Academician V. GINZBURG
ATHEISTS, MILITARY GOTHINS, BELIEVE IN GOD, PRESENT RELIGION - TO WHICH OF THESE CATEGORIES DO THE READERS OF "SCIENCE AND LIFE" BELIEVE?
In the preface to the six books "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres", addressed to Pope Paul III, Nicolaus Copernicus wrote in 1535:
Painting by Nikolai Ge. When asked by Pilate, "What is truth?" Jesus remained silent...
Fresco by Raphael "School of Athens". The thinkers of antiquity - Plato and Aristotle - are engaged in a philosophical dispute: where is the true center of the World, in heaven or on Earth?
Over the years, the magazine has regularly addressed issues of religion and atheism. In the headings "From the history of religions" and "How many religions on Earth" (see "Science and Life" Nos. 7, 8, 1990; Nos. 2, 3, 6-8, 1993; Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 1994) covered the history of the emergence of the main religions of the world; Archpriest Alexander Men spoke about the formation of Orthodoxy in Rus' (see "Science and Life" Nos. 4, 12, 1990). The journal also contained an appeal from the St. Tikhon Theological Institute with a call to tell about the life and fate of those who suffered for their faith during the years of Soviet power (see "Science and Life" No. 12, 1993).
In its publications, the journal also dealt with the relationship between science and religion. The fate of Roger Bacon was not easy (see "Science and Life" No. 11, 1974), tragic - Giordano Bruno (see "Science and Life" No. 3, 1986). A rather paradoxical point of view on the issues of faith and atheism was defended by Dr. chemical sciences L. Blumenfeld (see "Science and Life" No. 10, 1989).
Today, after many years of persecution of religion and infringement of the rights of believers, the state returns to religious denominations churches and monasteries once taken away from them. But the relations between church and state that are now being built often cause concern and anxiety, as evidenced by articles and notes that appear from time to time in newspapers and magazines.
Academician Vitaly Lazarevich Ginzburg, a well-known theoretical physicist, a member of the editorial board of the journal Science and Life, expressed his opinion on this issue, which invites readers to answer the questions of a short questionnaire.
Russia is going through a difficult period of transition from the Soviet-Bolshevik system to something else. Apparently, this "other" is a society similar to that existing in countries with a market economy and a democratic form of government. One of the most important conditions for democracy is to ensure freedom of conscience, in particular the right of citizens without any fear of being atheists or believing in God. At the same time, the state remains secular, that is, any religious organizations(churches) are completely separated from the state. And although the Constitution Russian Federation meets these requirements, they, unfortunately, are not met. Before our eyes, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) is merging with the state, in fact, is being restored to the rights that it had under the tsarist regime. Sermons are read on state television, various religious programs are broadcast. Priests have appeared in the army, buildings are being “consecrated”, “holy” water is sprinkled at various official events, huge amounts of money are spent on church needs. The explosion of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was undoubtedly a manifestation of Bolshevik barbarism. However, in conditions when a significant part of the population not only lives from hand to mouth, but also cannot buy many medicines, spending millions, but rather billions of rubles on the restoration of this temple seems unacceptable to me.
However, I will not develop this topic, because the article is devoted to something else - an attempt to help readers understand what the position of atheists is and what, in fact, is meant by faith in God. Appropriate remarks seem necessary: today you will not hear about atheism in the mass media. Moreover, they are trying to create the impression that, as one church leader said, atheists in our country can now only be found in the Red Book of Endangered Species. By the way, even a very outstanding person A.F. Losev believed that in Soviet times atheists were not sincere, but "flirted with the authorities" (see "Science and Life" No. 2, 2000).
In matters of faith and religion, the Bolsheviks were "militant atheists," that is, not only atheists, but also persecutors of any faith in God. Churches were destroyed or misused, the clergy were persecuted. It is useful for surviving admirers of Comrade Lenin to get acquainted, for example, with his secret letter dated March 19, 1922, published only in 1990 (Izvestia of the Central Committee of the CPSU, No. 4, p. 192). In this letter, in particular, it is written: "What more Therefore, we will be able to shoot representatives of the reactionary clergy, so much the better. "The leader's instructions were carried out - at the same time 32 metropolitans and archbishops were shot. For some details about the monstrous persecution of the church in Soviet times, I refer to A. Yakovlev's book "Krestosev" (see, however, Many documents on this subject have already been published in other publications.) The persecution of the church, the ideology of "militant atheism" professed by the Bolsheviks, led to the fact that for many even now disbelief in God, that is, atheism, is identified or, in any case, associated with the criminal Leninist-Stalinist regime.In fact, the identification of atheists with "militant atheists" is a pure misunderstanding or, if this is done deliberately, vile slander.More on this a little later, it is now necessary to recall the meaning of some terms.
