religion, which directly says to this rationality: "hands off!" 1, but the conflicts of these intertwined, complex forms of human life, such as complicated Gnostic mysticism and straightforward rationalistic fideism "inside" religion or a mystery-oriented philo-

1. M. Heidegger's warning to rationalistic approaches to the study of religious life from his course "Philosophical Foundations of Medieval Mysticism". Cited in: Konacheva S. A. Genesis. Sacred. God. Heidegger and Philosophical Theology of the XX century, Moscow: RSUH Publishing House, 2010, p. 27.

page 96
Philosophical thinking and human-worshipping scientific positivism "inside" rationality.

However, complex relationships of complex forms can probably be better understood through a detailed analysis of simpler forms and relationships. The expulsion of Anaxagoras from Athens was hardly chronologically the first encounter of its kind. But the conflicts of later times are usually complicated: rationality quickly develops its own piety, and religiosity-its own forms of thinking.

Let us consider the current attempts to understand the structure of these relations. Most of them, in one way or another, are aimed at simplifying the overall picture by primarily displacing conflict 2.

The seemingly simplest explanations, coming from the sly obscurantism of churchmen and / or the malicious freethinking of scientists, are worth each other and differ from each other only in the arrangement of pros and cons. Both of them lose sight of the reasons that determine this "evil" orientation of the will of both.

According to other popular beliefs, this conflict is generally an invention of atheists, specially invented to discredit the Church and religion in general. As a confirmation of this idea, the names of religious scientists are usually given, and the facts of clashes are interpreted in such a way as to give them a color either exclusively intra-church, or exclusively intra-scientific, or "ideological".-

2. Almost all modern authors writing on this topic note the complex and multifaceted nature of the relationship between science and religion, as well as the corresponding variety of concepts describing it. Thus, I. Barbour identifies 4 ways of relations: conflict, independence, dialogue, integration; D. Ratsch, following him, outlines three: independence, conflict, dialogue; J. H. Brook outlines two main models for describing these relations: the conflict model and the harmony model, recognizing both as simplified and not withstanding historical verification.Barbour I. Religion and Science: History and Modernity, Moscow: BBI Publishing House, 2000; Brook Doc. Kh. Science and Religion: Historical Perspective, Moscow: BBI Publishing House, 2004, p. 50; Ratsh D. Science and Religion // Oxford Guide to Philosophical Theology, Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul'tury, 2013, pp. 99-133, here p. 102. All of them, however, have a general tendency to schematize and polemically sharpen their approach precisely against the "conflict theory". I would not like to lose sight of the rational grain that is present in this concept.

page 97
gic " conflicts 3. It seems, however, that this approach should provide a meaningful and substantive answer to the argument proposed by B. Russell: "Although most scientists were an example of piety, the view that was formed under the influence of their scientific activities was a threat to religion, and it is quite natural that theologians were alarmed."4. It must be recognized that Russell was absolutely right in saying that the existence of religious scientists cannot be a refutation of the conflict between religion and science as cultural spheres and related institutions: it is precisely the attempts of these scientists to find a way for their peaceful coexistence that indicate that this conflict existed primarily in their own minds. A good example is the well-known statement of M. V. Lomonosov: "A mathematician is ill-advised if he wants to measure the divine will with a compass. So is a teacher of theology, if he thinks that astronomy or chemistry can be learned from the Psalter. " 5 Establishing an absolutely sound distinction between the two areas (theology in this case obviously acts on behalf of the entire religious sphere), these words, on the one hand, are obviously polemically directed against those who are inclined to violate these boundaries, and on the other, they indicate that these forms of life and knowledge in the author's own consciousness are increasingly diverging and that is why he feels the need to bring them into balance.

A more complex and analytical way to gloss over this conflict is also the very common claim that it is not really a conflict at all

3. As does, for example, Deacon A. Kuraev, analyzing the cases of Copernicus, Bruno, and Galileo. See: Kuraev A., diak. Christianity and Science //http://azbyka.ru/vera_i_ neverie / nauka_i_religiya/1g26-all. shtml (accessed 11.09.2013). (Naturally, I do not consider here the question of the validity of the author's judgments, I am interested in the position itself, which, of course, can be defended in a more academic way.)

4. Russell B. History of Western philosophy. Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State University Press, 1999, p. 502. This argument is also interesting because it shows the complex intertwining of science and religion in such conflicts, because theology is nothing more than a special form of rationality and the conflict of the theologian and physicist is not just a conflict of the believer and the knower, but also a conflict of two forms of knowledge and two forms of faith.

5. Lomonosov M. V. The phenomenon of Venus on the Sun, observed in the St. Petersburg Imperial Academy of Sciences on May 26, 1761. Addition//Lomonosov M. V. Polnoe sobranie sochineniy [Complete Works], vol. 4. Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1955, pp. 370-376, here p. 375.

page 98
science and religion as cultural spheres, and about the conflict of worldviews: materialism and idealism, atheism and faith in God, etc. 6 This approach should be recognized as not without grounds. However, the question of the genesis of these worldview positions, their possible connection with certain forms of human experience is not raised. Can it be considered accidental that the aggression directed at religion by militant materialism and atheism7 has been waged for the fourth century in the name of science, and more often natural science than humanitarian science? Or is there a certain connection that needs clarification and problematization?

In the end, we can say that the very fact that there is a powerful conciliatory tendency, the desire to smooth out or obscure differences, indicates that there is something (or whom) to reconcile.

Thus, it becomes necessary to turn to those theories that can be called "conflict theories". These latter focus mainly either on the "incompatibility of scientific and religious knowledge" 8, or on the opposition of the underlying values and imperatives 9.

6. It is appropriate to quote the well-known words of S. L. Frank: "There is and cannot be any contradiction between science in the true sense, which has as its task the great but at the same time modest task of studying the order of correlations in natural phenomena, and religion as the relation of man to super-natural, higher forces and the beginnings of life... But there is a real and irremediable contradiction between naturalism (including materialism) and religious faith, between the worldview that asserts that all existence is exhausted by the blind (or even material) elemental forces of nature, and the worldview that asserts forces of a different, spiritual or rational order outside of "nature" and allows their action in the world..: Frank S. L. Religion and Science. Brussels: Life with God, 1953.

7. In the history of Russian culture, we can distinguish two waves of this kind: the "Bazarov" nihilism of the 50s-80s of the XIX century and the Soviet "militant atheism"; the third wave is growing before our eyes.

8. A statement characteristic of Soviet "scientific atheism". See, for example: Borunkov Yu. F. Incompatibility of scientific and religious knowledge / / 50 years of the Department of Philosophy of Religion and Religious Studies of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University. Moscow: Izdatel ' Vorob'ev A.V., 2009. pp. 48-57.

9. It is more typical for Western secular humanism and its modern domestic versions. See, for example, the discussion of the principles of "free research" and "critical thinking", which are opposed to "the revival of dogmatic authoritarian religions", in: Kurz P. Declaration of Secular Humanism/ / http: / / www. humanism. ru/declaration. htm (accessed from 27.08.2013). The idea of the key role of the "centuries-old struggle of the mind" is also close to this.

page 99
In the first case, we are talking about discrepancies in the images of reality produced, respectively, by religion and science, and the difference in the processes of their formation. I have already written that Pascal's famous statement- "The God of philosophers and scientists is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" - can just as easily be applied to the understanding of the world and man.10 It is important to note that in this case we are not talking about the discrepancy of certain particular statements about certain facts (these discrepancies usually arise as a result of misunderstandings), but about much more general points: about different understanding of the "fact" as such, about different ways of forming judgments and structuring reality. on the difference between the scientific and the religious a priori 11.

It seems to me that we should agree with the statement of E. Kassirer: "Not only science, but also language, myth, art, and religion provide the material from which we build, on the one hand, the world of 'reality', and on the other - spirituality, the world of the Ego. They can also not be considered simply as phenomena of a given world-they should be understood as functions of the original formation of being, special ways of its differentiation and structuring. Accordingly, to the extent that the means used by each function are different, as well as the scope and criteria assumed and applied by each of them separately, the result is also different."12
So, the question arises: is the interaction of the functions under consideration with inevitability really fraught with possible conflict situations? It seems that cognitive discrepancies, however large, are not sufficient in themselves. -

against church dogmatism " in the formation of European culture; see Mitrokhinl. N. Scientific knowledge and religion at the turn of the XXI century // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2000. Vol. 70. N 1. pp. 3-20, here p. 3.

10. Antonov K. M. Znanie v estestvennoi nauke i v religii: filosofskoe oposredovanie [Knowledge in Natural science and religion: philosophical mediation].

11. The problem of the religious a priori in its specific difference, in particular, from the scientific, was actively discussed in German and Russian thought at the beginning of the XX century: Otto, Trelch, Tillich, on the one hand, and S. N. Bulgakov, E. N. Trubetskoy, N. A. Berdyaev, etc. "on the other side. See about this: Ukolov K. I. The Problem of Religious a priori in Western Religious Philosophy (Ed. Trelch, P. Tillich) // Vestnik PSTGU I: Bogoslovie. Philosophy. 2008. Issue 3 (23). pp. 45-55; Ukolov K. I. Problema religioznogo apriori v zapadnoy i russkoy religioznoy filosofii [The problem of religious a priori in Western and Russian religious philosophy]. Philosophy. 2010. Issue 1 (29), pp. 25-42.

12. Kassirer E. Filosofiya simvolicheskikh form [Philosophy of symbolic forms], vol. 1. Yazyk [Language], St. Petersburg: Universitetskaya kniga, 2001, pp. 26-27.

page 100
they are sufficient to provoke a systematic confrontation: a conversation about different subjects, moreover, conducted in different languages, is unlikely to lead to a clash. One may eventually temporarily adopt the concept of dual truth or "double bookkeeping" in the hope that further development will lead to the removal of contradictions.13
At the same time, the contradiction of values that proponents of the straightforward theory of conflict are so fond of emphasizing is by no means as primitive as it seems at first glance. The usual juxtaposition of the" dogmatism "of faith with the" critical spirit " inherent in science can hardly stand any serious test of facts. It seems, however, that a more differentiated analysis of this kind can be of some benefit. It is in this direction that further consideration is moving.

Ethos of Religion and Rationality: Preliminary Considerations and definitions

Every conflict of basic spheres of human existence has a significant emotional and volitional aspect. It may seem that this aspect is secondary to the cognitive aspect described above. In fact, attempts to" transpose " ideas that have emerged within one sphere of human activity into another sphere (for example, to integrate the biblical cosmogony into modern cosmological theory, or, conversely, to impose on the biblical text meanings that have emerged as a result of long philosophical and scientific development) inevitably lead to paradoxical and unacceptable results for the other side. they are perceived as aggressive dilettantism, the desire to "get into someone else's monastery with their own charter". For modern Russian scientists, they evoke painful memories of the times of Lysenko or even the Middle Ages; for believers, they evoke equally painful memories of the times of scientific atheism or the Enlightenment, in both cases-

13. As L. M. Lopatin and S. L. Frank do, for example, in Russian thought, when they speak of the need to "combine the perfect independence of religious and philosophical thought with childlike, humble, prayerful participation in traditional church religious life"; see: S. L. Frank On the Impossibility of Philosophy (Letter to a Friend) / / Frank S. L. Russkoe mirovozrenie. SPb.: Nauka, 1996. pp. 88-95. here p. 94; Lopatin L. M. Postivnye zadachi filosofii [Positive Problems of Philosophy]. Vol. 1. Moscow, 1889. p. 282.

page 101
the feeling of substitution and inauthenticity. Elements of mutual distrust, rejection, and irritation are easily found not only on the Internet or in superficial journalism, but also in very serious and responsible texts. 14 However, to reduce the origins of these affects only to discomfort from tasteless eclecticism means, in my opinion, to simplify the problem.

Moreover, the most rigid and irreconcilable texts of representatives of marginal (and, accordingly, not burdened with the burden of social and institutional responsibility) trends and radical thinkers15 are more indicative here than the balanced texts produced by intelligent people and representatives of the church and scientific hierarchy 16. It is in the former that one can see the phenomena that serve as the sources of these experiences: the apprehensive rejection that turns into aggressive denial that scientific thought causes in people of religion, and the distrustful disregard that surrounds itself with protective barriers (because of which, however, it is always ready to make a raid or sortie) that occurs in people of science who are faced with religious attitude to being.

In general, the analysis of such clashes creates a strong impression that each of the parties to one degree or another lacks the consciousness of meaningfulness of what the other is doing, and equally - and the desire to convince the other of their own meaningfulness.

It can be assumed that behind these affects there are some serious discrepancies in the fundamental spiritual values.

14. A typical example here is the well-known Letter of 10 academicians and a later document calling for the closure of the Department of Theology at MEPhI. In church documents, we often find representations that scientists tend to "put themselves in the place of God", that "scientific and technological development is dominated by human passions", that science, being left to its own devices, tends to "lose its moral orientation", etc. See, for example, the Church and the World. The basic social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church. M.: Danilovskiy Evangelist, 2000. P.162.

15. In this respect, the works of O. K. Bufeev are very characteristic; see, for example, K. Bufeev, prot. Heresy of evolutionism / / Shestodnev vs evolyutsii. In defense of the Patristic doctrine of Creation, Moscow: Palomnik, 2000, pp. 151-232; materials of the website http://shestodnev.ortox.ru/n similar projects. A site can serve as an analog from the opposite side http://www.atheism.ru/.

16. An example of such a balance is the collection: That led and created. Modern scientists on the creation of the world. Klin: Christian Life Foundation, 1999.

page 102
the settings mentioned above. These attitudes, on the one hand, correlate with rationality and religiosity as special aspects of human existence, and, on the other hand, in the form of certain systems of values and norms, they are implemented in the systems of public institutions based on them, in specific communities.

We will turn to the analysis of religious consciousness and consider the different types of this consciousness from the point of view of those value systems that can be considered as their reference, in order to determine the place of rationality as a value and its various forms in these systems.

Initially, we will give some necessary definitions and explanations. These definitions are of a working nature: they are intended to clarify the meaning that the author puts into the concepts with which he operates, and do not pretend to reveal the "essence" of the corresponding objects.

I will speak about the ethos of religion in much the same sense as R. Merton spoke about the ethos of science: as an "affectively colored complex of values and norms"17 that constitutes this sphere of human life. At the same time, I will not attempt to codify the basic "institutional imperatives" of the ideal religious ethos in the same way that Merton did for the institutions of science. First of all, I am not at all sure that there is only one such ethos. The main drawback of Merton's concept can be considered the fact that, when speaking about science in general, he actually means a certain way understood natural science.18 At the same time, a specific description of possible systems of such imperatives and their operation in specific religious communities is beyond the scope of the tasks facing the author of this article. Rather, I will focus on the "value complexes" that justify these imperatives in relation to them.-

17. Merton R. Sotsial'naya teoriya i sotsial'naya struktura [Social Theory and Social Structure], Moscow: Khranitel', 2006, p. 769. See also: Mirskaya E. Z., R. K. Merton and the Ethos of Classical Science. Issue 11. Ethos of Science at the Turn of the Century, Moscow: IF RAS, 2005. pp. 11-28, here p. 12; Motroshilova N. V. Zapadnaya sotsiologiya nauki, ee kriticheskoe osvoenie v otechestvennoi mysli (50-e-80-e gody XX veka) i sovremennye otsenki// Motroshilova N. V. Otechestvennaya filosofiya 50-kh - 80-kh gg. XX v. i zapadnaya mysl ' [Domestic philosophy of the 50s-80s of the XX century and Western thought]. Moscow: Akademicheskiy proekt, 2012. pp. 153-182, here p. 160.

18. This clearly follows from his proposed understanding of knowledge as "empirically confirmed and logically consistent predictions". See: Merton R. Edict. Op. p. 770.

page 103
In turn, it is understood as a certain value. It is they who will be further designated by the word "ethos".

There are many definitions of religion. Nevertheless, a significant part of the complexities associated with the ongoing controversy about the European and Christian centrism of religious studies in the second half of the 20th century are irrelevant in our case, since, as already mentioned, it is mainly and primarily about the relationship between Christianity and European rationality, although it can be assumed that at least one of the main problems of the at least some aspects of the issue will be relevant for other religions and cultural regions.

In this regard, I think it is quite acceptable to use the old definition of religion formulated by Prince S. N. Trubetskoy as "organized worship of higher forces" 19. Worship appears here as a basic fact that constitutes religion as a sphere of human life, and at the same time as an intentional act that presupposes an object, a noema, and a complexly structured noesis. it includes a complex combination of affective aspects: fear and love, reverence, sacred awe, and so on. Here it is appropriate to recall the description of the noema of the "sacred" and the associated experiences of R. R. Tolkien. Otto and similar descriptions in Russian thinkers: O. P. Florensky, S. L. Frank, etc.20 It is precisely with these affective aspects of worship as the main religious attitude that the structure of the ethos of religion is connected.

If defining religion is not easy, defining rationality is even more difficult, almost hopeless. In fact, we will talk about the entire sphere of human activity related to the ordering and comprehension of reality, about various forms of the universal ability to understand, which V. V. Rozanov wrote about in our country, and in Europe - M. V. Rozanov. Heidegger 21.

19. Trubetskoy S. N. Religion. Article from the Encyclopedic dictionary / / Trubetskoy S. N. Sobr. soch. T. 2. Moscow, 1908. pp. 499-509, here p. 499.

20. See: Pylaev M. A. The category of "sacred" in the phenomenology of religion, Theology and Philosophy of the XX century, Moscow: RSUH, 2011 (chapter "Sacred as Misterium Tremendum and Fascinans: R. Otto", pp. 32-53); Pylaev M. A., Antonov K. M. "Sacred" in the Russian philosophical system Mysli i v zapadnoy fenomenologii religii [Thoughts and in the Western phenomenology of religion]. 2008. N 3. pp. 118-128.

21. See, for example: Bibikhin V. V. Vremya chitit Rozanov [Time to read Rozanov].

page 104
The traditional reduction of the problems of "science and religion" to the clarification of the mutual relations of certain theological and natural science concepts seems to me not only an unjustified reduction of the whole to a part, but also a substitution: theology itself is a form of rationality, and its place in the structure of religious tradition is by no means self-evident, as we will see later.

In connection with these explanations, the main question of my article can be formulated approximately as follows:: how does the ethos of religion, understood as a system of values and norms, interact with rationality? What is the place of rationality as value in the structure of this ethos? At first glance, the only possible form of relationship between them is mutual repression: reverence for the mystery, "a sense of creation" as the main religious affects exclude the criticality necessary for the implementation of rational activities. It is this very real moment that supports the conflict position described above and the corresponding concepts. However, there are well-known examples of directly opposite relationships, which naturally raise the question: how are they possible?

It seems that to answer this question, both the ethos of religion and rationality must be considered not as something unified, but in the diversity of their forms and in the complexity of their manifestations.

Let us name four main forms of rationality that seem to be most relevant from the point of view of our topic 22: 1) hypothetical-deductive rationality, which is mainly characteristic of the natural sciences, but often goes far beyond their limits. Ideally, it seeks to compare exactly fixed facts with equally precisely formulated ones, preferably expressed in mathematical form, and admitting that they can be applied to a given fact. experimental verification of the explanation through a certain law of nature; 2) hermeneutical rationality, which develops mainly in the sphere of humanitarian knowledge, but again easily leaves its limits, comparing not fact and law, but text and meaning(s), connecting

22. It does not address the question of the relationship between everyday rationality and everyday religiosity of the "ordinary person": this would require a completely different approach to the topic. Antonov K. M. [The phenomenon of religious conversion and the formation of reflexive structures of religious traditions]. 2009. N 4. p. 90-102.

page 105
their understanding/interpretation procedure, which, for all its rigor, fundamentally allows for a multiplicity of possible results; 3) philosophical thinking, by which I will here understand a systematic reflection on the ultimate foundations of human existence, consciousness, activity and creativity; 4) a specific theological rationality that stands out in our context and is absolutely necessary, a special kind of thinking in the horizon of Revelation God and the human faith that responds to him. This horizon from the sphere of pure philosophy looks like a particular regional ontology, justifying some particular science similar to chemistry and mathematics, but at the same time containing a claim to limitedness, in relation to which philosophy itself looks like a certain set of "private opinions"23.

No less complex is the question of the forms of religious ethos.

Further consideration will be based on the distinction between two main types of establishing worship as a basic religious relationship: through direct experience and through faith.24 I am fully aware of the convention of this

23. This is roughly Heidegger's understanding of the relationship between theology and philosophy in Being and Time and in his paper Phenomenology and Theology (1927). In what follows, he establishes a kind of analogia proportionalitatis between them: "philosophical thinking relates to being as theology relates to God who reveals himself." See: Konacheva S. A. Genesis. Sacred. God. pp. 64, 151. On the diversity of understandings of the nature of theological thought in Protestant theology of the XX century, see: Comparative Theology: German Protestantism of the XX century. Texts with comments, Moscow: PSTGU, 2009. For standard definitions of theology in modern Orthodoxy, see: Davydenkov O., prot. Dogmatic theology, Moscow: PSTGU, 2013, p. 6. Shmaliy V., prot. Theology / / Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. V. M., 2002. p. 520.

24. As precedents for such an understanding, I will point out the identification of the types of prophetic and mystical prayer and the related understandings of religious life in general in F. P. Blavatsky. Heiler and the distinction between" faith-trust "and" faith - experiential certainty " in S. L. Frank, which I follow to the greatest extent, with the exception of the preference that he clearly gives to the second type and which I think it is necessary to put out of brackets. See: Pylaev M. A. Category "sacred"... (chapter "The Sacred as a 'higher reality': Fr. Heiler", pp. 66-79, here pp. 72-77); Frank S. L. God is with us. Three reflections (section "Faith-trust and faith-authenticity") / / Frank S. L. Dukhovnye osnovy obshchestva [Spiritual foundations of society], Moscow: Respublika Publ., 1992, pp. 220-230. To prove that these two and only two possibilities are singled out would require a lot of separate work and is impossible within the framework of this text. In short, it is based on the distinction between two possible forms of positing the Object of a religious relationship: as absolutely external to our consciousness, which, accordingly, does not have direct access to it, and as I am present in one way or another-

page 106
The difference lies in the fact that in real religious life both forms are usually present in the form of a certain mixture, that even among prominent religious figures and even thinkers we rarely find one or the other form in its purity. We are talking, of course, about certain ideal types (in the sense of M. Weber) or attitudes of consciousness (in the sense of S. Frank). I do not mean to justify the "correctness" or "truth" of one form or another, but rather to show the internal logic inherent in each of them. Nevertheless, I believe that the adoption of one or the other - mystical or fideistic-attitude entails certain consequences both in terms of understanding the structure of reality, and in terms of ethos, and, as a consequence, in relation to the significance of certain forms of rationality and even in the tendency to some general idea of rationality as such 25, and that this logic is significantly reflected in very real discussions and discussions.

S. S. Averintsev suggests considering "faith" as "a central worldview position and at the same time a psychological attitude" inherent in a number of religious systems. In this sense, faith includes: "first, the acceptance of certain statements (dogmas)... and the determination to adhere to these tenets in spite of all doubts... secondly, personal trust in God as the organizer of the believer's life, his guide, helper and savior in all specific situations, who sends suffering and makes difficult demands for the good of the believer himself; thirdly, personal loyalty to God, to Whose "service" the believer gives himself...26. The first aspect of this state of faith is accurately described by S. L. Frank: "Faith is the certainty of that which we are not given a reason for, the truth of which is not obvious" 27. The second and third aspects can be considered together as a single moment

and therefore accessible to direct perception or experience.

25. Both categories are so important for understanding religion that no serious thinker writing on these topics can avoid using them. Nevertheless, a significant distinction can be made between those who refer to the experiences associated with the establishment of faith as some kind of experience ("the experience of faith"), and those who consider "faith" as an aspect or element of "religious experience" in the broader sense of the word.

26. Averintsev S. S. Vera [Faith] / / Averintsev S. S. Sofia-Logos. Dictionary. Kiev: Dukh i Litera, 2006. pp. 135-136, here p. 135.

27. Frank S. L. God is with us. p. 220.

page 107
personal relationship of a person to God, in which both the distance between them and their relationship are equally significant. Obviously, different authors may emphasize different aspects of faith in this sense, but all of them together contribute to the development of a very specific attitude of religious life.

From the attitude to faith, especially in the first sense of "accepting statements", " judging a transcendental object "(S. L. Frank), the attitude to "experiencing", "religious experience", "direct evidence and reliability" of the object of this experience as absolute reality differs 28. What is meant here is precisely the fundamentally important thing. different attitudes of religious life, as evidenced by the recognition of the same S. L. Frank. After briefly describing the first installation, he immediately makes a reservation: "I may be built differently from other people in this respect, but I have never been able to 'believe' in the sense described; moreover, I cannot understand how it is possible to believe in this sense, nor why it is necessary. 29 I think it should be pointed out that, contrary to Frank's belief that this type of religious life is ultimately false, or at best only preliminary and transitional to the second type, the fact that it is still essential for many millions of people, among whom there were also others, is still very important. there are certainly outstanding religious figures and thinkers, but here we must refrain from judging the comparative value and even more so the truth of these types. We will be mainly interested in the forms of religious ethos that arise from them and their relations to the above-mentioned forms of rationality. As we will see, each of the intersections that arise here is associated with trends that are fraught with both possible conflicts and" peaceful coexistence", and the productivity of both cannot be determined in advance. It seems that the idea of the relationship between God and the world, which correlates with each of these types, plays a significant role here.

28. For a detailed description, see: Frank S. L. Decree, Op. pp. 220-247.

29. Ibid., p. 220.

page 108
Ethos of Faith: Reason in the Face of the Absurd

Let us first take a closer look at the ethos of religion, which is formed under the sign of the category "faith". Faith first of all posits its Object - God - as an objective reality that exists outside and independently of our consciousness, absolutely transcendent in relation to the world accessible to this consciousness, although it operates in it. Critically presenting to the Russian reader this attitude of faith, which is characteristic of dialectical theology, in its difference from the attitude to experience, P. Tillich wrote: "Revelation... it is not an experiential experience; for Revelation is outside of us. Revelation is faith, so it is a leap, a brave act... " 30
God and the world are thought of here as completely extrinsic realities, with God acting as a primary reality with an absolute fundamental value, while the world acts as a secondary and derived reality and value. Using the blazh terminology. According to St. Augustine, it can be said that the world cannot be enjoyed, it can only be enjoyed. Thus, the world receives here only a utilitarian value as a place where a person prepares for the transition to eternity. An additional value, however, is given to it by the fact that it is a work of its Creator, bearing on itself a reflection of His wise plan and a reflection of His Glory. All "earthly" values are recognized here either as having their source in God, the Lawgiver, or as false, "human, too human" values, which are opposed to the true divine values due to the depravity of the evil will of the person who tries to rely on them for the purpose of a false dispensation in "this world". This "evil will" arises not only and not so much as a result of the creation of man, which separates him from God and restricts him, but also as a result of a special act of "fall from grace", which actualizes the possibility of corruption, perversion and death. It also fits well into the same picture-

30.Tillikh P. Dialekticheskaya teologiya [Dialectical theology]. Paris. No. 1, 1925. pp. 148-154, here p. 152; see also: Ukolov K. I. Dialectical theology of K. Barth in the reports of 1922 / / Comparative theology... p. 185. Cf. Bulgakov's statement directly opposite in meaning: "We defined the content of faith as the revelation of the transcendental world or the experience of the Deity" - Bulgakov S. N. Svet Nevecherniy, Moscow: Respublika Publ., 1994, p. 50 (my italics - K. A.).

page 109
the same real, "objective" existence of evil and good spiritual beings, which is assumed by an act of faith, explains, in particular, the very fact of the fall, and the existence and constant reproduction of false values and religious concepts in history.

The only or at least the main source of knowledge about God, knowledge that has a decisive and critical value in such a system of representations, is the Revelation of God about Himself, which appears here primarily as a system of postulates-axioms-sent down to man and accepted "on faith" due to the transcendence of its Source.

Let us especially note that God is inevitably conceived here as an Absolute Person, since He appears 1) as the Creator of the world and 2) as the Author of revelation. The Absolute Person and His main work-the Holy Scriptures as God's Revelation of Himself-are here endowed not only with absolute value, but also with Absolute authority, before which every other person pales and is reduced to the level of "opinion". Any earthly authority gets its authority and significance only by virtue (and depending on the degree) of its agreement with the original one. Under these conditions, the understanding of the fundamental text - Scripture - tends to be unambiguous and literal.

Solovyov, who believed that the adoption of the idea of "a God external to man and nature "" suppresses the purely human or rational principle, the principle of reason and internal freedom, the freedom of conscience." Not only in the field of theology, but also in philosophy and science, "the decisive importance is given to church authority based on tradition"31.

From this point of view, the natural forms of human existence and modes of human activity easily receive not even a neutral, indifferent, but directly negative meaning. For better or worse, the natural moral law and emotional structure of man ("passions"), the natural forms of community and relations between people, for example in the family, natural law and the state, economy, creativity, knowledge, and even (and sometimes especially) natural religion-all this becomes the subject of ascetic restriction, under-

31. Solov'ev V. S. Kritika otvlechennykh nachali [Criticism of abstract principles] / / Solov'ev V. S. Sochineniya v 2-x tt. T. 1. Moscow: Mysl, 1988. pp. 155-156.

page 110
repair, negation, and transformation. Tertullian credo qua absurdum finds its application not only in the field of knowledge, but also in other fields.32 Faith, as a special form of life, asserts itself in spite of nature, and this resistance to nature is its specific " merit." "Along with the rational principle, the natural principle in a person's personal life is also suppressed in the name of God - the beginning of passion and lust, passion and interest ..." 33.

It seems, however, that Solovyov's extremely negative assessment of the relationship outlined here needs to be clarified and corrected. Often, such "suppression of the natural" does not destroy culture, as it seemed not only to religious critics, but also to many of its apologists, but, on the contrary, becomes a source of new, previously unknown forms and ways of human existence.

Let us now consider what this leads to when this form of religious life comes into contact with the forms of knowledge described above.

First of all, we are confronted here with a tense and intense critique of rationality as such, in all its variants. Based on this position, the movements of doubt and revision, which are necessarily inherent in any form of rationality, are indeed unacceptable to the believer, are considered as "temptations" that must be resisted by the effort of the will ,which "persists in recognizing what in itself, that is, for rational knowledge, remains doubtful" 34.

At the same time, it should be noted that when such an attitude is consistently carried out, a kind of logical circle arises: this movement of doubt and revision, becoming an instrument of faith, turns on itself, calls into question rationality itself as such, and thereby receives a peculiar place in the history of thought.

When faced with the need for positive research, faith tends to minimize it and is prone to dogmatism.-

32. A dramatic description of the tragedy of faith in religious art can be found, for example, in W. Golding's The Spire. It was the pathos of faith, not the "Hellenization of Christianity" or the idea of "Platonism for the people" that formed the basis of early monasticism and many subsequent monastic movements.

33. Solovyov. Decree. op. p. 156.

34. The franc. Decree. op. p. 220.

page 111
analyze its results. In this case, religiosity takes on a specific form of "fundamentalism", the critical clarification of the psychological and epistemological nature of which seems to be an urgent task due to its significant prevalence not only "among the masses", but also among the clergy and monastics, among popular religious leaders (Fr. Seraphim Rose, Fr. Daniil Sysoev), taking into account in particular its significance. growing influence in modern Islam as well.

However, even the most extreme forms of fundamentalism, as a rule, do not claim to fully cover the entire life world of a person and all his knowledge. There are always more or less broad areas of knowledge that are not directly related to the problems of human salvation. This is, on the one hand, the sphere of "private theological opinions", and on the other, the sphere of utilitarian, practical and technical knowledge. The difference between the liberal version of religious faith and the fundamentalist one lies not only in the greater breadth of this sphere, but also mainly in giving it a higher value. Here, argumentation begins to work, aimed at asserting the value of creation, history, and everyday human life, and, accordingly, aimed at studying their rationality, which inevitably becomes richer and more complex.

In the fundamentalist approach, due to these features, the first of the forms of rationality described above is the most influential: hypothetical-deductive. The main concepts and defining structures are the concepts of "fact", "opinion", binary oppositions "fact / theory" and "true/false", which are taken in their simplest version. The correspondence theory of truth is taken for granted, and its most problematic place - the correlation of judgment and subject-is filled precisely by the act of faith.

"Fact" is compared and contrasted here with "theory", understood primarily as"opinion". It is "facts" that are considered as genuine achievements of science, while the worldview created by natural science and history is perceived precisely as a set of non-binding opinions, which are based not so much on "facts" as on bad will, which intentionally or unintentionally directs the thought of a scientist-interpreter. Diversity of opinions is recognized as a factor that disqualifies scientific knowledge, and

page 112
It is precisely the most primitive form of empirical science that is recognized here as the only reliable and valuable one.35
Since an opinion can be either true or false in the corresponding sense, the picture of the world created by modern science is declared not just optional, but false, and in its place is put another picture that tries (from the point of view of an external observer in a completely eclectic way) to combine the "facts" discovered by science and the "biblical picture of the world". It is being reconstructed in the same "empirical" way that in this case results in a" super-literal " reading of Scripture. Any allegoresis, or reference to the" spiritual meaning "or" spiritual objectivity " or the specifics of the religious language or Scripture, under such conditions, turns out to be nothing more than a simple denial of its truth. Here, the "text" is clearly interpreted in the "fact" paradigm: "Whereas before the Bible provided a language for understanding the natural world, here, on the contrary, the study of nature in the light of natural reason creates science - a new language that is now also used for interpreting Scripture."37
This state of affairs is associated with the most acute, but perhaps also the most superficial conflicts between science and religion, concerning the question of the time of the existence of the universe, the recognition or denial of geological and biological evolution, the flood, the understanding of anthropogenesis, and so on. These conflicts are particularly acute due to the fact that the disputants are within the framework of a single form of rationality, but they place value accents in the opposite way. Because of this, paradoxically, the fundamentalist type may turn out to be the most acceptable for many representatives of natural science rationality and for representatives of historical science brought up on it. Remaining "with the facts", they only need to reconsider their acceptance of them.-

35. The structures of thought described are most clearly shown in the contemporary polemic on the theory of evolution mentioned above. Along with the above, we can mention a number of publications on the portal www.bogoslov.ru. The twists and turns of this controversy largely underlie the proposed description of the relationship between fundamentalist and liberal approaches.

36. How this is done, for example, in a great article: Seleznev M. G. Vera kak vyzvok [Faith as a challenge]. http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/l939520.html (accessed from 3.05.2013).

37. Katasonov V. N. Protestant exegesis of the Bible and the emergence of Modern science. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. 1. Bogoslovie. Philosophy. 4 (20). 2007. pp. 55-66, here p. 65.

page 113
these contradictory, overly complicated opinions, and accept the" only true " worldview provided by the Bible as their underlying explanation. In modern Russia, this turn is further facilitated by nostalgia for the only correct and at the same time "scientific" understanding of the world in the face of Soviet ideology.

Because of this, over time, very attractive attempts at compromise "liberal" approaches based on more complex methods of interpreting Scripture, which are inherent in more subtle thinkers who are aware of the real complexity of the structure of scientific knowledge and are inclined to reflect on the representatives of natural science rationality, are perceived worse and worse by themselves. 38 Difficulties associated with the original problem of "faith", here they recede into the background and seem to be obscured, as a result of which there is an illusion of the possibility of a consistent and at the same time not mediated by additional systematic reflection (primarily philosophical) combination of scientific and biblical worldviews within a single system of representations.

At the same time, the obvious advantage of such "liberalism" is the explicit problem of the diversity of interpretations, which is solved in principle positively, which draws us to the problems associated with the second of these forms of rationality - humanitarian-hermeneutical.

At first glance, it seems that the fundamentalist approach is disastrous for this form of rationality, while the liberal approach opens up relatively large opportunities for it. However, careful consideration shows that the situation is somewhat more complicated. In particular, the history of early Protestantism shows that combining fundamentalism with humanistic education can yield interesting methodological results. A problematic situation arises in the consciousness that is characterized by both these moments simultaneously: while fundamentalism forces it to strive to preserve the literal understanding of the sacred text and the totality of the coverage of human life, the teachings of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit are still being taught.-

38. See the above-mentioned collection: To lead and create...; Luka (Voino-Yasenetsky), Archbishop, Holy Science and Religion, Moscow: Binom, 2006; John (Wendland), mitr. The Bible and Evolution. Yaroslavl, 1998; et al.

page 114
the concept of faith and humanistic education, while providing a broad cultural horizon, makes us realize the problematic nature of the procedure for establishing meaning and take into account the real complexity of cultural life.39 This, however, does not remain without consequences for the religious ethos itself: here we can see the beginning of the process of its liberalization. Rationality (in its humanitarian form) gradually acquires an independent value and begins to exert a reverse influence on religion. The humanities, focusing on the study of man, his history, and spiritual culture, begin to ask faith questions that it finds itself forced to answer. In her answers, she often has to appeal to the reality of human experience, to the direct experiences that form the foundation of religious life, that is, going beyond her borders, she turns for help to a fundamentally different form of religious life.

Equally ambiguous is the relation of this fideistic ethos to philosophy. On the one hand, starting with Tatian and Tertullian, philosophy (as well as science) appears to the bearers of this ethos as a field of diverse, contradictory and therefore equally false opinions. The phenomenon of "fideistic skepticism" described by G. G. Shpet grows precisely on this basis and throughout the history of Christianity (as well as Judaism and Islam) is one of the moments that determine the relationship between faith and reason. As E. Gilson accurately put it, describing the basic attitude of this group of thinkers: "Since God has revealed himself, we no longer need to think for ourselves." 40 At the same time, it is precisely philosophy, with its complex forms of rationality, with its tendency to undermine the fundamental points of the self-evident postulates of everyday thinking, that turns out to be a more dangerous and more sharply negative opponent here than empirical natural or even humanitarian science, which firmly stands on the basis of "facts" and whose utilitarian significance can still be

39. As Dilthey demonstrated for the hermeneutical program of Matthius Flatius of Illyria, see: Dilthey V. Schleiermacher's hermeneutical system in its difference from the previous Protestant hermeneutics. Collected works in 6 vols. Vol. IV. Moscow: House of Intellectual Books, 2001. pp. 13-234, here p. 15-29.

40. Gilson E. Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages // Theology in Medieval culture. Kiev: Path to Truth, 1992, pp. 6-48, here 7.

page 115
to accept. But "we will be much better off without philosophical knowledge than with it."41 Philosophy here is at best allowed to exist in the form of "apologetics" 42 or "academic discipline" that provides the necessary logical skill of the mind, and it borrows from it relevant arguments, formal schemes of thinking (often unconsciously or intentionally veiled) and genres. At the same time, the accusation of their use is becoming an important rhetorical device used in intra - and inter-confessional polemics. Being a philosopher in a Christian environment is often prestigious (as an expert in his field, who put him in the service of the Church), but at the same time dangerous (as someone who will probably never be able to part with the "passion" for thinking that is overwhelming him)43.

And yet it is precisely the fideist position that, with enviable frequency, supplies history with the thoughts of its representatives, whose thinking, which recognizes the full significance of reason in human life and recognizes its full value, but nevertheless radically denies and rejects them as fetters that bind human existence, is crucial for clarifying the meaning of rationality and, consequently, the very essence of rationality. philosophy. Thinkers such as Pascal, Kierkegaard, or Lev Shestov have certainly made a significant contribution to the history of philosophical thought with their deeply religious critique of reason.44
The relation of this form of religious ethos to theological thought is equally ambiguous. On the one hand, in this formulation of the question, theology as thought turns out to be something as superfluous as other forms of rational comprehension of reality. A Christian is required to have faith and faith.-

41. Gilson E. Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages.

42. On its philosophical sterility ("completely devoid of philosophical eros"), see Bulgakov. Decree, Op. pp. 78-79.

43. The prosecution also uses philosophical arguments, techniques and concepts, but prefers to keep silent about them. The accusation of using "philosophy" is a standard argument in the polemic of Protestants against Catholics and Orthodox Christians. This argument was also used by V. Lossky in his criticism of Archpriest S. Bulgakov during the famous "dispute about Sofia". See: Lossky V. N. Dispute about Sofia / / Lossky V. N. Dispute about Sofia. Articles of different years, Moscow, St. Vladimir's Brotherhood Publishing House, 1996, pp. 7-79, here: 22-23.

44. Their philosophical creativity, of course, cannot be reduced to pure fideism, but the fideistic motive of all three is very strong and in some cases decisive.

page 116
work on one's own salvation is controlled by the authority of the Church, but not by thinking. It is in this context that there is a widespread perception that the holy Fathers studied theology only under compulsion, due to the need to refute "heretical reasoning". In accordance with this, theological thought is reduced to the necessary minimum: reading out the provisions of the Christian faith from the Holy Scriptures and other authoritative texts and formalizing them. Their truth and obligation are confirmed by references to Scripture and Tradition, and they themselves, like axioms in geometry, form the basis of theological constructions, since they are still indispensable for the formation of the Church's identity as a community.

The essential point here is the rejection of" natural theology "and" natural religion " as the formal possibility of the human spirit to realize its aspiration to the transcendent. Any "analogy" is under suspicion and banned. Criticism of "philosophy" easily turns into criticism of any theology that uses philosophical terminology and standard schemes of philosophical thought, appeals to philosophical problems, generally strives to build a "system" or even just "abstract theorizing".

Nevertheless, it is precisely the most consistent implementation of this attitude that leads its supporters to a number of perplexities, the main one of which was most clearly formulated by K. Barth: "As theologians, we must talk about God. However, we are human beings, and therefore we cannot speak of God. " 45 Here theological reflection develops paradoxically from the realization of the impossibility of theology as a human word that tries to be adequate to the Word of God.

This allows us to draw the following preliminary conclusions:

1. The ethos of religion formed under the sign of the category "faith" can be extremely unfavorable for the development of rationality, can devalue and make it meaningless.

45. Bart K. The Word of God as a task of theology // Comparative Theology: German Protestantism of the 20th century. Texts with comments. Ukolov K. I., ed. Moscow, PSTGU, 2009. pp. 186-213, here p. 189.

page 117
2. This ethos and the associated forms of life are not something accidental and introduced from outside for Christian and generally monotheistic religiosity; on the contrary, it is formed in a natural way, and therefore the difficulties and potential conflict situations associated with it are likely to always have more or less influence.

3. At the same time, in some cases, in particular, in its milder or, on the contrary, maximally consistent and radical forms, this type of religious ethos can provoke the formation of productive, although often marginal forms of rationality, and open up new ways and dimensions of human thinking.

The Ethos of Religious Experience and the Value of rationality

In a fundamentally different way, the ethos of religion is formed under the sign of the category "experience". His relations with the various forms of rationality will also be different (though just as far from perfect harmony). First of all, the absolute transcendence of God, in Whom one can "only believe", is replaced here by the experience of "the presence of the transcendent in the immanent", which is difficult to categorize: "The object of religion, God, is something, on the one hand, completely transcendent, alien, external to the world and man, but, on the other, it is revealed to religious consciousness it touches him, enters into him, becomes his immanent content " 46. A person experiences this presence, and it fills his life with meaning, building in his consciousness the corresponding ordo amoris47. This naturally changes, in comparison with the previous type, the whole perspective of ideas about the relationship between God and the world. The act of creation is not conceived here as a mere external, in some sense accidental, action of the Divine Will, which has no basis. Rather, it is understood as an act grounded in the Deity Itself, in which God, through His Love, puts something of Himself into this world. The person who lives and acts in the world himself appears here as a carrier of bo-

46. Bulgakov S. N. Decree, Op. p. 88. See also Frank. Edict. op. p. 250.

47. See, for example: "Religious experience is spontaneously expressed in changing attitudes..." - Lonergan B. Method in theology, Moscow: St. Thomas Institute, 2010, p. 125.

page 118
a natural beginning. The value of peace and human activity, of course, increases significantly: God does not draw this value upon Himself, but rather is thought of as its source, as the beginning that gives value to the world and to human activity in the world. Here, earthly values, including rationality, are not opposed to divine ones, but are "sanctified", receiving a "heavenly", transcendent dimension. The meaning of culture is not the utilitarian adaptation of man to existence in a temporary refuge and school, but the creative transformation of the world in accordance with the divine plan for it.

Sin is understood here precisely as a distortion of essentially good or even" divine " human potentials, or as their mismatch. Rationality also belongs to such essentially good, but distorted or detached from the inner integrity of spiritual forces. Accordingly, the critique of rationality, which, of course, also takes place in such an attitude, will, as we will see, be more an attempt to correct this distortion by discovering new forms of "believing thinking" than a rejection of reason as such.

Revelation is understood here not as the communication of new truths about God, but as the self-revelation of the Divine Presence, the experience of which is the true knowledge of God. Discursive knowledge turns out to be secondary, the concept of authority is blurred by the idea of inner life, direct experience.48 The personal uniqueness of man and God is constituted not by an abstract positing, but by the uniqueness of their encounter in religious experience.

From this it can be seen that, while positively evaluating a person's creative potentials in general,this attitude can fluctuate in a certain way with respect to rationality. This search for new," believing "(I. V. Kireevsky) or" giving thanks "(K. Hemmerle) thinking can become a pretext for lowering the status of" grasping", "controlling" it

48. Compare A. S. Khomyakov: "The Church is not an authority, just as God is not an authority, and Christ is not an authority; for authority is something external to us. Not authority, I say, but truth and at the same time the Christian's life, his inner life." Khomyakov A. S. A few words of an Orthodox Christian about the pamphlet by G. Lorancy / / Khomyakov A. S. Soch. v 2-x tt. T. 2. Works on theology. Moscow: Moskovsky filosofsky fond, 1994. pp. 25-72, here p. 43_44.

page 119
formalization, blurring of the criteria and principles developed by them. The source of this attitude is precisely the inherent religious ethos of this kind and the pathos of mystery and uniqueness of a single, unique, and therefore non-rationalized experience cultivated in it. This pathos reaches its climax in the pursuit of the unio mystica, for which rationality also turns out to be unnecessary and harmful: from the point of view of authors such as Rev. Simeon the New Theologian, "only a personal mystical experience and he alone gives the right to judge things divine" 50.

Let us turn to the analysis of the relations of this type of religious ethos with concrete forms of rationality.

Its relations with rationality of the hypothetical-deductive objectifying type are most problematic. The sensualist concept of experience that underlies the latter is epistemologically completely different, and axiologically certainly hostile to the idea of experience as a deep soul or spiritual experience. According to very common ideas, the emphasis on sensory experience in Modern natural science leads to the dominance of worldviews in which the spiritual and mystical life of a person is emasculated, and the connection with the deep levels of his being is lost. At the same time, the uncritical interpenetration of the two conceptions of experience leads to naive attempts to present, for example, Orthodox asceticism as an "empirical science" that supposedly satisfies the criteria of scientific rationality (which are also superficially perceived).51. the study of the neurophysiological foundations of mystical experience and their apologetic or, conversely, atheistic interpretations: "from attempts to use neuroscience to justify

49. Pylaev M. A. Filosofskaya fenomenologiya sviazhennogo K. Hemmerle [Philosophical phenomenology of the sacred K. Hemmerle]. Philosophy. 2009. Issue 4 (28). pp. 29-43, here p. 37.

50. Averintsev S. S. "Our philosophy" / / Averintsev S. S. Sofia-Logos. Dictionary. pp. 610-639. here p. 633.

51. See, for example: "Patriotic asceticism is a real empirical science..." - Dronov M., prot. Orthodox asceticism and psychoanalysis / / Fathers, Mothers, and Children: Orthodox education and the modern world, Moscow: Moskovskoe podvorye Svyato-Troitsky Sergiev Lavra, 2001, pp. 101-118, here p. 102. At the same time, the author either criticizes the positivist concept of experience, or turns to it in order to demonstrate the "unscientific" nature of psychoanalysis.

page 120
theology and the value of religious experiences before "methodological agnosticism" and "methodological naturalism" " 52.

Emphasizing the depth of spiritual life and ascetic practice, on the contrary, can lead to the displacement of empirical science and related technology, the condemnation of their "corrupting" influence on human life, and the development of a conservative utopian imagination that appeals to the idea of non-technological ways of developing civilization.53
At the same time, it should be noted that all these problems arise primarily in the interaction of the considered religious ethos in its modern, rather elementary forms with the most straightforward variants of this form of rationality, which can be conditionally called "positivist". The deeper and more original forms of understanding religious experience that were formed in the tradition of Christian Platonism are often much closer to the more complex and original, axiologically and metaphysically loaded forms of rationality. We are confronted with such a state of affairs in the work of Nicholas of Cusa, a thinker who is inspired by the idea of an "infinite rational universe of being and a rational science systematically mastering it"that constitutes the New Age54. For him, " every kind of necessity that we find in scientific knowledge, especially mathematical knowledge, has its origin in the free activity of the mind," and it also contains "the foundations for raising everything that is empirically variable to a regular certainty." 55 The inner life, religious introspection, is here a condition for the possibility of scientific knowledge, and this knowledge itself is the form of such a self - deepening life, while philosophical reflection is its bond. It seems, however, that described by many authors of the XIX-XX centuries (in particular, Husserl in the "Crisis of European Relations").

52. Malevich T. V. Neyroteologiya: teorii religii i nauki o mozge [Neurotheology: theories of religion and brain science]. 2012. N 1-2 (7-8). Moscow, 2013. pp. 62-83, here p. 63.

53. See: Katasonov V. N. O vozmozhnosti drugoi tsivilizatsii v svete opyta svyatykh [On the possibility of another civilization in the light of the Saints ' experience]. Materials. Vol. 1. Moscow, PSTGU, 2009, pp. 48-52.

54. Husserl E. Krizis evropeyskikh nauk i transcendental'naia fenomenologiya [The Crisis of European Sciences and transcendental Phenomenology]. St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dal, 2004, p. 39.

55. Cassirer E. Individ i kosmos v filosofii Vozrozhdeniya [Individual and cosmos in the Philosophy of Renaissance] / / Kassirer E. Izbrannoe: Individ i kosmos. M. - SPb.: Universitetskaya kniga, 2000. pp. 7-206, here p. 41-42 (citations from Kuzants, see p. 84-85).

page 121
the process of disintegration and emasculation of this ideal is by no means accidental, and therefore a simple return to this ideal is hardly possible. In any case, all the main trends of modern social life obviously contradict any spiritual movement that has such a return in mind.

Conversely, one can speak of a certain kind of "selective affinity" between the experiential ethos of religion and hermeneutical humanitarian rationality, since the latter ultimately, through the interpretation of the text, "seeks to grasp the historical constitution of human forms of life through acts of understanding." 56 As Dilthey puts it, " the work of the spiritual sciences is at every point and stage of its development. at every moment, it generates a circulation of experience, understanding, and representation of the spiritual world in universal terms."57. Here, it seems to me, we can speak quite confidently about the positive influence of the religiosity of a certain style ("pietism") on the formation of humanitarian knowledge. However, with Schleiermacher in mind, it is also necessary to remember that this influence is mediated by the secularization of pietical religiosity in Romanticism. At the same time, Romanticism itself was, of course, not just one of the stages in the development of the secularization process of Modern times, but also one of the most significant forms of reaction against it.

Finally, it should be noted that the acceptance of the Dilthean triad (experience-expression-understanding)leads to the fact that hermeneutical rationality is an integral part of the method of theological thinking, which is based on the ethos of religious experience. 58
However, even here there is a ground for tension. It is within the framework of the humanities that the concept of "spiritual culture", which is very ambivalent in relation to religion, is formed (in W. von Humboldt), which is understood, as S. L. Frank and P. B. Struve wrote in an early joint article, "as the totality of ab-

56. Apel K.-O. Razvitie "analiticheskoi filosofii yazyka" i problema "nauk o dukh" [The development of the "analytical Philosophy of Language" and the problem of the "sciences of the spirit"]. Apel K.-O. Transformatsiya filosofii, Moscow: Logos, 2001, pp. 103-170, here p. 164.

57.Cit. by: Apel K.-O. Decree. Op. p. 164.

58. This is already found in Schleiermacher's "Christian Faith", in the XX century in Lonergan. See: M. A. Pylaev, E. S. Morozova. Vestnik PSTGU I: Bogoslovie [Bulletin of PSTSU I: Theology]. Philosophy 2015. Issue 1 (57). pp. 56-68.

page 122
the values created and created by humanity and constituting its spiritual and social existence " 59. On the one hand, this concept is associated with the idea of a specific teleology of the formation of the human spirit, a certain perception of history - as the history of culture and the formation of forms of spiritual life, as a kind of fate, often tragic, of the human spirit; an understanding that, when deepened, can quite easily pass into the forms of religious perception of history in any case, it is easy to get an interpretation from the point of view of such perception. Spiritual culture in all its breadth and diversity and its systematic study can acquire significant value and significance for the formation of the religious life of the type under consideration.

On the contrary, on the other hand, the concept of "spiritual culture" is conceived as a broader concept in relation to the concept of religion, which is thus included in the first concept as one of the possible and existing forms of spiritual life along with other forms. Moreover, various forms of religious life are included in this concept as equal:"In culture, both pagan Venus and Christian Madonna live side by side as bright rays that shed light and life." 60 Both of these moments are in some sense necessary and constitutive for humanitarian rationality, but from the point of view of religious ethos, they are unacceptable.

The resulting contradiction is removed or at least smoothed out by philosophical reflection. However, the status of the latter here again turns out to be ambiguous. On the one hand, we see that the "ethos of experience" is clearly more favorable for the development of philosophical thought than the "ethos of faith". A number of the most significant philosophical concepts and trends in the history of thought arise under the explicit or implicit influence of this ethos: historians of philosophy are well aware of the influence of Rhenish mysticism and J. Boehme on the formation of German classics, and the role of the idea of religious experience in the development of Russian religious philosophy. It is obvious that a direct religious experience (especially a mystical one), since it requires its own understanding and discursive interpretation, is often difficult to understand.

59. Frank S. L., Struve P. B. Ocherki filosofii kul'tury [Essays on the philosophy of Culture]. Unread... Moscow: Moscow School of Political Studies, 2001, pp. 37-62, here p. 43.

60. Ibid., p. 48.

page 123
it forces thinkers, on the one hand, to raise the ultimate questions about the meaning of reality, and on the other - to go beyond the framework of standardized theology, to look for new forms of thought and speech. Philosophy proves to be a necessary form of conceptualization of religious experience even when it "flares up" within a secularized society, whose members who experience religious conversion are forced to explain to themselves and others in the language of this society what happened to them and how it became possible. Philosophical introspection can become a path to religion, 61 and it can also serve as an incentive to deepen religious life itself.

However, while certainly contributing to the development of philosophical thought, the religious ethos of experience does not always treat it favorably. Philosophical reflection, as a form of inner life and experience that claims to capture a person completely, to become the highest possible satisfaction of his spiritual needs (Latin Averroist disputes), finds itself in a complex relationship not only with faith, but also with religious piety, which is based on experience and does not want to give up the primacy of philosophy. The concepts of "believing thinking" that arise here (Welte, Hemmerle) find themselves in a very difficult position in their attempts to reconcile the piety of thinking and the thinking of piety.62 Religious experience often tends to regard any philosophy as "scholasticism", that is, as a rationalizing profanation of genuine human existence, a source of inter-confessional conflicts and rationalistic "corruption" of theological thought.63
Thus, it becomes clear that ecclesiastical theological thought itself is not in such a simple and favorable position here.

On the one hand, the attitude to experience contributes to the formation of the idea of semantic inexhaustibility

61. As I. V. Kireevsky wrote, for example, about Schelling: "Schelling did not turn to Christianity, but moved to it naturally, as a result of the deep and correct development of his rational self-consciousness." On the possibility and necessity of new principles for philosophy. Critique and Aesthetics, Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ., 1979, pp. 293_332, here p. 329.

62. See Pylaev. Philosophical phenomenology of the Sacred by K. Hemmerle. pp. 42-43; Konacheva. Edict. op. p. 258-268.

63. A topic that suddenly appears in the last conversations of Mitr. Anthony of Sourozh: Anthony (Blum), mitr. Confidence in things unseen. Last Conversations, Moscow: Nikeya Publ., 2012.

page 124
It also contributes to the development of an allegorical and anagogic mode of interpretation. The desire to find a formally understood consensus patrum in tradition is replaced here by the idea of "unity in the spirit", the unity of spiritual (ascetic-mystical or liturgical) experience, "a life that communicates to each member of the Body of Christ the ability to hear, accept, and know the Truth in its proper light, and not in the natural light of the human mind"64. This unity of life is considered, on the one hand, as more significant than the first, formal, unity, and on the other - as something that does not interfere with the diversity and development of theological ideas, the movement of "perplexed, hesitating, testing, doubting, drilling theological thought"65. Fundamental changes are taking place in the very idea of the theological method: attempts to build theological knowledge on the model of deductive science are being replaced by the search for "experimental dogmatics", which seeks to formulate the main propositions of faith based on fundamental religious experiences.66 In Russian thought, even among the Slavophiles, we see a desire to move from proving dogmas "by formally correct conclusions" to delving "into the meaning of the dogma itself"67 - and this means that a variety of hermeneutical strategies become an essential aspect of the theological method, and there is an awareness of the theological significance of the fact that "modern man is engaged in creating his modern world, freeing himself from attachment to tradition and authority, developing his own worldview and thereby reinterpreting views that existed in the past" 68. undoubtedly, it increases the importance of complex forms of rationality

64. See: Losskiy V. N. Predanie i predaniya [Legend and Traditions] // Lossky V. N. In the image and likeness. Moscow, Publishing House of the St. Vladimir Brotherhood, 1995. pp. 129-151, here p. 138.

65. Bulgakov S., prot. On the ways of dogma / / Bulgakov. The Path of Parisian Theology, Moscow: Church of the Holy Martyr Tatiana at Moscow State University, p. 394_418, here p. 395.

66. See: Pylaev, Morozova. The Philosophical theology of Phil. Schleiermacher... In Russian thought, this can be seen starting with the Slavophils and with a special vividness in the thought of the beginning of the XX century, in O. P. Florensky, M. A. Novoselov and others. See: Florensky P. A. Dogmatism and dogmatics / / Florensky P. A. Sobr. soch. Vol. 1. Moscow: Mysl, 1994. pp. 550-570.

67. See Hamsters. A few words ... P. 50; Samarin Yu. F. Preface to the theological works of A. S. Khomyakov / / Samarin. Orthodoxy and Nationality, Moscow: Institute of Russian Civilization, 2008, pp. 34_73, here p. 71.

68. Lonergan. Method in theology. P. 174.

page 125
within theology and the significance of theological thought itself for religious consciousness (Solovyov, Schmemann), for which, from this point of view, there is no other way to preserve its own identity, except for a constant effort to understand itself against the background of a constantly changing modern consciousness. In the end, we can no longer talk about forced interaction with the modern "secular" world and its rationality, but rather about identifying a constantly existing mutual need: The Church and modern society, religion and rationality "not only forcibly allow each other to exist, but also truly cannot do without each other and are aware of this"69.

At the same time, it is necessary to take into account that the desire to revise classical forms of rationality, which was often carried out, especially in Russian thought, in the form of criticism of "scholasticism" or the so-called " Western captivity of Orthodox theology "(Samarin, Florovsky), in reality may turn out to be nothing more than a disguise of romantic infantilism, fearing the "impending danger". 70. A more radical form of this disguise can be the attitude described above in relation to philosophy - but it is quite possible and even quite common in relation to theological thinking, and especially in relation to the theological science that "supports" this thinking - as an element that profanes authentic and deep religious experience by creating "religious-historical preparations"71. Such an attitude can be no less dangerous for theological knowledge and its development than direct aggressive denial of such knowledge on the basis of fideistic fundamentalism.

Preliminary conclusions regarding the religious ethos that is formed on the basis of the category of experience may look something like this.

1. The relationship of religious experience and rationality is a special type of relationship between religio and ratio, which cannot be reduced to those that are usually in the sphere of attention

69. Antonov K. M." Vekhi": ponyatie religii v kontekste filosofskogo postizheniya moderna v XX veke ["Vekhi": the concept of religion in the context of philosophical comprehension of modernity in the XX century]. Proceedings of the symposium held in Rome on 26 February 2009. Rome, 2012. pp. 175-194.

70. See: Vayskopf M. The Loving Demiurge: Metaphysics and Eroticism of Russian Romanticism, Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2012, p. 92.

71. Bulgakov. Svet Nevecherniy [The Light of Non-Evening]. p. 83.

page 126
the relationship of "faith" and "reason"; it is associated with its own difficulties and problems. 2. In particular, mystical fundamentalism, because of the experiential sensitivity of the direct access it offers to the fullness of truth and being, can be not less, but more convincing in its rejection of the ways of reason than fideistic fundamentalism.

3. This religious ethos is generally not free from producing conflict situations, and the conflicts of "experience" and "reason" can only be considered less significant by misunderstanding than the conflicts of" reason "and" faith"; the problematic nature of relations that are marked by these conflicts is inherent in the very structure of relations between religion and rationality.

4. Within the framework of modern culture, the development of complex forms of natural science, humanitarian, philosophical and theological rationality is very problematic, in relation to which this ethos reveals a relationship of affinity and mutual sympathy.

5. Nevertheless, the ethos of experience does not seem to be as negative to rationality as the ethos of faith, and it implies a greater variety of relations between religion and rationality, including those that can be considered "most-favored-nation regimes". Taken as a whole, the lengthy presentation allows us to draw some general conclusions.

The main conclusion from the above is that the problematic nature of relations between religion and science (in the broadest sense of the word) is not determined by the particular divergence of individual fragments of the religious and scientific picture of the world, but is embedded in the very logic of their inherent value systems and orientations, according to which these pictures arise.

Because of this, it seems that the interaction of religion and rationality in the modern world inevitably leads to conflict situations both at the level of the individual's personal consciousness and at the level of public institutions.

At the same time, the desire to reduce these particular discrepancies in fragments or to combine both pictures of reality within a single system of "integral knowledge", despite all the impressive grandeur of individual attempts (Solovyov), appears, at least at the present time, as excessively straightforward-

page 127
These strategies contain an integral utopian element and are therefore ineffective.

An attempt of religious (i.e., theological and religious-philosophical) justification of the value of rationality as a significant aspect of human nature, revealing its essential capabilities as an image of God, as a certain form of spiritual life, is more promising, regardless of the particular concrete results (often destructive and negative) that a person achieves in the process of its implementation.

It is on this basis that it is possible to establish a dialogical relationship of mutual polemical recognition, in which these conflicts, without losing their sharpness, can play a non-destructive, but productive role in modern culture.

If religion blesses science, then science, having gained its meaning, can in turn clarify and comprehend religion.

Bibliography/References

Averintsev S. S. "Nasha filosofiya" ["Our Philosophy"].Sofia-Logos. Dictionary. Kiev: Dukh

i Літера. С. 610 - 639. Averintsev S. S. Vera [Faith] / / Averintsev S. S. Sofia-Logos. Dictionary. Киев: Дух і Літера, 2006.

P. 135-136. Anthony (Blum), mitr. Confidence in things unseen. Last Conversations, Moscow: Nikeya Publ., 2012.

Antonov K. M. "Vekhi": the concept of religion in the context of philosophical comprehension of modernity in the XX century / / "Vekhi" of Russian religious thought: 1909-2009. Proceedings of the symposium held in Rome on 26 February 2009. Rome, 2012. pp. 175-194.

Antonov K. M. Znanie v estestvennoi nauke i v religii: filosofskoe oposredovanie [Knowledge in Natural Science and Religion: philosophical mediation].

Apel K.-O. The development of the "analytical philosophy of language" and the problem of the "sciences of the spirit" / / Apel K-O. Transformation of Philosophy, Moscow: Logos Publ., 2001, pp. 103-170.

Barbur I. Religion and Science: History and Modernity, Moscow: BBI Publishing House, 2000.

Bart K. The Word of God as a task of theology / / Comparative theology: German Protestantism of the XX century. Texts with comments. Ukolov K. I., ed., Moscow: PSTGU, 2009, pp. 186-213.

Bibikhin V. V. Vremya chit Rozanova [Time to read Rozanov] / / Rozanov V. V. On understanding. Moscow: Tanais, 1996. pp. IX-XXV.

Borunkov Yu. F. Incompatibility of scientific and religious knowledge / / 50 years of the Department of Philosophy of Religion and Religious Studies of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University. Moscow: Izdatel ' Vorob'ev A.V., 2009. pp. 48-57.

Brook J. H. Nauka i religiya: istoricheskaya perspektiva [Science and Religion: a Historical Perspective]. Moscow: BBI Publishing House, 2004.

page 128
Bulgakov S., prot. On the paths of dogma // Bulgakov S. The path of Parisian Theology.:

Church of the Holy Martyr Tatiana at Moscow State University, 2007. pp. 394-418. Bulgakov S. N. Svet Nevecherniy. Moscow, 1994.

Bufeev K., prot. Heresy of evolutionism / / Shestodnev vs evolyutsii. In defense of the Patristic doctrine of Creation, Moscow: Palomnik, 2000, pp. 151-232.

Vayskopf M. The Loving Demiurge: Metaphysics and Eroticism of Russian Romanticism, Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2012.

Husserl, E. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dahl, 2004.

Davydenkov O., prot. Dogmatic theology, Moscow: PSTGU, 2013.

Diltey V. Hermeneutical system of Schleiermacher in its differences from the previous Protestant hermeneutics / / Diltey V. Collected works in 6 vols. Vol. IV. Moscow: Dom intellektual'noi knigi, 2001. pp. 13-234.

Dronov M., prot. Orthodox asceticism and psychoanalysis / / Fathers, Mothers, and Children: Orthodox education and the modern world, Moscow: Moskovskoe podvorye Svyato-Troitsky Sergiev Lavra, 2001, pp. 101-118.

Gilson E. Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages / / Theology in the culture of the Middle Ages. Kiev: Path to Truth, 1992, pp. 6-48. John (Wendland), mitr. The Bible and Evolution. Yaroslavl, 1998.

Cassirer E. Kassirer E. Izbrannoe: Individ i kosmos v filosofii Vozrozhdeniya [Individual and cosmos in the Philosophy of Renaissance]. Moscow, Saint Petersburg: Universitetskaya kniga, 2000, pp. 7-206.

Kassirer E. Filosofiya simvolicheskikh formov [Philosophy of Symbolic forms], vol. 1. Yazyk [Language], St. Petersburg: Universitetskaya kniga Publ., 2001.

Katasonov V. N. O vozmozhnosti drugoi tsivilizatsii v svete opyta svyatykh [On the possibility of another civilization in the light of the Saints ' experience]. Materials, Vol. 1, Moscow, 2009, pp. 48-52.

Katasonov V. N. Protestant exegesis of the Bible and the emergence of Modern science // Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. 1.Bogoslovie [Theology]. Philosophy. 4 (20). 2007. pp. 55-66.

Kireevsky I. V. O vozmozhnosti i neobkhodobnosti novykh nachal dlya filosofii [On the possibility and necessity of new principles for philosophy].

Konacheva S. A. Genesis. Sacred. God. Heidegger and Philosophical theology of the XX century, Moscow: RSUH, 2010.

Kuraev A., diak. Christianity and Science / / http://azbyka. ru / vera_i_neverie/nauka_i_religiya/lg26-all. shtml (accessed from 11.09.2013).

Kurtz P. The Declaration of secular humanism / / http: / / www. humanism. ru/declaration. htm (accessed from 27.08.2013).

Lomonosov M. V. The phenomenon of Venus on the Sun, observed at the St. Petersburg Imperial Academy of Sciences on May 26, 1761. Addition / / Lomonosov M. V. Poln. sobr. soch. T. 4. Moscow-L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1955. pp. 370-376.

Lonergan B. Metod v teologii [Method in theology], Moscow: St. Thomas Institute, 2010.

Lopatin L. M. Positive Problems of Philosophy, vol. 1, Moscow, 1889.

Lossky V. N. Legend and legends // Lossky V. N. Po obrazhu i podobiyu [In the image and likeness], Moscow: Publishing House of the St. Vladimir Brotherhood, 1995, pp. 129-151.

Lossky V. N. Dispute about Sofia / / Lossky V. N. Dispute about Sofia. Articles of different years, Moscow: St. Vladimir's Brotherhood Publishing House, 1996, p. 7_79.

Luka (Voino-Yasenetsky), Archbishop, Holy Science and Religion, Moscow, Binom Publ., 2006.

Malevich T. V. Neyroteologiya: teorii religii i nauki o mozge [Neurotheology: Theories of Religion and Brain Science]. 2012. N 1-2 (7-8). Moscow, 2013. pp. 62-83.

page 129
Merton R. Sotsial'naya teoriya i sotsial'naya struktura [Social theory and Social structure]. Moscow, 2006.

Mirskaya E. Z. R. K. Merton and the ethos of classical science. Issue 11. Ethos of Science at the Turn of the Century, Moscow: IF RAS, 2005, pp. 11-28.

Mitrokhin L. N. Nauchnoe znanie i religiya na rubezhe XXI veka [Scientific knowledge and religion at the turn of the XXI century] // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2000. Vol. 70. N 1. pp. 3-20.

Motroshilova N. V. Western sociology of science, its critical development in Russian thought (50s-80s of the XX century) and modern assessments // Motroshilov N. V. Otechestvennaya filosofiya 50-kh - 80-kh gg. XX v. i zapadnaya mysl ' [Domestic philosophy of the 50s-80s of the XX century and Western thought]. Moscow: Akademicheskiy proekt, 2012. pp. 153-182.

Pylaev M. A., Morozova E. S. Filosofskaya teologiya [Philosophical Theology]. Vestnik PSTGU I: Bogoslovie [Bulletin of PSTSU I: Theology]. Philosophy 2015. Issue 1 (57). pp. 56-68.

Pylaev M. A. The category of "sacred" in the phenomenology of religion, theology and philosophy of the XX century. Moscow: RSUH, 2011.

Pylaev M. A. Filosofskaya fenomenologiya sviazhennogo K. Hemmerle [Philosophical phenomenology of the sacred K. Hemmerle]. Philosophy. 2009. Issue 4 (28). pp. 29-43.

Pylaev M. A., Antonov K. M. "The Holy" in Russian philosophical thought and in Western phenomenology of religion. 2008. N 3. pp. 118-128.

Russell B. History of Western philosophy. Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State University Press, 1999.

Ratsch D. Science and religion // Oxford Guide to Philosophical Theology, Moscow: yazyki slavyanskoi kul'tury, 2013, pp. 99-133.

Samarin Yu. F. Preface to the theological works of A. S. Khomyakov // Samarin Yu. F. Orthodoxy and Nationality, Moscow: Institute of Russian Civilization, 2008, pp. 34-73.

Seleznev M. G. Vera kak vyzvok [Faith as a challenge]. http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/l939 520.html (accessed from 3.05.2013). Solov'ev V. S. Critique of abstract principles //Solov'ev V. S. Sochineniya v 2'kh tt. T. 1 [Works in 2 volumes]. Moscow: Mysl', 1988.

Comparative Theology: German Protestantism of the 20th century. Texts with comments, Moscow: PSTGU, 2009.

Tillich P. Dialectical theology // Put: Organ of Russian religious Thought. Paris. No. 1, 1925. pp. 148-154.

That led and created. Modern scientists on the creation of the world. Klin: Christian Life Foundation, 1999.

Trubetskoy S. N. Religion. Article from the Encyclopedia dictionary / / Trubetskoy S. N. Collected Works, Vol. 2. Moscow, 1908. pp. 499-509.

Ukolov K. I. Dialectical theology of K. Barth in the reports of 1922 / / Comparative theology: German Protestantism of the XX century. Texts with comments, Moscow: PSTGU, 2009, pp. 181-185.

Ukolov K. I. Problema religioznogo apriori v zapadnoy i russkoy religioznoy filosofii [The problem of Religious a priori in Western and Russian Religious Philosophy]. Philosophy. 2010. Issue 1 (29), pp. 25-42.

Ukolov K. I. The Problem of Religious a priori in Western Religious Philosophy (Ed. Trelch, P. Tillich) // Vestnik PSTGU I: Bogoslovie. Philosophy. 2008. Issue 3 (23), pp. 45-55.

Florenskiy P. A. Dogmatism and dogmatics / / Florenskiy P. A. Sobr. soch. T. 1. Moscow: Mysl, 1994. pp. 550-570.

page 130
Frank S. L. God is with us. Three Reflections / / Frank S. L. Dukhovnye osnovy obshchestva [Spiritual foundations of society]. Moscow: Respublika Publ., 1992.

Frank S. L. O neosobnosti filosofii (Pis'mo k druga) [On the impossibility of philosophy (A letter to a friend)].

Frank S. L. Religion and Science. Brussels: Life with God, 1953.

Frank S. L., Struve P. B. Ocherki filosofii kul'tury [Essays on the philosophy of culture]. Frank S. L. Neprochitannoe... Moscow: Moskovskaya shkola politicheskikh issledovaniy, 2001, pp. 37-62.

Khomyakov A. S. A few words of an Orthodox Christian about the pamphlet by G. Lorancy / / Khomyakov A. S. Soch. in 2 vols. Vol. 2. Works on theology. Moscow: Moskovsky filosofsky fond, 1994. pp. 25-72.

The Church and the world. Osnovy sotsial'noi kontseptsii Russkoy Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi [Fundamentals of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church].

Shmaliy V., prot. Theology / / Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. V. 2002. p. 520.

Anthonii (Bloom), mitr. (2012) Uuerennost' v ueshhah neuidimyh. Poslednie besedy [Confidence in Things Unseen. Last Talks]. M.: Nikeja.

Antonov, K. M. (2008) "Znanie v estestvennoi nauke i v religii: filosofskoe oposredovanie" [Knowledge in Natural Science and in Religion: Philosophical Mediation] [http:// www.bogoslov.ru/text/290638.html, dostup ot 30.03.2008].

Antonov, K. M. (2012) "'Vehi': poniatie religii v kontekste filosofskogo postizheniia moderna v XX veke", in "Vehi" russkoi religioznoi mysli: 1909 - 2009. Akty simpoziuma, proshedshego v Rime 26 fevralia 2009 goda ["Milestones": Concept of Religion in context of Philosophical Comprehension of modern in 20th Century, in "Milestones" of Russian Religious Thought: igog-20og. Acts of Symposium that took place in Rome on the 26th of February, 2009], pp. 175 - 194. Rim.

Ареl', K. -O. (2001) "Razvitie "analiticheskoi filosofii iazyka" i problema "nauk о dukhe", in Transformaciia filosofii [Evolution of "Analytic Philosophy of Language" and Problem of "Moral Sciences", in Transformation of Philosophy], pp. 103 - 170. M.: Logos.

Averintsev, S.S. (2006) "Nasha filosofija" ["Our Philosophy"], in Sofia-Logos. Slovar', pp. 610 - 639. Kiev: Duh i Litera.

Averintsev, S.S. (2006) "Vera" [Faith], in Sofiia-Logos. Slovar', pp.135 - 136. Kiev: Duh i Litera.

Barbur, J. (2000) Religiia i nauka: istoriia i sovremennost' [Religion and Science: History and The Present]. M.: Izd-vo BBI.

Bart, K. (2009) "Slovo Bozhie kak zadacha bogosloviia", in Sraunitel'noe bogoslouie: nemeckii protestantizm XX ueka. Teksty s kommentariiami. UkolouK.I., red. [God's Word as Problem of Theology, in Comparative Theology: German Protestantism of 20th century], pp. 186 - 213. M.: PSTGU.

Bibihin, V.V. (1996) "Vremia chitat' Rozanova", in Rozanov V.V. О ponimanii [It's Time to Read Rozanov, in Rozanov V.V. On Comprehension], pp. IX-XXV. M.: Tanais.

Borunkov, Iu. F. (2009) "Nesovmestimost' nauchnogo i religioznogo poznaniia", in 50 let Kafedre filosofii religii i religiovedeniia filosofskogo fakul'teta MGU [Incompatibility of Scientific and Religious Knowledge, in 50th years of Department of Philosophy of Religion and Religious Studies of Faculty of Philosophy of the MSU], pp. 48 - 57. M.: Izdatel' Vorob'ev A.V.

Bruk, J. H. (2004) Nauka i religiia: istoricheskaia perspektiva [Science and Religion: Historical Perspective]. M.: Izd-vo BBI.

page 131
Bulgakov, S., prot. "Na putiah dogmy", in Put'parizhskogo bogosloviia [On the Pathes of Dogma, in Path of Parisian Theology], pp. 394 - 418. M.: Hram svjatoj muchenicy Tatiany pri MGU.

Bulgakov, S.N. (1994) Svet Nevechernii [Unfading Light]. M.

Bufeev, K., prot. (2000) "Eres' evoljucionizma", in Shestodnev protiv evoliucii. V zashhitu sviatootecheskogo uchenija о tvorenii [Heresy of Evolutionism, in "Six Days of Creation" against Evolution. Witness for Patristic Teaching on Creation], pp. 151 - 232. M.: Palomnik.

Davydenkov, O., prot. (2013) Dogmaticheskoe bogoslouie [Dogmatic Theology]. M.: PSTGU.

Dilthey, W. (2001) "Germenevticheskaia sistema Shlejermahera v ее otlichii ot predshestvuiushhei protestantskoi germenevtiki", in Sobranie sochinenij v 6 tt. T. IV [Schleiermacher's Hermeneutical System in Relation to Earlier Protestant Hermeneutics], pp. 13 - 234. M.: Dom intellektual'noj knigi.

Dronov, M., prot. (2001) "Pravoslavnaia asketika i psihoanaliz", in Otcy, materi, deti: prauoslaunoe uospitanie i souremennyi mir [Orthodox Asceticism and Psychoanalysis, in Fathers, Mothers, Children: Orthodox Education and Contemporary World], pp. 101 - 118. M.: Moskovskoe podvor'e Sviato-Troickoi Sergievoi Lavry.

Florenskii, P. (1994) "Dogmatizm i dogmatika", in Sobr. soch. T. 1. ["Dogmatism and Dogmatics", in Collected Works, V 1], pp. 550 - 570. M., Mysl'.

Frank, S. (1953) Religiia i nauka [Religion and Science]. Briussel': Zhizn' s Bogom.

Frank, S. (1992) "Vera-doverie i vera-dostovernost'", in Dukhovnye osnovy obshchestva ["Faith as Trust and Faith as Truth", in Spiritual grounds of society], pp. 220 - 230. M.: Respublika.

Frank, S. (1996) "O nevozmozhnosti filosofii (Pis'mo к drugu)", in Russkoe mirovozzrenie ["On Impossibility of Philosophy (A Letter to a Friend)", in Russian Worldview], pp. 88 - 95. SPb.: Nauka.

Frank, S., Struve, P. (2001) "Ocherki filosofii kul'tury", in Neprochitannoe... ["Essays on Philosophy of Culture" in The Unread...], pp.37 - 62. M.: Moskovskaia shkola politicheskikh issledovanii.

Gilson, E. (1992) "Razum i Otkrovenie v Srednie veka", in Bogoslouie v kul'ture Srednevekov'ia [Reason and Revelation in Middle Ages, in Theology in Culture of Middle Ages], pp. 6 - 48. Kiev: Put' к istine.

Husserl', Ed. (2004) Krizis evropeiskih nauk i transcendental'naia fenomenologiia [The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Philosophy]. SPb.: Vladimir Dal'.

Ioann (Vendland), mitr. (1998) Bibliia i evoluciia [Bible and Evolution]. Iaroslavl'.

Kassirer, E. (2000) "Individ i kosmos v filosofii Vozrozhdeniia", in Izbrannoe: individ i kosmos [Individ and Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy, in Selected Works: Individual and Cosmos], pp. 7 - 206. M. -SPb.: Universitetskaia kniga.

Kassirer, E. (2001) Filosofiia simvolicheskih form. T.1. Iazyk [Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. Vol. 1. Language]. M. -SPb.: Universitetskaia kniga.

Katasonov, V.N. (2009) "O vozmozhnosti drugoi civilizacii v svete opyta sviatyh", in XIX Ezhegodnaia bogoslovskaia konferenciia PSTGU. Materialy. T. 1 [About Possibility of Another Civilization in the Light of Experience of Orthodox Saints, in 19th Annual Theologic Conference of St. Tikhon's Orthodox University. Materials of Conference. Vol. 1], pp. 48 - 52. M.: PSTGU.

Katasonov, V.N. (2007) "Protestantskaia ekzegeza Biblii i vozniknovenie nauki Novogo Vremeni", in Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. 1. Bogoslovie. Filosofiia [Protestant Exegesis of

page 132
Bible and Beginnings of Science of Early Modern Period, in Bulletin of St. Tikhon's Orthodox University. Ser. 1. Theology. Philosophy] 4 (20): 55 - 66.

Khomiakov, A. (1994) "Neskol'ko slov pravoslavnogo khristianina po povodu broshiury g. Loransi", in Soch. v 2-kh tt. T.2. Raboty po bogosloviiu ["A few words from an Orthodox Chrisitan on Mr. Lorency Brochure" in Collected Works in 2 v, V. 2. Theological papers], pp. 25 - 72. M.: Moskovskii filosofskii fond.

Kireevskii, I.V. (1979) "O vozmozhnosti i neobhodimosti novyh nachal dlia filosofii", in Kritika i estetika [About Possibility and Necessity of New Principles for Philosophy, in Critique and Aesthetics], pp. 293 - 332. M.: Iskusstvo.

Konacheva, S.A. (2010) Bytie. Sviashhennoe. Bog. Khaidegger i filosofskaia teologiia XX veka [Being. Holy.God.Heidegger and Philosophic Theology of 20th century]. M.: RGGU.

Kuraev, A., d. "Hristianstvo i nauka" [Christianity and Science] [http://azbyka.ru/vera_i_ neverie/nauka_i_religiya/1g26-all.shtml, dostup ot 11.09.2013].

Kurtz, P. "Deklaraciia sekuliarnogo gumanizma" [Declaration of Secular Humanism] [http://www.humanism.ru/declaration. htm, dostup ot 27.08.2013].

Lomonosov, M.V. (1955) "Iavlenie Venery na Solnce nabliudennoe v Sankt-Peterburgskoi `Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk maia 26-go dnja 1761 goda". Pribavlenie, in Poln. sobr. soch. T. 4. [Appearance of Venus on Sun as It was Observed at the St Petersburg Emperor's Academy of Sciences on May 26, 1761. Addendum, in Complete Set of Works. Vol. 4], pp. 370 - 376.

Lonergan, B. (2010) Metod v teologii [Method in Theology]. M.: Institut Sv. Fomy

Lopatin, L. M. (1889) Polozhitel'nye zadachi filosofii. T. 1. [Positive Tasks of Philosophy]. M.

Losskii, V.N. (1995) "Predanie i predaniia", in Po obrazu i podobiiu. [Tradition and traditions, in In the image and likeness], pp. 129 - 151. M.: Izd-vo Sviato-Vladimirskogo Bratstva.

Losskii, V. N. (1996) "Spor o Sofii", in Spor o Sofii. Stat'i raznyh let [Discussion of Sophia, in Discussion of Sophia. Articles of Different Years], pp. 7 - 79. M.: Izd-vo Sviato-Vladimirskogo Bratstva.

Luka (Voino-Iaseneckii), arhiep., sv. (2006) Nauka i religiia [Science and Religion]. M.: Binom.

Malevich, T.V. (2012) "Nejroteologiia: teorii religii i nauki о mozge", in Religiovedcheskie issledovaniia. N1 - 2 (7 - 8). [Neurotheology: Theories of Religion and Science of Brain, in Researches in Religious Studies], pp. 62 - 83. M.

Merton, R. (2006) Social'naja teoriia i social'naia struktura [Social Theory and Social Structure]. M.

Mirskaia, E. Z. (2005) "R. K. Merton i etos klassicheskoi nauki", in Filosofiia nauki. Vyp. 11. Etos nauki na rubezhe vekov. [R. K. Merton and Ethos of Classical Science, in Philosophy of Science. Ethos of Science at the Turn of the Centuries], pp. 11 - 28. M.: IF RAN.

Mitrohin, L. (2000) "Nauchnoe znanie i religiia na rubezhe XXI veka" [Scientific knowledge and religion at a turn of the 21st century], Vestnik Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk 70 (1): 3 - 20.

Motroshilova, N. (2012) "Zapadnaia sotsiologiia nauki, ее kriticheskoe osvoenie v otechestvennoi mysli (50-e - 80-e gody XX veka) i sovremennye otsenki", in Otechestvennaja filosofija 50-kh -80-kh gg. XX v. i zapadnaia mysl'. [Western Sociology of Science, and its critical assimilation in Russian thought (1950ies-1980ies) and contemporary evaluations, in Domestic philosophy of the 50th - the 80th of the XX century and the western thought], pp. 153 - 182. M.: Akademicheskii proekt.

page 133
Pylaev M.A., Morozova E.S. (2015) "Filosofskaia teologiia F. Shleiermakhera" [Schleiermacher's Philosophical Theology], Vestnik PSTGU I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia 1 (57): 56 - 68.

Pylaev, M. (2011) "Dogmatika Shleiermakhera po 'Veroucheniiu' i fenomenologiia sviashchennogo R. Otto", in Kategoriia "Sviashchennoe" v fenomenologii religii, teologii i filosofii XX ueka. [Schleiermacher's Dogmatics according to "Der Christliche Glaube" and R. Otto's Phenomenology of the Sacred, in The category "Sacred" in phenomenology of religion, theology and philosophy of the XX century], pp. 22 - 28. M.: RGGU.

Pylaev, M. (2011) "Sviashchennoe vkachestve 'vysshei real'nosti': Fr. Khailer", in Kategoriia "sviashchennoe" v fenomenologii religii, teologii i filosofii XX veka. [Sacred as the "Sublime Reality": Fr. Hailer, in The Category of "Holy" in Phenomenology of Religion, Theology and Philosophy], pp. 66 - 79. M.: RGGU.

Pylaev, M. (2011) "Sviashchennoe kak Misterium Tremendum i Fascinans: R. Otto" [The Holy as Misterium Tremendum and Fascinans: R. Otto], Kategoriia "sviashchennoe" v fenomenologii religii, teologii i filosofii XX veka [The Category of "Holy" in Phenomenology of Religion, Theology and Philosophy], pp. 32 - 53. M.: RGGU.

Pylaev, M. (2009) "Filosofskaia fenomenologiia sviashchennogo K. Khemmerle" [K Hemmerle's Philosophical Phenomenology of the Holy], Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. 1. Bogoslovie. Filosofiia 4 (28): 29 - 43.

Pylaev, M., Antonov, K. (2008) ""Sviatoe" v russkoi filosofskoi mysli i v zapadnoi fenomenologii religii" [The "Holy" in the Russian philosophical thought and in the Western Phenomenology of Religion], Religiovedenie 3: 118 - 128.

Russel, B. (1999) "Istoriia zapadnoi filosofii" [A History of the Western Philosophy], Novosibirsk: Izd-vo Novosibirskogo universiteta.

Ratzsch, D. (2013) "Nauka i religiia", in Oksfordskoe rukovodstvo po filosofskoi teologii. ["Science and Religion", in The Oxford Handbook of philosophical theology], pp. 99 - 133. M.: Jazyki slavianskoi kul'tury

Samarin, Iu. (2008) "Predisloviie k bogoslovskim sochineniiam A. S. Khomiakova", in Pravoslavie i narodnost'. [Foreword to the Theological Writings of A. S. Khomyakov, in Orthodoxy and nationality], pp.34 - 73. M.: Institut russkoi tsivilizatsii.

Seleznev, M. "Vera kak vyzov" [Faith as a challenge], http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/1939 520.html (accessed on 3.05.2013).

Shmalii, V., prot. (2002) "Bogoslovie", in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia. T.V ["Theology", in Orthodox Encyclopedia, V. 5], p. 520. Solov'ev, V. (1988) "Kritika otvlechennykh nachal", in Sochineniia v 2-kh tt. T. 1. ["Critique of abstract principles", in Collected Works in 2 v., V. 1]. M.: Mysl'.

Sravnitel'noe bogoslovie: nemetskii protestantizm XX veka. Teksty s kommentariiami [Comparative Theology: 20th Century German Protestantism. Commented Texts] (2009). M.: PSTGU.

Tillikh, P. (1925) "Dialekticheskaia teologiia" [Dialectic Theology], Put': organ russkoi religioznoi mysli 1: 148 - 154.

Toi povele i sozdashasia. Sovremennye uchenye о sotvorenii mira [For he spoke, and it came to be. A Modern Teaching of the Creation of the World] (1999). Klin: Fond "Khristianeskaia zhizn'".

Trubetskoi, S. (1908) "Religija. Stat'ia iz Entsiklopedicheskogo slovaria", in Sobranie sochinenii, T.2 [Religion. An article from an Encyclopedic Disctionary, in Collected Works, V. 2], pp. 499 - 509. M.

Tserkov' i mir. Osnovy sotsial'noi kontseptsii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi [Bases of the social concept of Russian Orthodox Church] (2000). M.: Danilovskii blagovestnik.

page 134
Ukolov, K. (2009) "Dialekticheskoe bogoslovie K. Barta v dokladakh 1922 g". in Sraunitel'noe bogoslovie: nemetskii protestantizm XX ueka. Teksty s kommentariiami [K.Bart's Dialectic Theology in 1922 Lectures, in Comparative Theology: 20th Century German Protestantism. Commented Texts], pp. 181 - 185. M.: PSTGU.

Ukolov, K. (2010) "Problema religioznogo apriori v zapadnoi i russkoi religioznoi filosofii" [The Problem of Religious apriori in Western and Russian Religious Philosophy], Vestnik PSTGU I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia 1 (29): 25 - 42.

Ukolov, K. (2008) "Problema religioznogo apriori v zapadnoi religioznoi filosofii (E. Trel'ch, P. Tillikh)" [The Problem of Religious apriori in Western Religious Philosophy (E.Trelch, P.Tillich)], Vestnik PSTGU I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia 3 (23): 45 - 55.

Vaiskopf, M. (2012) Vliublennyi demiurg: Metafizika i erotika russkogo romantizma [Amorous Demiurge: Metaphysics and the Erotic in Russian Romanticism]. M.: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie.

page 135

Permanent link to this publication: