Research project "Development of a new methodology for dialogue and interaction between religion and science in Russia"

Vladislav Razdyakonov

The Discourse of Science - Religion Dialogue in Modern Russia: An Institutional Dimension

Vladislav Razdyakonov - Associate Professor, Centre for the Study of Religion, Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, Russia. razdyakonov.vladislav@gmail.com

"Science and religion" discourse plays a significant role in shaping the intellectual landscape of modern European thought. The article covers three topics: (1) it explores the meaning of this discourse in Imperial and Soviet Russia, (2) it overviews institutionalization of this discourse in modern Russia, and (3) it presents recommendations for its further development. These recommendations are as follows: to avoid metaphysical and epistemological discussions and concentrate on pragmatic, social and economical aspects of "science and religion" dialogue; to develop studies of genesis of the conflict narrative; to practice purely historical approach to the subject without any epistemological prejudice, whether it inclines to dialogue or conflict.

Keywords: science and religion, institutionalization, history of the Soviet Union, history of Russia, scientific apologetics.

Razdyakonov V. [Institutionalization of the dialogical direction of the discourse "science and Religion" in modern Russia]. Gosudarstvo, religiya, tserkva v Rossii i za rubezhom [State, Religion, Church in Russia and abroad]. 2015. N 1 (33). pp. 11-29.

Razd'iakonov, V. (2015) "Science and Religion Dialogical Discourse in Modern Russia (An Institutional Dimension)", Gosudarstvo, religiia. tserkov'v Rossii i za rubezhom 33 (1): 11 - 29.

page 11
THE formation of the discourse "science and religion" occurs in the first half of the XIX century1. The prerequisite for its appearance was the development of the philosophical system of positivism, which drew a clear distinction between "science", "religion"and " philosophy". Since that time, two approaches to comparing "science" and "religion" began to compete in the Western intellectual tradition: the "conflict" approach, which considered them as antagonists, and the "dialogic" approach, which claimed the possibility of their coexistence.

The institutionalization of the dialogical direction of the discourse "science and religion" - the emergence of special research institutes for its development and translation-begins in the last third of the XX century.2 The design of an independent scientific program coincided with a general critical rethinking of the European intellectual heritage. The developing sociology and philosophy of science destroyed the classical view of the history of science as the history of liberation and denied the claims of science to epistemological superiority over other forms of knowledge.

At the present stage of its development, the discourse faces criticism that seeks to emphasize the historical and relative nature of its key concepts, accusing it of Eurocentrism and, already, Christian centrism3. In this regard, the problem of self-reference, which is typical of any criticism, becomes as relevant as possible for him4.

This study is devoted to the institutional history of the development of the dialogical direction of the discourse "science and religion" in post-Soviet Russia and consists of three sections: historical, revealing a number of facts from the history of the discourse "science and religion" in pre-revolutionary and Soviet Russia

1. Gregory, F. (2003) "Science and Religion", in D. Cahan (ed.) From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences. Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science, pp.330 - 336. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. The most plausible reason for its actualization is the process of professionalization and institutionalization of the scientific community: Turner, F. М. (1978) "The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension", Isis 69 (3): 356 - 376.

2. Peters, T. (2005) "Science and Religion", in L.Jones (ed.) Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 8180. Thomson-Gale.

3. Dixon, T. (2011) "Introduction", in Dixon, T., Cantor, G., Pumfrey, S. (eds.) Science and Religion: New Historical Perspectives, pp. 1 - 21. Cambridge.

4. Harrison, P. (2006) "'Science' and 'Religion': Constructing the Boundaries", in The Journal of Religion 86 (1): 82 - 91.

page 12
period analysis; empirical, which maps out the institutions involved in the translation of discourse at the present stage; analytical, which provides recommendations for its further development.

The author does not set himself the task of fully describing the discours5. Aside from the atheist movement 6, which adheres to the "conflict" attitude; supporters of the esoteric tradition 7, who usually insist on the synthesis of science and religion within the framework of "whole" knowledge; representatives of religious conservatism, who criticize modern scientific research 8, primarily from the standpoint of creationism. In preparing the publication, the author interviewed researchers who somehow associate themselves with the discourse "science and religion", including: N. A. Pecherskaya, A. E. Bodrov, I. T. Kasavin, V. K. Shokhin, N. S. Serebryakov, G. B. Gutner, V. N. Porus.

"Religion and Science" in Pre-revolutionary and Soviet Russia

The history of the discourse "science and religion" in Russia can be divided into three stages: pre-revolutionary, Soviet and post-Soviet 9.

5. The bibliography of works falling under the heading "Science and Religion" is presented by A. P. Zarubin: Zarubin A. P. Science and Religion. Russian Bibliography, 1993_2014 [http://www.prometeus.nsc.ru/partner/zarubin/scirel. ssi, accessed from 16.01.15].

6. The greatest significance in this context was given to the so-called "Letter of ten Academicians "(2007) to the President of the Russian Federation V. V. Putin against "clericalization" and the expansion of the influence of the Orthodox Church in modern Russian society. See: Baev P. A. Atheism and atheists in modern Russia // Analytics of cultural studies. Tambov: Tambov State University, 2011. N 20; Zhuravskiy A.V. Genezis i formy postsovetskogo atheizma v Rossii [Genesis and Forms of post-Soviet atheism in Russia]. Questions of religion and religious studies. Issue 1: Anthology of Russian Religious Studies. Part 4. Moscow: RAGS Publ., 2009.