Atheism is a belief system that rejects the existence of God, belief in God, religious beliefs. Atheism denies theism (from the Greek word "theos" - god) - religious teachings, which are based on the idea of God as a supernatural being who created the world and controls it. Theism is the basis of most modern religions, including Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. For theists, God has a will and reason, influences all material and spiritual processes. They consider everything that happens in the world as the implementation of God's providence or as its predestination. Unlike theists, deists, who also believe in the existence of God, deny his intervention in the life of society and nature. Finally, pantheists (the most famous of them - Benedict Spinoza), in fact, identify God with nature. Apart from some nuances, between pantheism and atheism, as far as I understand, there is no difference. At the same time, atheism, terminologically meaning the denial of theism, rejects not only theism, but also any ideas about God, including the deistic one.
Atheism cannot be identified with materialism, but a materialist who considers primary and objectively existing matter, and not consciousness, naturally turns out to be an atheist. This is not the place to go into philosophical definitions and I will confine myself to mentioning agnosticism. When asked whether God exists, agnostics answer: I don’t know, this question cannot be answered. There are grounds for such a position, for it is impossible to prove the absence of God, just as it is impossible to prove his existence. Such statements are so-called "intuitive judgments" (see). Intuitive judgments of a materialist and an atheist are as follows: there is a Universe, a nature that evolves over time. Man is a product of the evolution of life, which arose naturally from the inanimate. Through observations and experiments, a person learns nature, its content and properties (for example, the structure of atoms and atomic nuclei), the laws that operate in inanimate (physics) and living nature (biology). The results of the knowledge of nature constitute the content of science. Science is developing all the time, deeper and deeper cognizes the world around us. The successes of science (meaning mainly the natural sciences) are colossal. Only in the 16th century, Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), developing the ideas of some ancient Greek astronomers, built a heliocentric picture of the solar system, and only at the beginning of the 17th century, less than 400 years ago, the validity of such ideas was proved by Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) and Johann Kepler (1571-1630). But how little was then known about the world outside the solar system, if only from the fact that even Kepler believed that there was a sphere of fixed stars, "consisting of ice or crystal." The distance from the Earth to the Sun is 149 million kilometers, light travels this way in eight minutes. Today we have an idea about the structure of the Universe on a scale of about 10 billion light years. Here is one of the characteristics of the path that science has traveled over four centuries. If the hypothesis that all matter consists of atoms arose in ancient times, then in the 20th century it was not only confirmed, but also found out the structure of atoms, proved the existence of the atomic nucleus, protons and neutrons. Finally, the concept of quarks, which make up nucleons and mesons, appeared. Yes, all the achievements of physics can not be counted. And the successes of biology marked by Darwin's theory in the last century and the flourishing of genetics today! The advances in science are literally breathtaking. New tasks are set and solved (see. "Science and Life" Nos. 11, 12, 1999).
Against this backdrop of the success of science, faith in God and religion (theism) look completely different than in ancient times. The existence of God and belief in him are also "intuitive judgments", but, in fact, frozen since antiquity, or, in any case, since the formation of the corresponding religion (say, since the 7th century, when Islam arose). Faith in miracles is organically connected with religion, for example, in Christianity - with faith in the virgin birth, resurrection from the dead, etc. At the same time, science is characterized by flexibility and the denial of miracles, that is, unverified judgments. Under the influence of facts, science improves, while religion is dogmatic and basically remains unchanged, if we do not talk about scholastic theological disputes, the appearance of heresies, etc. Here, of course, there is no opportunity to discuss the issues raised in detail, and we have to limit ourselves to only a number of remarks.
The already mentioned identification of atheists with "militant atheists" is just as unfounded as, for example, the identification of all professing the Christian religion with inquisitors. Incidentally, the year 2000 marks not only the birth of Jesus Christ, but also the 400th anniversary of the burning of Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) by Christian inquisitors. But to lay on all Christians the responsibility for the activities of the Inquisition is absurd! It is quite obvious that atheism, disbelief in God does not prevent a person from remaining decent, in agreement with the well-known principles of ethics and morality. The opinion that "if there is no God, then everything is permitted" has only very limited grounds. In this regard, I recall an episode that happened to me thirty years ago in England. As an atheist and who was in the USSR in an atheistic environment, I did not understand that there were many believers abroad, even in the scientific community. And so, while talking with a physicist colleague, I made some kind of tactless remark of an anti-religious type. The colleague was offended by this, saying that he was a Catholic, a believer. Fortunately, I not only immediately apologized, but also said that I was not a "militant atheist", I understood the possible positive impact of faith and led specific example: "If I were in the role of Robinson Crusoe and I was offered to choose Friday between two candidates - a believer and an unbeliever, then I would choose a believer. For even a savage, but a believer, most likely, will not kill you at night with an ax, which cannot be said about an unbeliever ". This quite sincere remark satisfied the colleague. Yes, faith in God can ennoble, but not always and not for everyone - just remember the Irish Catholics and Islamic fundamentalists who shed the blood of completely innocent victims even today.
It is appropriate to recall some of the arguments given by atheists in favor of denying the existence of God. It would seem that he could inspire people with one faith, and yet there are many religions. Moreover, even within one religion, let's say Christianity, there are many directions (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, various Protestant denominations, sects). Not all Christian denominations are on friendly terms. Isn't it strange when there is only one God?
Second example: how can God, if he exists, allow wars, genocide, famine and disease? Theologians try to answer such questions; such answers are devoted, for example, to the book of Pope John Paul II (see). But even this highly educated outstanding person, in my opinion, could not give any convincing answers to the questions posed.
At the same time, it is obvious that the doubt about the existence of God, reflected in the questions posed, is not yet able to prove that God does not exist. As already emphasized, the problem of God and belief in him is not a mathematical theorem, and there can be no rigorous proofs here. Therefore, atheists and believers hardly understand each other.
Even in the subtitle of this article, a distinction is made between those who believe in God and those who profess a particular religion. This distinction is very important. My experience shows that the question: "Do you believe in God?" - the answer is often positive, but the request to clarify what more specifically a person believes in, what he understands by God, was followed by something completely unintelligible. In general, the answer often comes down to the following: in addition to nature, the whole world around us, there is also "something", some kind of higher, or absolute, Mind, "something" supernatural, to some extent controlling nature and people. Such a "believer in God" may not profess any religion, he is not a theist and often treats theism critically, does not believe in church miracles, etc. A person who professes some kind of religion (for example, an Orthodox Christian) goes much further than a believer into some abstract deity (world Mind, or the Absolute, etc.).
In view of what has been said, in order to understand the situation regarding atheism and faith, it is precisely necessary to distinguish between "believers in God" and "professing religion." Despite the gigantic achievements of science in understanding nature, we still do not know much. In particular, there is no clarity on the question of the origin of life and, especially, of consciousness. The situation in the field of "social" sciences is also clearly unsatisfactory; there is no proper understanding of the laws of economics and human behavior. Being a convinced materialist and atheist, I am confident in the progress of science, its limitless possibilities. However, I can understand those who hold other views and are inclined to believe in some higher powers, the world Mind, etc. This is something like deism, but the name is not the point. That's what is beyond my understanding, so it's a religious belief in miracles, confession of some religion. Isn't it clear that religious ideas arose at a time when man felt helpless in the face of natural phenomena and diseases. Science was in its infancy, and therefore miracles seemed possible (after all, a miracle is, by definition, something that is not confirmed by scientific data, scientific analysis). Today, to believe in the resurrection from the dead, the afterlife, heaven, hell, etc., is to deny modern science. Naturally, in connection with what has been said, many questions arise.
Why do so many profess religion today?
Why are there highly educated people among these "many"?
What is the relationship between pseudoscience, such as astrology, and religion?
How does the church view science today?
I will try, albeit very briefly, to answer these questions.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the six billion people now living on Earth remain uneducated. Watching TV, using a cell phone, and flying an airplane does not mean you are a civilized person. As far as I know, our population in Russia is more educated than in most other countries. But this education is superficial and usually has a humanitarian bias. Few people will not answer the question about the authors of "Eugene Onegin" and "War and Peace". But ask why the seasons change (winter, spring, summer, autumn). My experience is that even people with higher education often give the wrong answer (for example, they refer to a change in the distance from the Earth to the Sun). Meanwhile, the correct answer (the inclination of the Earth's axis to the plane of the ecliptic, in which the Sun and the Earth's orbit are located) has been known for 500 years!
The newspaper "Arguments and Facts" No. 17 of April 2000 contains answers to a number of so-called " famous people"To the question: "What is faith for you?" Fourteen people were interviewed, mostly women, including pop singer Masha Rasputina and State Duma deputy Irina Khakamada. All respondents claim that they believe in God, but what is meant by this remains Unfortunately, they were not asked about this, as well as about the reasons for the onset of spring after winter.
In the controversy that takes place between atheists and believers, the facts are very often distorted. Yes, myself for a long time I was sure that our famous physiologist Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849-1936) was a deeply religious person. He went to church, protested against the destruction of churches, resigned from the chair at the Military Medical Academy in protest against the expulsion of the children of priests from among the students, etc. It would seem that he was a believer, an Orthodox person, and he was known as such among us. In fact, Pavlov "of course, was a complete atheist and could not have been anything else." This is a quote from the memoirs of M.K. Petrova, the closest collaborator and friend of I.P. Pavlov (see). She quotes him as saying: "The human mind is looking for the cause of everything that happens, and when it comes to the last reason - this is God. In its desire to search for the cause, it comes to God. But I myself do not believe in God, I am an unbeliever." Pavlov went to church "not out of religious motives, but because of pleasant contrasting experiences. Being the son of a priest, he loved this holiday as a child (we are talking about Easter. - Approx. Aut.). He explained this love with a particularly joyful feeling public holidays following Great Lent. "But Pavlov defended the church and the faithful out of understandable considerations of justice and freedom of conscience, out of protest against Bolshevik barbarism.
In general, it is quite clear that not only religious people go to prayer houses (churches, mosques, synagogues). They go according to tradition, and remembering loved ones, and hoping to find solace in grief. Here I will allow myself to note that not only have I never been a "militant atheist", but I have envied and envy the true believers. In difficult times, faith in God can console, ease suffering, and make it easier to perceive thoughts of death. All the more unacceptable are the persecution of religion, the introduction of bans in this area (I'm not talking about savage sects). Reason, however, is not given to man in order to succumb to emotions and follow the prejudices and decrepit beliefs of hoary antiquity. Familiarity with theology only strengthened my atheistic conviction, that is, the intuitive judgment that there is only nature and the laws that govern it, which the mind and science guided by it know.
Returning to the topic, I would like to make a remark regarding the great Einstein (1879-1955). There were statements in the literature that Einstein was a believer, because he wrote about some kind of cosmic religion, etc. In reality, Einstein used religious terminology only in a conventional sense (see "Science and Life" No. 10, 1960). For example, he wrote: "I can find no better expression than 'religious' to characterize belief in the rational nature of reality ... What do I care if priests make capital by playing on this feeling?" In 1929, when asked if he believed in God, Einstein replied with a telegram: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who manifests itself in the harmony of everything that exists, but not in God, who is interested in the destinies and affairs of people." Benedict Spinoza (1612-1677) identified God with nature and was a pantheist. I, as already mentioned, do not see, in essence, the difference between pantheism and atheism, except for the natural difference in the terminology used in the 17th century and used today.
However, there is no reason to believe that all highly educated people are currently non-believers or do not profess any religion. For example, the famous cosmologist Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) was even a Catholic priest. According to a survey of members of the US National Academy of Sciences published in 1998, 7% of those surveyed identified themselves as believers. Unfortunately, we do not have such information regarding members of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Now about pseudoscience and religion. A typical and, one might say, a vivid example of pseudoscience is astrology. About 300 years ago, astrology could not yet be called a pseudoscience, because only in the 17th century Isaac Newton (1643-1727) established the law of universal gravitation and the forces with which the planets act on objects on Earth became clear. But today, even a schoolboy can figure out that the influence of the planets, not to mention the stars, on the behavior of people is negligible compared to the breath of the breeze. Numerous comparisons of horoscopes with reality have also shown that the predictions of astrologers are absolutely unrealistic, and the coincidences that sometimes occur are purely accidental. That is why we consider astrology to be a pseudoscience. The publication of astrological forecasts, the appearance of astrologers on TV screens is a shame. Unfortunately, the pursuit of subscribers or ignorance force even serious newspapers, such as Izvestia, to publish astrological forecasts (my letter on this subject, addressed to the editor of Izvestia, remained unanswered). By the way, there is an opinion that the publication of astrological forecasts is innocent fun. I can't agree with this at all. Those who understand that such forecasts are just nonsense do not read them, while those who believe in forecasts can cripple their whole lives by following false advice. Therefore, I, like many others, try to clarify the situation and, in particular, I tried to do this in an article published in Izvestia on February 21, 1991. I mention this because I received a letter from a reader who agreed with me in assessing astrology, but asserted that astrology is no worse than religion, and I do not write about religion out of cowardice. In fact, even today I am not afraid to defend atheistic beliefs, but then I simply forgot to answer the natural question: "Why is astrology worse than religion?"
All kinds of miracles appearing in various religious writings, in particular in the Bible, contradict scientific ideas and data. In this sense, biblical miracles are on a par with astrological speculation. However, as far as I understand, miracles are not decisive in religion, many believers perceive them only as poetic allegory. The Church today, if we keep in mind, say, the official position of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, calls for goodness, observance of well-known commandments, objects to the occult and all obscurantism, in particular astrology. Such a position of the church is inconsistent, but does not give grounds to fight with it, as the "militant atheists" did. The correct position is the upholding of freedom of conscience and the demand for the complete separation of church and state.
Finally, about the relationship of the church to science.
The history of these relations is controversial. At certain stages, monasteries served as a stronghold of science, centers of its development. The most famous example is the activity of Copernicus, who was a clergyman. But the fate of Copernicanism is a vivid example of the reactionary role of the church, which fought science from the standpoint of church dogma. It is well known that the church in 1633 condemned the great Galileo for defending science and, specifically, Copernicanism, poisoning the rest of his life. How theologians "interacted" with scientists in those days is evident from the letters of Galileo to the Duchess of Lorraine:
"Professors-theologians should not arrogate to themselves the right to regulate by their decrees such professions that are not subject to their conduct, for it is impossible to impose on the natural scientist opinions about the phenomena of nature ... We preach a new doctrine not in order to sow confusion in the minds, but in order to in order to enlighten them, not to destroy science, but to firmly substantiate it. Our opponents, however, call everything false and heretical that they cannot refute. These bigots make themselves a shield from hypocritical religious zeal and humiliate Holy Scripture, using it as a tool for achieving their own goals ... To prescribe to the professors of astronomy themselves that they should seek defense against their own observations and conclusions, as if it were all one deceit and sophistry, would mean making more than impossible demands on them; it would be the same as ordering them not to see what they see, not to understand what they understand, and to deduce from their research just about brother to what is obvious to them."
By the way, these words sounded quite modern during almost the entire recent Soviet period, naturally, with the replacement of professors-theologians with some Marxist professors and Holy Scripture with Marxism-Leninism.
The brilliant development of science that has taken place since then dealt a crushing blow to the claims of the church to dictate its dogmas to science. Today, this is out of the question in civilized countries (however, in the USA, rather loud voices of creationists are still heard, denying evolution and preaching the divine creation of the world, that is, literally following the Bible). Today the church has been "rebuilt". The content of this restructuring is especially clearly reflected in the last (thirteenth in a row) encyclical of Pope John Paul II "Faith and Reason" ("Fides et ratio"), published on October 15, 1998 (see). This encyclical begins like this:
"Faith and reason are, as it were, two wings on which the human spirit ascends to the contemplation of truth, for God Himself put in the minds of people the desire to know the truth, as well as to know Himself, so that people, knowing and loving Him, could find the fullness truth about ourselves."
There are 108 items in the encyclical, this whole book ( Russian edition has a hundred and fifty pages), and, of course, there can be no question of presenting it here. I tried to make the latter very briefly in the article "Reason and Faith" (see), which served to a certain extent as an atheist's answer to the message of the Pope. However, a few remarks are in order.
The meaning of the encyclical and, obviously, the current policy of the Catholic Church, as far as I understand, is as follows. Yes, the role of science (reason) is recognized, but this is only one "wing". The second "wing" is faith, and without it it is impossible to know the truth, and "supernatural help of grace" is also needed. Both ways - scientific and religious are not opposed: "The truth that God revealed to us in Jesus Christ does not contradict the truths that can be comprehended as a result of philosophical reflection. On the contrary, these two ways of knowing lead to the fullness of truth. The unity of truth is the basic postulate of the human mind expressed in the law of contradiction. Revelation convinces us of this unity by pointing out that God the Creator is also the God of salvation history. The same God, who is the basis of the knowability and rationality of the natural order of things, on which scientists rely with confidence, is also revealed as Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
As far as I can judge, the representative of the Anglican Church John Polkinhorn and Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus' adhere to similar positions: science is recognized, but one cannot do without spiritual experience and the leadership of the church, because "the truth revealed to us in Revelation is at the same time the truth that needs to be realized in the light of reason" (see). And elsewhere: "Under the help of Revelation, the mind is doomed to wander in detours, whereby it is in danger of losing sight of ultimate goal". "Revelation" in religion is the transmission to people of "truths" emanating from God, in Orthodoxy and Catholicism, the types of Revelation are primarily "holy scripture" (Bible) and "holy tradition" (a certain set of religious provisions). I will not continue, because, recognizing the great historical and artistic value of the Bible, they are not able to attach any sacred significance to it. I do not see any positive role of Revelation in the knowledge of the truth. Here, between atheists and those who profess religion, there is an impassable abyss.
"Science and Life" is one of the oldest popular science magazines in Russia. There was a time when it was read by millions, but today's circulation of more than 30,000 is not small by today's standards. As a member of the editorial board of the journal, I am convinced that "Science and Life" cannot ignore the issue of atheism and faith, which is very relevant today in our society. Therefore, I have tried this article to give impetus to the discussion of this topic. It seems to me that the best form for such a discussion, at least at first, is an appeal to readers with a proposal to answer the questionnaire placed. Having received answers, and also, probably, letters from readers, the editors will be able to place material interesting for many readers on the pages of the journal.
LITERATURE
1. Yakovlev A. Cross-sowing. - M: Vagrius, 2000, p. 188.
2. Feinberg E. L. Science, art and religion// Questions of Philosophy. - 1997, No. 7, p. 54.
3. Pope John Paul II. Cross the threshold of hope. - M: Truth and Life, 1995.
4. Petrova M. K. From the memoirs of academician I.P. Pavlov// Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 1995, no. 11, p. 1016.
5. John Paul II. Faith and reason. Franciscan Publishing. - M., 1999. [Russian translation.]
6. Ginzburg V. L. Reason and Faith// Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences 69 -1999, No. 6, p. 546; reprinted in magazine Common sense", 1999, No. 1 (13), p. 51.
INFORMATION BUREAU
In 1914, an anonymous poll of 1,000 American scientists was conducted - whether they believe in God. 58% believed. Of the 400 "greatest" scientists (the survey report does not say what criteria were used to select them), about 70% are believers. The same poll in 1934 gave 67% and 85% respectively. 1996 poll - 60.7% do not believe or doubt. In 1998, members of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA were surveyed (these are certainly the largest) - a total of 517 people, but only a little more than 50% answered the questionnaire sent out.
They do not believe in God and the immortality of the soul (2nd digit):
Among biologists 65.2% and 69%.
Among physicists 79% and 76.3%.
The rest mostly answered "I don't know", but there were also a certain number of believers.
Of the mathematicians, 14.3% believe in God, 15% believe in the immortality of the soul.
Of the biologists, 5.5% believe in God, and 7.1% believe in the immortality of the soul.
Of the physicists and astronomers, 7.5% believe in God, and 7.5% also believe in the immortality of the soul (I wonder if they are the same or different?).
"Nature" No. 6691, 1998.
QUESTIONNAIRE
What are your views on atheism, faith in God, religion, freedom of conscience? (strike out the unnecessary).
1. Atheist (I deny the existence of God).
2. I believe in the existence of God:
a. I practice religion.
b. I believe in God, but I do not adhere to any religion.
3. Agnostic (don't know if God exists or not).
4. I am a "militant atheist", that is, I believe that faith in God should be fought.
5. A supporter of complete freedom of conscience (to be an atheist or to believe in God is a private matter for any person, you do not need to interfere in this).
6. A supporter of the complete separation of the church (religion) from the state. In schools, universities, in the army, the presence of priests and the teaching of theology (theology) is unacceptable.
7. I believe that it is permissible to teach theology in schools and universities, the presence of priests in the troops, the consecration of buildings and meetings, etc.
8. What, in your opinion, should be the relationship between science and religion?
The editors ask you to answer these questions. It is desirable to indicate age, gender, education, nature of work. Last name may not be given.
Editorial address: 101877, Moscow, Center, st. Myasnitskaya, 24.
Historical site of Bagheera - secrets of history, mysteries of the universe. Secrets of great empires and ancient civilizations, the fate of lost treasures and biographies of people who changed the world, the secrets of special services. Chronicle of the war, description of battles and battles, reconnaissance operations of the past and present. world traditions, modern life Russia, the unknown USSR, the main directions of culture and other related topics - all that official science is silent about.
Learn the secrets of history - it's interesting ...
Reading now
Modern researchers not only proved that Lermontov never wrote "Farewell, unwashed Russia ...", but also named the real author of this creation. This is a little-known today, but very popular in the 19th century, parody writer Dmitry Minaev, who not only created a fake, but also successfully published it under the name of our genius poet ...
In the summer and autumn of 1917, there were many food riots and lynchings in Russia. But if these speeches had some kind of political and social motivation, then the drunken pogroms demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the essence of freedom. First of all, freedom was seen as an opportunity to drink and take a walk with impunity and free of charge.
Many people think that the treasure is precious stones or gold, hidden in ancient times in deep recesses. But sometimes the treasures look completely different and are stored somewhere among the rubbish that no one needs. However, they can cost millions of dollars.
If people from different countries decided to discuss the topic of the Second World War, they would find that their knowledge of this period of history does not match. As an example, let's take episodes from the historical heritage of two European countries - Poland and Greece. The events described below are most likely poorly known or even completely unknown to many of our readers.
In the last two years alone, Russia has lost almost more spacecraft than aircraft. Roskosmos not only incurs billions in losses, but also completely undermines the public's faith in the power of the domestic space industry.
The most fun and beloved holiday by Russians is approaching - New Year. Elegant Christmas trees, Olivier salad and Leonid Gaidai's comedies will soon enter every home. And, of course, one of the main symbols of the holiday - Grandfather Frost - will go to congratulate children all over the country. It seems that the fairy-tale wizard has existed since time immemorial. But meanwhile, the history of Russian Santa Claus is not so long. And in the form in which we know it today, it appeared under Comrade Stalin.
Prosperous, well-fed Finland has been considered a country that sympathizes with Russia for many years. And its long-term political leader Gustav Mannerheim, unlike the fifth president and war criminal Risto Ryti, is revered in our country almost as a national hero. But, in fact, both Mannerheim and Ryti are one and the same. Only Ryti in history was much less fortunate ...
“I read it in #13 of Secrets of the 20th Century (April 2011) about the conflict. You write that the USSR did not use lasers against China, but Grad multiple launch rocket systems. But the fact is that in 1969 my father also participated in these hostilities. He said that the bodies of many Chinese soldiers on the battlefield were badly burned, and some were completely burned. So there were rumors among the military that they were burned with lasers. Could such a weapon really exist in the Soviet Union? Olga Anikhovskaya, Krasnoyarsk
When with title page magazine "Science and Religion" disappeared the word "atheistic"? How was Victor Pelevin's story first published? Olga Brushlinskaya, editor-in-chief of the publication, tells about this and many other things to the correspondent of "RG".
Olga Timofeevna, in the journal "Science and Religion" science no longer fights with religion?
Olga Brushlinskaya: Even when it was an atheist publication, there was no struggle. The editor-in-chief crossed out the words "front", "struggle", "ideological enemy". The magazine had a goal - to convince as many people as possible that the atheistic worldview is correct, necessary, and practical. As it was sung "Having discarded fairy tales about a miracle, having taken away heaven from the gods, simple Soviet people miracles work everywhere." But at the end of the 1980s, the word "atheistic" disappeared from our title page. We began to give the reader more knowledge about religion, about non-materialistic theories of the universe. We were the first to print Carlos Castaneda in Russian, before that his texts We went to samizdat and told about Helena Blavatsky, Helena Ivanovna Roerich, but without cries and sobs, not as bearers of religious truths, but as representatives of culture.
Then the position of the magazine changed: many people came to understand that science and religion are not necessarily hostile. By the way, many religious scientists are known... And the religious worldview, setting a special state of mind and soul, helped many of them to discover something new.
What period in the life of the magazine was especially interesting?
Olga Brushlinskaya: Second half of the 1980s. Our circulation then reached 980 thousand copies. Isaac Asimov gave us the right to publish the first philosophical work about the Bible. Richard Bach, author of the iconic "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" - the right to first publish his "The One". He said that the publication in a Russian magazine with almost a million copies did him credit. We also published for the first time with a wonderful miniature "Sorcerer Ignat and people" then unknown Viktor Pelevin. Everyone came to us, played chess. The thumbnail was published by accident. During the layout, a small "cellar" was left, and we went to the editor-in-chief with a proposal to "plug" the hole with Pelevin's "charming story". The editor-in-chief did not express joy, but allowed it.
During this "golden time" we published both esotericism and Russian religious philosophers, about whom little was known in Russia.
After all, Averintsev and Gasparov also published in your country.
Olga Brushlinskaya: This is one of the brightest impressions! In the early 1990s, I suddenly found out that our classic, translator of ancient Roman and Greek literature, Mikhail Leonovich Gasparov, could not publish a book of essays "Entertaining Greece". I called him: our magazine is ready to be published. And then I called Sergei Sergeevich Averintsev in Vienna with a request to write a preface to a friend's publication. And Sergey Sergeevich sends it to us with the words that if he had read this book at the age of 14, he would have become a different person. The publication brought the magazine many new subscribers. Venediktov (he was an admirer of Gasparov) invited me and the editor-in-chief Pravotorov to Ekho Moskvy, talked to us on live about the magazine.
Among our favorite writers is Larisa Vasilyeva, the author of famous books about "Kremlin wives" and "...children". She gave us the right to first publish her wonderful story about Evdokia of Moscow, the wife of Dmitry Donskoy. Now we are publishing her version of the disappearance of Emperor Alexander I.
Many consider our times to be the era of the triumph of anti-science or pseudo-science. There are also many oddities in religious views. How does the magazine try to maintain a high culture on both topics?
Olga Brushlinskaya: We are true to our traditions. We follow the principle of freedom of conscience, all our publications are designed in the spirit of tolerance and respect for representatives of all religions and cultures. Of course, we have more materials on Orthodoxy, and this is because we live in a country where 80 percent of the population call themselves Orthodox. We respect Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism, the traditional Russian religions. But when representatives of pseudo-religious sects come to us and offer "any money" for us to publish their materials, we categorically refuse. As far as science is concerned, we are not an organ of the Academy of Sciences, and sometimes we allow ourselves to write about parascientific things that have not yet been accepted by "official" science. Why, as one academician said, the dividing line between science and religion is not something fixed forever, it is a changing course.
Do you print horoscopes?
Olga Brushlinskaya: Well, it's more like a game with people's habits. For example, with the habit of reckoning with the lunar calendar.
What was the main thing you were taught in the journal "Science and Religion"?
Olga Brushlinskaya: I came to the magazine 44 years ago and was shocked by what kind of people "swoop" in the editorial office. Yuri Koryakin, Igor Guberman, Fazil Iskander came. Kamil Ikramov was in charge of the department of literature. Vladimir Tendryakov, unfortunately now forgotten, was a member of the editorial board, and we published his story "The Apostolic Mission" for the first time. The conversations of the young hero of his story with the priest would be useful even now. And not every priest would answer the questions of that hero. And then one day Kamil Ikramov said stern words to me: "If you are going to work in the department of Islam, you must know it at least at the level of a madrasah (Muslim secondary educational institution)". I began to go to seminars at the Institute of Oriental Studies, then an elite scientific institution. After some time, I was appointed head of the department of Islam, although according to the rules, a man, preferably with a Muslim surname, should have been in charge. But for me, in the Central Committee of the party, where we claimed to have made an exception.
And one of the most interesting moments in my editorial work. One day a woman came to us, as they say, from the street, without recommendations, with ... a translation of the Koran. Professional reaction: another crazy one. But I began to read the text. And after reading it, I convinced the chief that it should be printed. Now this is a well-known translation of the meanings of the Koran by Valeria Porokhova.
Who is your reader today?
Olga Brushlinskaya: Based on the results of a recent survey, I know that the magazine is read by the whole family: grandparents, and schoolchildren grandchildren. Most of the magazine's readers live in the provinces. I would define the reader as follows: an intellectual who has retained, to put it pompously, "spiritual thirst."
From the editor:
On May 5, Olga Brushlinskaya, editor-in-chief of the Science and Religion magazine, celebrates her birthday. She came to work here in 1970 as a traveling correspondent, and has been in charge of the publication for the last seven years. This year the magazine celebrates its 55th anniversary.