7. One of the founders of this tradition, who wrote a lot about the reunification of science and religion, was H. P. Blavatsky. See: Falikov B. Z. Kulty i kul'tura [Cults and Culture], Moscow: RSUH, 2007.

8. The largest representatives are the missionary and educational center "Shestodnev" (since 2000, headed by K. Bufeev), Simferopol Christian Scientific and Apologetic Center (headed by S. L. Golovin). See: Bufeev K. Orthodox Teaching about Creation and the theory of Evolution, Moscow: Russian Pilgrim, 2014.

9. Such a "political" division is very vulnerable to criticism, although it is widely used in the discussions of modern Russian historians and methodologists of religious studies. See publications by Antonov K. M., Smirnova M. Yu., Yablokov I. N., Shakhnovich M. M., Kostyleva P. N. et al.

page 13
At the first stage, the dialogical approach dominates, primarily due to the concordat established between the Russian Orthodox Church and the state. The second stage, on the contrary, is characterized, with some exceptions, by a conflict attitude supported by the Soviet government. The third stage, which can be described as "complex", demonstrates the full range of approaches to the problem of the relationship between science and religion.

The discussions that began in the first half of the 19th century in the West10 about the relationship between science and religion did not remain unknown to Russian researchers 11. Most of the works of Russian authors aimed at reconciling the Christian tradition and scientific ideas about the structure and development of the world 12.

A significant place among these publications was occupied by works on natural science apologetics 13. As early as 1870, this subject was introduced into the curriculum of students at the Moscow Theological Academy, which could not but contribute to the development of discours14. In addition, the problem of the relationship between science and religion was addressed in one way or another in most philosophical works of that time, primarily in connection with the philosophy of positivism.15
10. From translations worth mentioning: Butrou E. Nauka i religiya v sovremennoi filosofii [Science and Religion in Modern Philosophy]. SPb., 1910.

11. One of the earliest arguments on the relationship between science and religion in Russian historiography is probably the work of the diplomat A. S. Sturdza, who defends the idea of the fall and rejects the existence of "natural virtues". See: Sturdza A. S. Faith and Conduct, or Reasoning about the necessary consent in teaching religion and sciences to pupils of educational institutions. Odessa, 1833.

12. For example, the pathos of a short essay by F. Turner's account of the consequences of Otto von Bismarck's Kulturkampf policy amounts to a critique of materialism (as unfounded philosophical conclusions from scientific research) and Catholicism (as an extreme form of "Caesaropapism" that expressed itself in the decisions of the First Vatican Council), as well as a justification of Christian foundations of morality. the end of the XIX century. Moscow, 1876-1878.

13. For more information about pre-revolutionary natural science apologetics, see: Mumrikov O. Natural science apologetics as an integral discipline: a general overview. Pedagogy. Psychology. 2009. Issue 4 (51), pp. 28-41.

14. Strakhov P. S. Bogoslovie i estestvoznanie (K voprosu o zadachakh estestvenno-nauchnoi apologetiki) [Theology and natural science (On the problems of natural-scientific apologetics)]. 1908. N 30. P. 257.

15. See, for example: Kavelin K. D. Problemy psikhologii [Tasks of psychology]. Sobranie sochineniy, vol. 3, St. Petersburg, 1899, pp. 375-648.

page 14
The idea of reconciling science and religion, which is central to dialogist writings, 16 sometimes went hand in hand with a positive attitude towards the process of secularization, thanks to which "faith has now become more reasonable and, consequently, stronger".17 Calling for careful attention to those statements of tradition that contradict the achievements of modern science, S. S. Glagolev illustrates his position by the conflict between the religious and scientific communities caused by the" discovery " of channels on Mars by astronomer J. V. Schiaparelli, whose origin could have been both natural and artificial. Religious critics were interested in refuting the existence of artificial channels, based on the belief that detecting the activity of intelligent beings other than humans would cast doubt on the exclusive nature of Christian revelation. However, Glagolev calls for a different position: "Religious faith is not a taboo or a brake, it is the immediate truth, and therefore it is an infallible correction of knowledge, but the fact is that we can err in using this correction, we can confuse with the truth our understanding of the truth, which can be completely erroneous and which can lead us to believe that it is not true. force us to reject the actual truth. " 18
Already at the pre-revolutionary stage, three groups can be distinguished that are interested in discussing the problem of the relationship between science and religion: representatives of the academic community; representatives of the religious community, primarily directly connected with the Russian Orthodox Church; a group of "marginals" who usually (but not always) did not belong to the Christian tradition and did not belong to the academy.19 The first and second believed that science and religion should not violate the boundaries drawn between them (harmoniously coexist, enriching each other

16. It should not be forgotten that the voices of supporters of the peaceful coexistence of science and religion were heard not only from the church, but also from the positivist citadel: "Under the apparent antagonism of science and religion, there is a perfect agreement" (Spencer G. Basic principles. St. Petersburg, 1897, p. 16).

17. Glagolev S. S. Religion and science in their relationship to the coming XX century. Sergiev Posad: Holy Trinity St. Sergius Lavra, 1900. p. 18.

18. Ibid., p. 60.

19. See, for example, the characteristic criticism of materialism in the writings of supporters of the study of mediumistic phenomena: Aksakov A. N. Spiritualism and Science, St. Petersburg, 1872.

page 15
a friend). Representatives of the third community, being at the intersection of emerging religious and scientific discourses, on the contrary, sought to synthesize them into a single consistent worldview.20
At the Soviet stage of history, science and religion are opposed to each other within the framework of the "progressive" Marxist paradigm, which claimed the imminent end of religion as a "relic" of social relations that existed in the past. At this time, the problems of science and religion go beyond the narrow academic community and become part of a broad public discourse. The popularization of the topic was caused by the needs of ideological propaganda ("the best way to fight religion is a scientific refutation of God").21). The greatest publication activity occurred during the anti-religious campaigns of the 1920s-1930s and 1960s, for which special publishing houses were created that published works on the correct attitude of science and religion from the point of view of the Communist Party. Professional philosophers (for example, G. A. Gurev, I. A. Kryvelev 22) and scientists (for example, astronomers S. K. Vsekhsvyatsky and V. A. Shishakov, doctor N. A. Semashko, biologist B. M. Zavadovsky 23) participated in the preparation of publications. It should be mentioned separately-

20. It is necessary to emphasize the preliminary nature of the classification, since people who belonged to the academy often positioned themselves as supporters of the future synthesis of science and religion: "The gap between science and religion belongs to certain stages of development; it occurs sometimes from the insufficiency of science, sometimes from the insufficiency of religion. But the ultimate goal of development is the highest unification of both areas, the final synthesis of the entire spiritual world" (Chicherin B. N. Science and Religion. Work on Philosophical problems, Moscow, 1879, p. XIII.).

21. Gurev G. A. Antireligious anthology, Moscow, 1930, p. 4.

22. Gurev G. A. Science and religion about the universe. Popular Science Essay, 1938; Gurev G. A. Velikiy konflikt [The Great Conflict]. The Struggle between Science and Religion, Moscow, 1965; Kryvelev I. A. Sovremennoe bogoslovie i nauka, Moscow, 1959; Lupalo I. G. Nauka vs religii, Moscow, 1953.

23. Zavadovsky B. M. Chto say o proiskhozhdenii zhivotnykh nauka i religiya [What they say about the origin of animals]. Moscow: Bezbozhnik, 1928; Semashko N. A. Nauka i religiya o zdorov'e [Science and religion about health]. 1930; Vsekhsvyatsky S. K. Nauka i religiya o mirozdanii [Science and Religion on the world's structure and origin: explanatory text to a series of slides]. Moscow: Tsentr. Soviet Union of Militant Atheists, 1936; Shishakov V. A. Extraordinary celestial phenomena in the light of science and religion. (Meteors, comets, and eclipses): explanatory text to a series of slides, Moscow: Tsentr. Soviet Union of Militant Atheists, 1936. It is also worth mentioning the names of the following authors who used the phrase "science and religion" in the title of their works: Vetkov A., Brook G. Ya., Bulatov I. P., Ketkovich Ya. V., Perelmuter Ts. M., Zaks M. G., Vorontsovskaya M. A., Kogan Yu. Ya., Yuzefovich A. and others.

page 16
the journal " Science and Religion "(since 1959), originally conceived as a means to" expose " religion, but already in the 1960s allowed representatives of religious associations to enter the pages of its publication.24
Despite the official policy of separating science and religion, the dialogical direction was also represented in the Soviet period. First, these are the works of authors who left Russia and published abroad (V. V. Zenkovsky, P. I. Kovalevsky, S. L. Frank, A. A. Bobrinsky, V. N. Ilyin, D. M. Panin, S. N. Lyashevsky)25. Secondly, these are the works of authors who lived on the territory of the USSR (V. F. Voino-Yasenetsky and A. A. Lyubishchev), but were published already in the post-Soviet period26.

A large number of academic publications were published in the second half of the 1980s, when, thanks to the policy of publicity, various points of view on the question of the relationship between science and religion were given the right to express themselves without any censorship by the state.27 The first attempts at purposeful development of the dialogical direction of the discourse "science and religion"should be attributed to the mid-1980s. First, the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences is forming a research group that studies the history of interaction between science and religion (see below); second, small circles of natural scientists are being formed (for example, the circles of N. A. Pecherskaya and Yu. S. Vladimirov), whose main goal was to develop a discourse alternative to the official conflict vision of relations science and religion.

The program of the N. A. Pecherskaya circle had a general humanitarian focus - its participants were mainly engaged in the following activities:-

24. Smirnov M., Krug P. In defense of freethinking. Interview with O. Brushlinskaya // Nezavisimaya gazeta. 21.10.2009.

25. Zenkovsky V. V. Apologetics. Paris, 1957; Kovalevsky P. I. Nauka, Khristo i Ego uchenie [Science, Christ and His Teaching]. Brussels, 1928; Bobrinsky A. Astronomy of the Bible. Paris, 1928; Frank S. L. Religion and Science. Brussels, 1953; Ilyin V. N. Six Days of Creation: The Bible and the science of creation and the origin of the world. Paris, 1930; Panin D. M. The universe through the eyes of a modern person. Tour, 1976. Lyashevsky S. P. The Bible and the science of the creation of the world. Moscow, 1999.

26. St. Luke (Voino-Yasenetsky V. F.). Nauka i religiya [Science and Religion]. Rostov-on-Don: Troitskoe Slovo, 2001; Lyubishchev A. A. Nauka i religiya [Science and Religion], St. Petersburg, 2000.

27. Among the many publications, special attention should be paid to the following essay, which is one of the first after a long break to reveal to the Russian reader the "complexity" of the relationship between science and religion in the historical perspective: Kimelev Yu. A., Polyakova N. L. Nauka i religiya: istoriko-kul'turnyi ocherk [Science and Religion: historical and cultural essay].

page 17
They studied ancient languages, history and philosophy, trying to acquire a holistic vision of the development and structure of culture, which could organically include scientific knowledge, without contrasting it with religion. The members of the circle were convinced that science and religion are two independent enterprises of the human spirit, leading to the same goal, but in different ways. Yu. S. Vladimirov's circle consisted of theoretical physicists who set out to recreate a single "scientific and theological picture of the world", reflecting the integrity and complexity of the Universe. According to Yu. I. Kulakov, it was his studies in theoretical physics that led him to believe in God and in the bosom of the Christian Church28.

Institutional forms of organization of the dialogic direction of the discourse "Science and Religion" in the post-Soviet period

The last significant event of the Soviet period should be considered the holding of the conference " Science. Philosophy. Religion", which became the first official meeting place for philosophers, scientists and theologians interested in discussing the relationship between science and religion. 29 The conference was initiated by V. N. Pervushin and V. A. Nikitin, Professors of physics from the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research. 30 However, at the present stage, the problems discussed at the conferences " Science. Philosophy. Religion", of course, is broader than 31 problems.-

28. Kulakov Yu. I. Sintez nauki i religii [Synthesis of science and religion] // Consciousness and Physical Reality Vol. 2. N 2. 1997. pp. 1-14; see also: Vladimirov Yu. S. Fundamental Physics and Religion, Moscow, 1993; Vladimirov Yu.S. Fundamental Physics, philosophy and religion. Kostroma, 1996; Vladimirov Yu. S. Metafizika, Moscow, 2009.

29. Over the years, the conference has been organized by the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, the Moscow Theological Academy, the Lomonosov Moscow State University, the Foundation of the Holy All-Laudable Apostle Andrew the First-Called, and the National Glory Center.

30. Interview with V. N. Pervushin // JINR Journal. Dubna. 2004. N 35 (3723).

31. Conferences devoted to the problem of the relationship between science and religion: "The Concept of truth in science and religion "(1990); "The Limits of Knowledge in Science and Religion" (1993); " Science in the Christian World "(1994); "Science and Christianity in the Modern worldview" (1995); "Science and Christianity in the Modern Worldview" (1995). theology at the turn of the third Millennium "(1999);" Science, Philosophy, Religion: Interaction in modern education " (2009).

page 18
we are relations between science and religion: the last, XVII, conference was devoted to the national and cultural identity of Russia.

The significance of the conference for the discourse" science and religion " is not so much in the development of the discourse itself, but in the formation of a common environment for dialogue between scientists, philosophers and theologians on key issues of modern culture.

The second major platform for discussion in the 2000s was the International Christmas Educational Readings.32 In 2012, within the framework of the conference "Church and Science: ways of interaction" under the leadership of Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, ten 33 events were organized on the basis of secular and spiritual institutions (IF RAS, RSUH, MDA). In this case, the patronage of the Russian Orthodox Church determines the content and nature of possible discussions on the problems of science and religion, in particular, cutting off a number of worldview positions and ideas that are unacceptable from the point of view of the Church34.

In addition to common sites in Russia, there are several academic institutions that conduct significant scientific and educational work within the framework of the "science and religion"direction: Higher Religious and Philosophical School, St. Andrew's Bible and Theological Institute, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Tikhon's Orthodox University for the Humanities, Moscow Theological Academy, All-Church Postgraduate and Doctoral Program named after sts. St. Cyril and Methodius, Research and Theological Center for Interdisciplinary Studies, Faculty of Arts, St. Petersburg State University.

32. Sections: "Christianity and Science" (1999. 2001 - 2004, 2008 - 2010), "Science in the Light of the Orthodox worldview "(2007-2014)," Science and Theology " (2000, 2006).

33. These events include: conferences "Theology and Humanities"; "Science in the Light of the Orthodox Worldview"; seminars "Philosophy and Theology in Russian Religious Thought", "On the Origin of the World and Man"; "Interaction of the Church and the Humanities in Bible Translations and Bible Studies"; " Interaction of the Church and the Humanities science in the Study of Liturgical Monuments"; "Christianity and Natural Sciences"; round tables "Correlation of science and Faith"; "Science of Religion and Religion of Science".

34. The section "Orthodox Understanding of the Creation of the World and Modern Science", which K. Bufeev actively participated in organizing, was closed (2009) under the pretext of the need to stop polemics between the scientific and religious communities.

page 19
Most of the research and training projects of these associations are implemented with the financial support of the John Templeton Foundation. According to Bodrov, the Foundation's presence in Russia became noticeable after 1999, when the State Kremlin Palace hosted the presentation of the J. Templeton Prize to the American researcher Ian Barbour. 35 Of particular importance is the Foundation's translation activity, which aims to promote the idea of reconciling science and religion as two ways of understanding "reality" or"God." 36
The Higher School of Religious Philosophy (VRFS) under the leadership of N. A. Pecherskaya (established in 1990) is engaged in systematic research and popularization of the problems of the relationship between science and religion. On its basis, in 2000, in cooperation with the Metanexus Institute (USA), the St. Petersburg Educational Center "Religion and Science" (SPECRSJ. The Center's research methodology is based on a dialogical approach that considers religion and science as independent enterprises of the human spirit. Since 2000, on the basis of the VRFS, in cooperation with foreign and domestic organizations, 37 events dedicated to the problem of the relationship between science and religion have been regularly held.38 The last of the current VRFS projects consists of a two-volume translation-

35. Bodrov, A. (2009) "Problems and perspectives of the Science-and-religion Dialogue in Russia", Transdisciplinarity in Science and Religion 6: 216.

36. Templeton, J. and Herrmann, R. (1994) Is God the only Reality, p. 8. Continuum.

37. " Science and Faith: the Problem of Man in Science and theology "(2000); "Religious foundations of modern problems in natural Sciences and humanities" (2005-2006); "Abstract review of modern Russian and foreign scientific literature on the problems of interaction between science and religion (historical and philosophical approach) "(2008); " Review of the impact of scientific research in the field of interaction between science and religion on the higher education system in the United States "(2008); " Interdisciplinary cooperation in science, religion and culture: training leaders in the XXI century "(2009-2012);" Problems of interdisciplinary interaction in science, religion and culture "(2009 - 2012); school for media workers" The impact of the dialogue between science and religion on the development of civil society in Russia " (2013).

38. Conferences and round tables: "Science and Faith: Human Problems in Science and theology "(2000-2001); "Religion and Science - Problems and Prospects of Dialogue" (2003); " Religion and Science as ways of interpreting the world: a common hermeneutical problem "(2004); "Science and theology as two ontological paradigms" (2004); " Science, Ideology, Religion "(2005); " How and Why do they Arise questions of correlation of problems of philosophy, science and theology "("2012);" Science and faith. A Study of Vital Realities "(2013).

page 20
a collection of articles, Science and Religion in Dialogue, edited by Stuart Melville (a translation of the first volume appeared on sale in 2014).

Another equally important organization that has contributed to the development of the discourse "science and religion" is the St. Andrew's Bible and Theological Institute (BBI) under the leadership of A. E. Bodrov (established in 1990). Since 1999, the Summer Institute for Theology and Science has been held under the auspices of the BBI, which organizes the only advanced training courses in Russia for students who want to deepen their knowledge of the problems of interaction between science and religion. The latest scientific and organizational event of the BII is the International conference "Cosmology and Faith" (2015).

Within the framework of the BBI publishing program, a special series "Theology and Science" was created, in which translations of the works of Western representatives of the considered discourse were published.39 According to A. E. Bodrov, the main goal of his editorial policy was to create a single educational basis for the development of discourse in Russia: The BBI set itself the task of developing a systematic interest in the search for similarities and differences between theology, philosophy, and science.

A special place in the discourse "science and religion" is occupied by projects and works of employees of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Back in the 1980s, the Institute of Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences formed a group of researchers who worked out the problems of the relationship between science and religion in the historical perspective. The most famous researcher in this group is P. P. Gaidenko, the author of many popular works on the history of Western philosophy and science in Russia40.

Significant work related to the problems of the "science and religion" discourse is carried out by sector managers

39. Translations include works by J. Polkinhorn, J. Barbour, J. Brook, A. Peacock, G. Kung, J. Moltman, M. Heller, and other prominent Western theologians and scholars.

40. Among the publications of the Institute of Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, we should also mention the works of L. M. Kosareva ("The Birth of Modern Science from the spirit of culture", 1997); collections " Philosophical and Religious Sources of Science "(1997), " Two Cities. Dialogue of Science and Religion: Eastern and Western European Traditions "(2002), " Science. Philosophy. Religion "(two issues: 2003, 2007); the work of L. A. Markova " Science and Religion. Problems and Borders" (2000); V. N. Katasonov's research "Philosophical and religious problems of Modern Science" (2005), "Christianity, Science, Culture" (2009, 2012).

page 21
IF RAS - I. T. Kasavin 41 (Social Epistemology sector) and V. K. Shokhin 42 (Philosophy of religion sector). I. T. Kasavin calls the introduction of materials concerning so-called "extra-scientific forms of knowledge" into the educational process one of the main practical achievements of his sector: the course on the philosophy of science for graduate students served as a convenient platform for introducing graduate students to the problems of the "science and religion" discourse, delineating the boundaries of rational and, already, scientific thinking.

Since 2009, a Theological Research Center for Interdisciplinary Studies (NBC) has been organized at the Faculty of Arts of St. Petersburg State University under the leadership of Archpriest Kirill Kopeikin. The purpose of the NBC's activity is to provide a theological understanding of the achievements of modern science, but it is not limited to it: the program documents set out to give the achievements of science expressed in mathematical language a humanitarian and theological dimension.43
Institutions under the direct control of the Russian Orthodox Church make a special contribution to the development of "dialogical" relations between science and religion. Within the walls of the Moscow Theological Academy, traditions of pre-revolutionary natural science apologetics are developing 44, and its professors were at the origins of the conference " Science. Philo-

41. Among the works edited by I. T. Kasavin, the collections " Science and Religion. Interdisciplinary and cross-cultural approach "(2006)," The problem of the demarcation of science and theology: a Modern view " (2008). In 2005 - 2006, under the leadership of I. T. Kasavin, a study "Science and religion in the formation of the system of values of a new civilization" was conducted, in which many domestic specialists were involved: V. Stepin, A. Huseynov, V. Filatov, V. Petrenko, V. Rabinovich, V. Shokhin, V. Kolpakov, O. Zubets, E. Balagushkin, P. Kolesnikov. Gaidenko, A. Krasnikov.

42. The main foreign partner is the Society of Christian Philosophers in cooperation with the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church. Recent publications include a translation of the Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology (2013).

43.Attention is drawn to the NBC research project "Science as a mediator in the dialogue of religions", which suggests considering the scientific picture of the world as a platform for dialogue between different religions.

44. Mumrikov O. Kontseptsii sovremennogo estestvoznaniya: khristiansko-apologeticheskiy aspekt: Uchebnoe posobie dlya dukhovnykh uchebnykh zavedeniy [Concepts of modern natural science: Christian and apologetic aspect: A textbook for spiritual educational institutions].

page 22
sophia. Religion " 45. The Saints Cyril and Methodius All-Church Postgraduate and doctoral programs are actively engaged in research and organizational work: in 2012, the Department of Theology was opened at the National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, through which events are organized that strengthen the ideas of dialogue between scientists and theologians.46
Since 1997, on the basis of the Orthodox St. Tikhon University for the Humanities, 47 there has been a research seminar "Science and Faith" under the leadership of A. B. Efimov. 48 As N. S. Serebryakov notes, the position of the seminar can be described as "moderate conservatism", on the one hand, avoiding the extreme denial of modern science, and on the other - he opposes the attempt to create a new theological language based on the latest scientific achievements. The seminar is attended by representatives of various sciences, including scientists with an atheistic worldview.

Prospects for the development of the dialogical direction of the discourse "science and religion" in post-Soviet Russia

In modern Russia, the general public adheres to a conflicting vision of relations between science and religion, contrasting them as general and particular, objective and subjective, real and imaginary, natural and transcendent. The dialogical direction of the discourse "science and religion" seeks to soften this opposition, showing the complexity of the relations that developed between "science" and" religion", and the impossibility of reducing these relations to a conflict. In this regard, you should say

45. Distinguished Prof. MDA A. I. Osipov served as a co-chair of conferences in 1991-1999.

46. For example, the organization of advanced training courses for teachers of apologetics and the discipline "Concepts of Modern Natural Science" of the ROC theological schools (2012), the international conference "Science and Religion: historical paths and Prospects of convergence" (2013), the educational project "Religion, Science, Society" (2014).

47. In 1996, the well-known publication of the priest Gleb Kaleda, who was at the origins of PSTSU, was published: Kaleda G. A. The Bible and the science of the creation of the world. Moscow: Alpha and Omega, 1996-1997.

48. Proceedings of the seminar "Science and Faith" PSTGU / comp. A. B. Efimov, prot. A. Saltykov, N. S. Serebryakov. Issue I. Moscow: PSTGU Publ., 2011. Among the activities of the seminar, we should also mention the annual (since 2005) section "Science in the light of the Orthodox worldview" as part of the Christmas Readings.

page 23
on the conflict between the expectations of the general public and the position shared by representatives of the dialogical direction of the discourse "science and religion".

To treat this conflict as a conflict arising from the ignorance of the public is to simplify and distort the actual state of affairs. In public discourse, there are many myths about the relationship between science and religion that deserve to be debunked. However, the resistance of the general public, as well as a large number of people who are difficult to suspect of ignorance, rather indicates that the real cause of the conflict is rooted in the very rhetoric about the relationship between science and religion, common to supporters of conflict and dialogic attitudes.

Initially, the dialogic attitude appears as a reaction to the development of the teachings of atheism and materialism in Western Europe of the XVII century, and later its actualization goes hand in hand with the conflict attitude. Both of these attitudes belong to the modernist paradigm, which postulates the existence of "science" and "religion", which, since they mean different things, can relate to each other in different ways. To reduce the relationship between science and religion to just one point of view is to simplify the situation. It is fundamentally important to realize that this simplification affects not only the general public, but also researchers who consider it necessary to insist on the exclusively dialogical nature of relations between science and religion.

There are two ways to resolve this long-standing dispute between supporters of conflict and dialogue. The first method involves the rejection of the modernist categories of "science" and" religion " and requires the development of a new conceptual apparatus. Much has been said about the first method since the 1960s, but relatively little has been done in this direction: for the most part, we are dealing with analytical studies that debunk essentialism, but avoid formulating their own ontological statements. The second method involves accepting these categories and starting to work together to understand their content without asking what the" right " relationship is between them.

Starting with the fundamental research of I. Barbour, the idea of the "complexity" of relations between science and religion is crucial for the entire discourse. The productive idea of "complexity" was used by I. Barbour himself, as well as by most of his colleagues.-

page 24
First of all, it is intended to criticize the "conflict" attitude that simplifies relations. Such selectivity has repeatedly made works devoted to the discourse "science and religion" the subject of criticism, accusing the authors of an apologetic attitude to religion.

The following recommendations outline the path of internal development of the dialogic direction of discourse and determine the ways in which its speakers interact with the general public, including groups that oppose it. The author sees the development of discourse primarily as a distraction from the metaphysical side of the question of the relationship between "science and religion" 49. The proposed solution can be formulated in one sentence: the problems of "science and religion" should be transferred from the field of epistemology to the field of social relations, pragmatics and history.

The development of the dialogic direction of the discourse is possible if the following recommendations are adopted.

First, more research should be devoted to understanding the functioning of the conflict attitude in modern society. It is necessary to focus on identifying the reasons for its existence, without trying to stigmatize it in any way.50
Secondly, it is necessary to work on creating a holistic historical narrative that would equally satisfy all those who participate in the discussion of discourse issues. In such a narrative, the positions of "conflict", "synthesis", "independence" and "dialogue"should also be presented.

Third, it is necessary to constantly strengthen scientific and organizational interaction between different representatives of dialogues-

49. См., например: Evans, J.H., Evans, M.S. (2008) "Religion and Science: Beyond Epistemological Conflict Narrative", Annual Review of Sociology 34: 87 - 105. At the same time, this proposal should not be interpreted as a requirement to abandon discussions on how science and religion should properly relate. It is suggested to take into account that these discussions, due to their "metaphysical purpose", close the community to itself, while going beyond it is possible only through a common social space of interaction, free from any ideological restrictions.

50. О необходимости более детального исследования "конфликтной установки", помимо всеобщего развенчания ее как "модернистского мифа", см.: Cantor G. (2011) "What shall we do with the 'Conflict Thesis'", Science and Religion: New Historical Perspectives, p. 296. Cambridge.

стр. 25
In this context, there is a need to discuss the political direction of the discourse, primarily between church and secular structures. Such interaction is difficult not only because of the specifics of the humanities community in Russia (it is extremely reluctant to report its research and is not inclined to social interaction), but also because of the versatility of the discourse itself, which is revealed within the full range of humanities disciplines - from the history of religion to the philosophy of science.

Fourth, it is necessary to integrate the results of the implementation of the "science and religion" discourse into the educational space. Until recently, 51 Science and Religion courses were compulsory for students of religious studies, which could not but contribute to its critical rethinking. It seems promising to hold joint methodological seminars with the participation of teachers who teach relevant courses, and teachers of religious educational institutions who teach courses on natural science and apologetics.

At the same time, the transformation of the internal scientific and organizational structure of the discourse and its scientific agenda is not sufficient for effective development. As the experience of meetings on the topic "Science and Religion" shows, during them there is not so much a "dialogue" between the scientific and religious communities, but rather a communication of like-minded scientists and priests united by the idea of dialogical relations. For the development of the discourse, it is necessary to reach out to the general public, including all those who might be potentially interested in the development of the discourse "science and religion".

First, representatives of the dialogical direction of discourse could act as an intermediary between religious and scientific groups in order to develop a mutually useful mechanism for their interaction. Examples of such mechanisms are joint action aimed at achieving a common goal and sharing resources. As a specific short-term measure, we can consider prepo-

51. Federal State educational standard of Higher professional education in the field of training 033 300 Religious Studies. Degree "Bachelor". Moscow, 2010. P. 15. Research of the content and practice of teaching the discipline "Science and Religion" seems to be a separate promising task. We can mention the following educational materials known to the author: Arinin E. I. (Vladimir, 2004), Vinokurov V. V. (Moscow, 2005), Lega V. P. (Moscow, 2012), Podgorny G. N. (Tver, 2012), Razdyakonov V. S. (Moscow, 2014), Khaziev A. K. (Kazan).

page 26
peer-to-peer teaching exchanges between religious and scientific institutions, including joint public lectures.

Secondly, it makes sense to organize public debates between representatives of the conflict and dialogic areas of discourse in order to attract maximum media attention to its problems. Media attention is necessary to demonstrate to the general public the existence of significant groups that adhere to a different vision of the relationship between science and religion.

Third, it is necessary to involve as many specialists in the humanities as possible, especially historians, in the problem of the relationship between science and religion. It is the history of ideas and practices that allows us to set a context in which directly opposite points of view can be developed - both the idea of "military operations" between science and religion, and the idea of their mutually beneficial cooperation.

Summing up, it can be stated that the institutionalization of the dialogical direction of the discourse "science and religion" in modern Russia has mostly taken place. Based on the interests of the State and society, such institutionalization should be welcomed and encouraged, since it implicitly contributes to the creation of social unity and develops tolerance for dissent, which is so necessary for a harmonious community.

As the Russian experience shows, the development of the dialogical direction of the discourse "science and religion" follows the path of an interdisciplinary project: within the framework of this direction, philosophers, scientists and theologians interested in dialogue meet. This approach is aimed at achieving social unity, and by the very format of the round table, it shows "the city and the world" how to properly organize relations between the scientific and religious communities. Dialogue is considered both as a means and as a result of joint research.

At the same time, we should not forget that there is another way, which aims to draw up a kind of "map" of scientific and religious searches of a person. The dialogical direction of discourse as a means of achieving social harmony is only one of the directions of the complex discourse "science and religion": the position of a proponent of dialogue should not

page 27
replace the position of a detached observer. The problem of the relationship between science and religion belongs to the field of philosophy - although it is impossible to solve it, it will constantly disturb a person. One can only bear witness to this fact and, without limiting oneself to choosing one of the points of view on the problem, try to impartially show in full the diversity of cultural and historical forms of its solution.

Bibliography/References

Glagolev S. S. Religion and science in their relationship to the coming XX century. [Sergiev Posad]: Holy Trinity St. Sergius Lavra, 1900.

Gurev G. A. Antireligious anthology, Moscow, 1930.

Kulakov Yu. I. Synthesis of science and religion // Consciousness and Physical reality Vol. 2. N 2. 1997. pp. 1-14

Mumrikov O. Natural-scientific apologetics as an integral discipline: a general overview / / Vestnik PSTGU Moscow, 2009. IV. Pedagogy. Psychology. Issue 4 (51), pp. 28-41.

Smirnov M., Krug P. In defense of freethinking. Interview with O. Brushlinskaya // Nezavisimaya gazeta. 21.10.2009.

Spenser G. Basic principles. St. Petersburg, 1897.

Sturdza A. S. Faith and conduct, or Reasoning about the necessary consent in teaching religion and science to school children. Odessa, 1833.

Strakhov P. S. Bogoslovie i estestvoznanie (K voprosu o zadachakh naturno-nauchnoi apologetiki) [Theology and Natural Science (On the problems of natural-scientific apologetics)]. 1908. N 30. pp. 257-286.

Proceedings of the seminar "Science and Faith" of PSTSU / comp. A. B. Efimov, prot. A. Saltykov, N. S. Serebryakov. Issue I. Moscow: PSTGU Publ., 2011.

Chicherin B. N. Nauka i religiya [Science and Religion]. Work on Philosophical problems, Moscow, 1879.

Bodrov, A. (2009). Problems and Perspectives of the Science-and-Religion Dialogue in Russia, in Transdisciplinarity in Science and Religion 6: 211 - 216.

Cantor, G. (2011) "What shall we do with the "Conflict Thesis", Science and Religion: New Historical Perspectives, pp. 283 - 296. Cambridge.

Chicherin, B.N. (1879) Nauka i religiia. Trud po filosofskim problemam [Science and Religion. Treatise on Philosophical Problems]. Moscow.

Dixon, T. (2011) "Introduction", in Dixon, T. and Cantor, G. and Pumfrey, S. (eds.) Science and Religion: New Historical Perspectives, pp. 1 - 21. Cambridge.

Evans, J. H., Evans M.S. (2008) "Religion and Science: Beyond Epistemological Conflict Narrative", Annual Review of Sociology 34: 87 - 105.

Glagolev, S. S. (1900) Religiia i nauka v ikh vzaimootnoshenii k nastupaiushchemu XX stoletiiu [Religion and Science at the beginning of the XX century]. Sergiev Posad.

Gregory, F. (2003) "Science and Religion", in D. Cahan (ed.) From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences. Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science, pp. 330 - 336. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gurev, G. A. (1930) Antireligioznaia khrestomatiia [Antireligious Anthology]. Moscow.

page 28
Harrison, P. (2006) "'Science' and 'Religion': Constructing the Boundaries", The Journal of Religion 86 (1): 82 - 91.

Kulakov, Iu. I. (1997) Sintez nauki i religii [Synthesis of Science and Religion], Soznanie i fizicheskaia real'nost' 2 (2): 1 - 14.

Mumrikov, O. (2009) Estestvenno-nauchnaia apologetika kak tselostnaia distsiplina: obshchii obzor [Scientific Apologetics as a Discipline: General Review], Vestnik PSTGU. IV. Pedagogika. Psikhologiia 4 (51): 28 - 41.

Peters, T. (2005) "Science and Religion", in L.Jones (ed.) Encyclopedia of Religion, pp. 8180 - 8192. Thomson-Gale.

Smirnov, M., Krug, P. (2009) "V zashchitu svobodomysliia. Interv'iu s O. Brushlinskoi" [In Defence of Freethought. Interview with O. Brushlinskaya], Nezavisimaia gazeta, 21 oktiabria.

Spenser, G. (1897) Osnovnye nachala [First Principles]. SPb.

Strakhov, P.S. (1908) "Bogoslovie i estestvoznanie: (K voprosu о zadachakh estestvenno-nauchnoi apologetiki)" [Theology and Science: about the aims of scientific apologetics], Bogoslovskii vestnik. N30: 257 - 286.

Sturdza, A. S. (1833) Vera i vedenie, ili rassuzhdenie о neobkhodimom soglasii v prepodavanii religii i nauk pitomtsam uchebnykh zavedenii [Faith and Knowledge, or Treatise on the Educational Organizations about the Neccessity of Consent in Religion and Science Education]. Odessa.

Templeton, J., Herrmann, R. (1994) Is God the only Reality. Continuum.

Trudy seminara "Nauka i vera" PSTGU (2011) [Proceedings of "Science and Faith" seminar at PSTGU]/sost. A. B.Efimov, prot. A.Saltykov, N.S. Serebriakov. Vyp. I.M.: PSTGU.

Turner, F. M. (1978) "The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension", Isis 69 (3): 356 - 376.

page 29

Permanent link to this publication: