Alexander Kyrlezhev, Audrey Shishkov, Vladimir Shmaliy

The Dialogue of Religion and Science: New Approaches (An Overview of Discussions)

Alexander Kyrlezhev - Research Fellow of the St. Cyril and Methodius Post-Graduate Institute of the Russian Orthodox Church; Member of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow). kyrlezhev@gmail.com

Andrey Shishkov - Secretary of the Social Sciences Department, St. Cyril and Methodius Post-Graduate Institute of the Russian Orthodox Church; Consultant of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow), andrey.v.shishkov@gmail.com

Vladimir Shmaliy - Archpriest, Vice-Rector of the St. Cyril and Methodius Post-Graduate Institute of the Russian Orthodox Church, Secretary of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission of the ROC, Associate Professor of the National Research Nuclear University "MEPhI" (Moscow). shmaliy@gmail.com

The paper is authored by the heads of the research project "The Development of a New Methodology for Dialogue and Cooperation between Science and Religion in Russia" (supported by John Templeton Foundation). The paper gives an overview of research results. The traditional dialogue (within Christian cultural tradition), which was largely epistemological, should be made wider and deeper thanks to new approaches - in particular looking comparatively at the very ethos of the scientific and religious communities. This aspect is most significant in Russia given the character of post-Soviet transition. Science and religion are not just the two different methods of knowledge but also the two different social institutions and cultural traditions. Now the context of their interaction is the crisis of modern paradigm of functional differentiation of society, as religion acquires wider public acclaim while science loses cultural

Kyrlezhev L., Shishkov L., Shmaliy V. Dialog religii i nauki: novye podkhody (itogi diskussii) [Dialogue of Religion and Science: New approaches (discussion results)]. Gosudarstvo, religiya, tserkva v Rossii i za rubezhom [State, Religion, Church in Russia and Abroad]. 2015. N 1 (33). pp. 164-183

Kyrlezhev, A., Shishkov, A. and Shmalii, V. (2015) "The Dialogue of Religion and Science: New Approaches (The Overview of Discussions)", Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom 33 (1): 164 - 183

page 164
hegemony. In these new circumstances, the dialogue opens some new perspectives: comparison of metaphysical foundations of both science and religion; exploring macro- and micro-social contexts in the production of scientific and religious knowledge; productive meeting of theology with social/human sciences.

Keywords: dialogue of religion and science, scientific ethos, religious ethos, theology, types of knowledge, worldview, post-Soviet transition.

Traditionally, science and religion are compared primarily in an epistemological perspective - as ways of cognition, gaining reliable knowledge. Accordingly, the question of the coordination or mismatch of scientific and religious worldviews comes to the fore. This is the most important and obligatory angle when considering the relationship between science and religion. At the same time, it should be taken into account that this perspective is set primarily from the side of science, which limits the perception of religion to the framework of the corresponding perspective (because religion is not limited to the production of knowledge about the world and man).

It seems necessary to consider the relationship between religion and science in a complex, that is, taking into account the different dimensions of these phenomena. Science and religion are not only cognitive attitudes and areas of experience. They also represent social institutions and cultural traditions. In addition, they are updated within the relevant communities - scientists and believers, which are characterized by special types of ethos as an internal system of values and norms. In turn, ethos influences the forms of rationality that are characteristic of both religious and scientific reason, if they are considered in a communicative aspect.

Thus, the development of the dialogue between science and religion implies its complication, that is, the expansion of the spectrum of its directions by complementing the epistemological approach with others: historical, cultural, sociological, and also an approach from the point of view of the ethos of the respective communities.

The historical and cultural approach involves considering the relationship between science and religion in historical dynamics - understanding them as cultural institutions and traditions that perform certain roles at different stages of historical evolution.

page 165
Much attention has been paid to this approach before, but mainly in two aspects: (1) in connection with the so-called "scientific revolution" that resulted in the formation of modern modern European science, and (2) in connection with the radical changes in science of the 20th century (the transition from the classical to non-classical paradigm), which led to the formation of a new European science. in the opinion of some 1, they have opened up new ways of comparing scientific and religious attitudes and bringing them closer together. However, highlighting these points is not enough - we need to see the historical evolution as a whole, that is, not to proceed from an abstract (timeless) understanding of science and religion, but to take into account the historical dynamics of their functioning in culture. This approach is dictated not only by the fact that "science" was understood and interpreted in a new way at a certain historical period and then developed within this understanding, but also by the fact that in the New European culture " religion "(in this case, we are talking about Christianity) also received a new-secular-interpretation, significantly different from the pre-modern understanding of religion.2
It seems reasonable to consider the relationship between modern science and religion from a historical point of view in at least three phases (corresponding to the stages of the evolution of science):

* emergence-approval (transition from pre-modern to modern);

* maturity-flourishing (modern);

* transformation and crisis (postmodern or late modern).

Each of these phases has its own characteristics.

In the first phase, science dissociates itself from pre-modern "complex knowledge", which includes a religious and theological component, and thus a special sphere of scientific rationality and corresponding research practice arises. In other words, science is freed from "religious tutelage" and finds its own, autonomous foundations. As a result of this process, religion also becomes a special sphere of culture and is gradually isolated from other spheres of cultural life.-

1. See, for example: Kyung G. The Beginning of all Things, Moscow: St. Andrew's Bible and Theological Institute, 2006.

2. For recent works on this topic, see, for example: Nongbri, B. (2013) Before Religion. A History of a Modern Concept. New Haven and London: Yale University Press (see also question bibliography).

page 166
In addition, it is necessary to consider the following areas of social activity (including science), which are now recognized as fundamentally secular (non-religious). Accordingly, religion is also cognitively autonomous, separated from other non-religious ways of knowing and areas of knowledge. This is how the modern paradigm of the relationship between religion and science, and more broadly - religious and secular (secular), which can be called separation, develops. At the same time, in the first phase, the socio-cultural authority of science only gradually increases against the background of the preservation of the authority of religion, which, as a rule, is not yet questioned in the broad public consciousness.

In the second phase, science and religion are located within their own autonomous socio-cultural spheres-according to the principle of functional differentiation of society.3 Their relationship has the character of either mutual alienation or direct "ideological" conflict. At the same time, in the public consciousness, there is a gradual decline in the authority of religion and a further increase in the authority of science, which becomes such a cultural force that one can speak of hegemony (comparable to the hegemony of religion in the pre-Modern era). This is happening against the background of the process of privatization of religion, that is, the establishment of a public understanding of religion as a "private matter". (Thus, in particular, a working scientist retains the right to personal religiosity, which, however, should not have a direct impact on the procedure and results of his scientific activities.)

At present, we should talk about the third phase of the relationship between religion and science: they co-exist and meet in a crisis of the modern paradigm, which affects both science and religion. The specifics of the third phase are determined by two main factors: (1) the authority of science as a cultural institution, which is designed to ensure social progress and comprehensive human welfare, is largely undermined - in particular, due to the negative effects of modern technoscience; 4 (2) at the same time, it is found that the authority of religion is not completely undermined by scientific and technological progress.

3. See the works of T. Parsons and N. Luhmann. For example: Parsons T. Sistema sovremennykh obshchestv [The system of modern Societies], Moscow: Aspect-press, 1998; Luhmann N. Teoriya obshchestva [Theory of Society], Moscow, 2000.

4. Such as weapons of mass destruction, environmental pollution, man-made disasters, side effects of genetic manipulation, etc.

page 167
progress, as evidenced by the current revival of religion as a cultural and social force in both local and global contexts (the so-called public religions - "public religions" 5, including in the post-Soviet context).

The novelty of this situation is that now the old, modern, conflict between science and religion is partially losing its relevance. This conflict was associated with the struggle between science and religion for cultural hegemony, but today neither traditional religion nor traditional science can claim hegemony in culture any more-due to the fact that new "forces" have entered the public scene: the mass culture industry, the media of the information age, pragmatic consumerism, pluralism of " lifestyles"life-style", non-traditional forms of religiosity and "spirituality", syncretic parascientific theories and worldviews, etc. The modern paradigm itself enters the crisis phase, according to which science and religion are mutually independent and autonomous cultural spheres, but at the same time - in the conditions of the real hegemony of science (by definition secular). In the zones of dominance of "secular culture" - both in local and global contexts-there are processes of new cultural and social legitimization of religion/religiosity and, accordingly, the process of deprivatization of religion.

It should be emphasized that, since each of the identified phases has historical and cultural specifics, when building a dialogue between science and religion in the current historical situation, it is impossible to appeal to the experience of previous phases (for example, to the peculiarities of the relationship between religion and science during the scientific revolution of the XVII century).

The sociocultural approach to the relationship between science and religion involves, first, taking into account the social context in which their meeting and dialogue take place (here it is necessary to take into account not only the Euro-Atlantic, but also the post-Soviet context), and secondly, taking into account the characteristic features of the scientific and religious communities whose representatives enter into a dialogue.

In the pre-modern ("pre-scientific") era, religion was one of the main social forces that determine the individual and social existence of a person. At the same time, religion drew

5. См.: Casanova, J. (1994) Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

page 168
its authority is in Divine revelation, which contains the supreme and all-encompassing " truth of the world." Modern science has entered the social scene as a new method of understanding the truth of the world-by means of autonomous natural reason, 6 and over time, relying on this selfless and active cognitive attitude, science has also become a social force and gained informal power in society. The clash of these two social forces took the form of a conflict. It was resolved, on the one hand, by marginalizing religion, and, on the other, by spreading the results of science (as an intellectual and experimental enterprise) to the entire circle of human and social life. Thus, science assumed an essentially quasi-religious function, reproducing in the new historical conditions the social role of pre-modern religion. As far as the relationship between science and religion is concerned, the problem is that this role of science has been imposed on society, including religious people and communities. Having become the source of the "last truth" about the world and man in the public consciousness, science has pushed aside all other truths - "everyday", philosophical, ethical, aesthetic, religious.

As a result, religion has become a repressed and suppressed source of truth. Extreme examples of this attitude to religion can be found in the Russian history of the Soviet period7. The specific experience experienced in the USSR by several generations of Orthodox Christians, as well as adherents of other religious traditions, leaves a special imprint on the very problem of the relationship between science and religion in the post-Soviet cultural context.

The Soviet ideocratic regime created a deep split in society on the issue of attitudes to religion: one part of society adopted extremely negative views on religious faith, which was replaced by a quasi-religious "faith in science" (for Marxism-Leninism itself was presented primarily as a" science " about man and society); at the same time the other part of society retained a religious faith or was not confrontational

6. See A. Kyrlezhev. Postsecondary: a brief interpretation // Logo. N 3 (82). 2011. p. 100-106.

7. Uzlaner D. Sovetskaya model ' sekularizatsii [The Soviet model of secularization]. 2010. N 6.62-69; Shishkov A. Nekotorye aspekty desekularizatsii v postsovetskoy Rossii [Some aspects of desecularization in post - Soviet Russia]. 2012. N 2. pp. 165-177.

page 169
(and even a positive) view of religion. At the same time, the marginalization of religion as such took various forms - from direct state repression of religious organizations and communities to rejection of religion by public and cultural institutions.

When assessing the prospects for a dialogue between science and religion in the post-Soviet situation, it is necessary to take into account this specific legacy of the Soviet period, that is, the radical forced displacement of religion from the educational system and the cultural sphere, including scientific institutions and communities themselves, and from public space in general. For, despite the fact that almost a quarter of a century has passed since the collapse of the Soviet regime, the inertia of the Soviet experience still makes itself felt, whether we are talking about the Russian scientific community or the religious community: the public consciousness still retains the image of science as an implacable enemy of religion, and vice versa. Thus, some believers continue to treat science with great distrust, while many representatives of the scientific community treat religion not only with distrust, but sometimes openly hostile.

Therefore, in the course of the dialogue, it is important, along with the actual epistemological issues, to consider the issue of science and religion as social institutions that carry out the "production of knowledge" ("production of truth") in the space of society as a whole. In this case, the concept of the specific diversity of knowledge is productive. According to this concept (which has been legitimized in the post-Soviet philosophical community8), the cognitive dimension is present in various areas of human experience. This cognitive dimension must be specified in each case, taking into account the structure and teleology of a particular type of experience. At the same time, the very concept of "experience", in order to be unifying for various spheres of human life, should be interpreted as a complex life sphere (perhaps resorting to Husserl's concept of the "life world", Lebenswelt).

In the course of the dialogue, it is necessary to insist on the need to overcome science-centricity in knowledge and recognize the legitimacy of other types of knowledge - ordinary, philosophical, ethical, etc.-

8. See, for example: Kasavin I. T. Posnanie / / Novaya filosofskaya entsiklopediya, vol. 3. Moscow: Mysl, 2001, pp. 259-263.

page 170
dozhestvennogo, as well as religious, which have a special individual and social significance. This recognition means that the "source of truth" - both in the epistemological and socio-cultural aspects-can be not only rational operations on the material of a scientific experiment, but also various life practices, goal-setting and behavior experiments, theoretical experiments, aesthetic experiences, and so on. Accordingly, the truth itself takes on different forms in various spheres of life: in specific scientific fields it is a "special truth", in the sphere of art it is an "artistic truth", in everyday life it is a manifestation of "common sense" or "utility", in the ideological sphere it is a "comprehensive doctrine", etc.

Recognition of the pluralism of types of knowledge allows us to consider the relationship between science and religion (and hence their dialogue), on the one hand, in a traditional cognitive perspective, and on the other hand, in a perspective that destroys the socio-cultural monopoly of science on acquiring not only reliable, but also "only true" knowledge about the world and man.

The socio-cultural approach to the dialogue between science and religion implies special attention to its ideological aspect, since in the context of the current activation of religion in society (in particular, in the post-Soviet situation), the social influence of science is inevitably limited precisely in its ideological or quasi-religious function. Accordingly, the relevance of the worldview aspect of the dialogue does not decrease, but, on the contrary, increases.

In this case, the specificity of late modernity, or postmodernity (the third historical phase), is determined by two factors. On the one hand, the pre-modern "picture of the world", which was mainly based on religious ideas, is no longer relevant for modern society, since science, which reached its heyday in the modern era, has shown impressive results, including quite pragmatic ones ("scientific truth confirmed by practice"). However, on the other hand, today the so-called "scientific picture of the world" is becoming less and less clear and convincing for the "average person", since it is constantly becoming more complex and at the same time reveals more and more "white spots" that still need to be filled in. In other words, the natural sciences, working together, are still, by inertia, drawing an all-encompassing picture

page 171
However, the world description proposed by scientists with a scientific attitude does not always have a decisive ideological significance for the cultural consciousness and psychology of modern man.

So, for example, the essential connection between natural and social processes and structures, namely, the understanding of social and cultural phenomena as derivatives of "material" (physical and biological) evolution, which is claimed by natural sciences, seems problematic - both from an ordinary and philosophical point of view. Such "scientific" statements demonstrate with particular clarity the fact that in its theories and concrete studies, and then in the interpretation of the data obtained, science proceeds from the meta-scientific ("meta-physical") assumption about the primacy of" nature "over" spirit " and about the generative property of the former in relation to the latter. At the same time, such a "naturalistic reduction" is still characteristic of a significant, if not overwhelming, part of the scientific (primarily natural science) community.9
It should be recognized that from the historical and cultural point of view, the specific concept of "Weltanschauung" (Weltanschauung), understood as a substitute for religious faith, has now lost its significance as a socio-cultural imperative. However, in recent years, the principle of freedom of "ideological choice" has become increasingly important in Russian society, which is essentially identical to the legal principle of freedom of conscience (including freedom of religion and belief in general). In this sense, the worldview-as a system of representations about the world and man in their ultimate foundations-now retains its significance, both on an individual and on a social scale (since we are talking about the worldview dimension of the religion of religious communities) .10 Of course, in individual praxis - both religious and scientific-a fully articulated worldview dimension may be absent, but it is developed and tends to be systematic.-

9. It should be noted that the" scientific worldview "simultaneously contributed to the emergence of various syntheses of science and religion (for example, the so-called "Christian evolutionism", "scientific creationism", etc.).

10. Thus, the document "Fundamentals of the Russian Orthodox Church's teaching on Human dignity, Freedom and rights" states, inter alia, that society "must respect one of the basic principles of community life - mutual respect for different ideological groups" (IV. 5).

page 172
Consciousness cannot not only ignore this dimension, but also dispense with it.

Therefore, one of the important areas of dialogue between science and religion should be the consideration and comparison of their metaphysical foundations, with which the corresponding worldviews - religious and secular-are logically connected. The relevance of this area of dialogue only increases in the context of current discussions about the relationship between religious and secular in modern society and culture, including discussions about the secularism of the state, education, and other public spheres (in particular, discussions about the scientific status of theology). In this case, the need to take into account the sociological aspect is dictated primarily by the fact that today many spheres of public life and practice are recognized by default as "secular" precisely on the basis that they function in accordance with the achievements of scientific knowledge (by the definition of "secular").

Both the sociology of science (the sociology of scientific knowledge) and the sociology of religion draw our attention to the fact that in order to understand these phenomena, it is important to take into account the very process of producing relevant experience/knowledge, as well as the context of this production, that is, the macro - and micro-social structures within which the life of both science and religions. In this regard, the approach from the point of view of the ethos of the respective communities - scientific and religious-becomes a productive angle for considering the question of the relationship between science and religion.11
Ethos in this case is understood as an "affectively colored set of values and norms" (R. Merton), or, in other words, a system of norms and preferences that determine the nature of communication in a particular community and are therefore closely related to forms of thinking. The ethos approach is also relevant due to the fact that in the cultural situation of late modernity there is a rethinking of rationality and knowledge. A comparative study of how scientific rationality functions, on the one hand, and religious rationality, on the other, opens up new perspectives for studying the relationship between science and religion.

Scientific knowledge is not produced by a solitary (and even more so not by an abstract) subject following a certain principle.-

11. See the articles by G. Gutner and K. Antonov in this issue of the journal.

page 173
pam and research methodologies. It is extracted in a specific macro-and micro-social context, that is, in a certain community of subjects who are in constant communication and follow both written and unwritten rules. In this case, intersubjective connections and relationships are no less important than individual intellectual abilities and efforts, and these connections and relationships are determined by a certain value system that forms the ethos of the scientific community.

Similarly, religious consciousness is formed and reproduced not only and not so much individually as within the community of believers who are in communication, and it is determined not only by religious ideas and ideas, but also by spiritual attitudes that are the value bases of a certain religious ethos. Accordingly, religious rationality, the identification of which is necessary for comparison with scientific rationality, should be considered not only from the point of view of premises and "sources of truth", but also from the point of view of its functioning within the community of "practicing believers".

At the same time, when considering rationality in its communicative aspect, it is important to take into account not only the ethos (as its normative aspect), but also the socio-psychological characteristics of the corresponding communities that represent science and religion as specific areas of intersubjective praxis. In the perspective of a dialogue between science and religion, this is necessary because such a dialogue is conducted not between imaginary communities of "scientists" and "religious people" (that is, a kind of "ideal types"), but between representatives of real communities formed under the influence of various factors: cultural, historical, sociological, confessional and other.

This approach reveals that the problematic relationship between religion and science is determined not so much by the divergence of religious and scientific cognitive attitudes and, accordingly, the "pictures of the world" produced by them, but by the specifics of the value systems and orientations inherent in the scientific and religious communities, according to which these pictures arise.

In the proper epistemological dimension, the dialogue between science and religion in the Russian situation also involves taking into account both historical and socio-cultural contexts. Although in ny-

page 174
In the current third phase, the fundamental cognitive attitudes of science and religion remain unchanged, and consequently, the tension between them remains; in the post-Soviet situation, this tension itself is reinforced by negative historical experience (traumatic for both religion and science). Soviet secularization took the form of a state policy aimed at the" final solution "of the question of the relationship between science and religion:" science", which included a science-like ideology, was designed to displace and replace religion.12 Even today, this historical experience often hinders the formulation and consideration of purely epistemological questions related to the divergence of scientific and religious attitudes.

Indirect consequences of this traumatic experience are two opposite and radical strategies implemented by individual representatives of both scientific and religious communities. One of them is aimed at establishing the absolute autonomy of both science and religion, while the other is aimed at creating and promoting a scientific and religious synthesis (a kind of "whole knowledge" that typologically resembles pre - modern "science") in the public space.

A comprehensive approach to the question of the relationship between science and religion allows us to conclude that both of these strategies are counterproductive, and therefore the above-mentioned extremes should be avoided in the process of dialogue between science and religion.

First, because the statement of absolute mutual autonomy of science and religion, which is characteristic of the modern paradigm, means ignoring their inherent socio-cultural roles, that is, their complementary presence in the cultural space as different types of individually and socially significant knowledge. Such disregard has historically been conditioned by a change in the social hegemony of religion -

12. The classic expression of this idea belongs to the founder of positivism, Auguste Comte. Soviet Marxism, which acted as a "science" (including "scientific atheism" as a science of religion), assumed the overcoming of religiosity by the forces of "scientific reason". See characteristic statements: "Marxism revealed the groundlessness of religion's claims to the role of the main force for the spiritual development of society, showed the futility and inconsistency of the ways of spiritual improvement indicated by it... The inclusion of believers in communist construction, in the purposeful transformation of life for the benefit of humanity contributes to their liberation from religious prejudice "(History and Theory of atheism. Bakanursky G. L., Borunkov Yu. F., Vinokurov V. V., Dmitrieva N. K. et al.; Editors: Novikov M. P. (executive editor), Ovsienko F. G., Ugrinovich D. M., Yablokov I. N. 3rd ed., dorab. Moscow: Mysl, 1987. P. 344. 350).

page 175
However, in the conditions of late modernity, when religion again enters the public/socio-cultural sphere, the hegemonic claims of science, as noted above, are undermined.

Secondly, because attempts to create a new scientific-religious synthesis mean ignoring the fundamental cognitive and methodological differences between science and religion. Although these attempts sometimes demonstrate the heuristic capabilities of adherents of such a synthesis and provide interesting material in certain thematic areas, in general they remain marginal enterprises, since they are not perceived as a way to solve the problem of the relationship between science and religion in principle by both the scientific and religious communities.

It should be noted that neither the recognition of the absolute autonomy of science and religion, nor the proposal of a scientific-religious synthesis leaves room for dialogue, since in the first case the subjects of the proposed dialogue are fundamentally isolated from each other, and in the second case they merge, forming a single subject.

A comprehensive approach to the development of the dialogue between science and religion, taking into account both its epistemological aspect and the cultural and social dimension of the phenomena under consideration, reveals the need to expand the dialogue through the inclusion of humanities and social disciplines on the part of science.

As a rule, when we talk about the dialogue between science and religion, by default we mean the dialogue between religion and modern natural science, since it creates a "scientific picture of the world" that contradicts the traditional "religious picture of the world". However, in institutional terms, natural science is only a "part" of modern science as a cultural institution and social force (although it is a significant and still dominant part). No matter how skeptical the attitude of many representatives of the natural and exact sciences may be towards representatives of the social and humanitarian sciences, both belong to the same "large scientific community" and therefore represent science as a whole - both in the public and in the individual consciousness. Therefore, the dialogue between religion (theology) and science should include-

page 176
It is necessary to start a dialogue not only with natural sciences, but also with social and humanitarian sciences.

In the post-Soviet Russian situation, such a dialogue is particularly relevant and useful due to several factors.

From the point of view of science, the post-Soviet situation is determined by the complexity of the transition period. In the Soviet era, the social sciences and humanities were ideologized, but the ideology itself (Marxist-Leninist) was interpreted precisely as "science" and even as its highest achievement. This led to the isolation (although not complete) of the relevant scientific disciplines from the global processes of scientific development, while maintaining the high authority of science in the public consciousness. In the post-Soviet period, social sciences and humanities went through a process of de-ideologization, which was accompanied by an awareness of their lack of competence, which set their representatives the task of "catching up". As a result, the public authority of the relevant set of disciplines was undermined, and the pathos of restoring genuine scientific identity, understood primarily in the sense of freedom from any extra - scientific attitudes and prerequisites-ideological, ideological and religious, among others-came to the fore.

From the point of view of religion (we are talking primarily about Russian Orthodoxy), the post-Soviet transit is determined by the specifics of its external socio-political context- "atheistic", and then "post-atheistic". For most of the twentieth century - a very significant social and scientific development - religion in the USSR was in the position of a suppressed and persecuted participant in cultural processes. This historical experience resulted in the absence of a developed tradition of socio-political reflection in Orthodox theology. At the same time, in the post - Soviet situation, the Russian Orthodox Church has made a number of efforts aimed at formulating its own - modern-social teaching.

Bearing in mind the above - mentioned processes, we should pay attention to the fact that in the current Russian (and more broadly, post-Soviet) context, the dialogue between Orthodox theology and social and humanitarian sciences can become an example of productive interaction between science and religion. In a situation of historical transit, when both religion and science are considered cultural

page 177
institutions are in the process of transformation, and dialogue between them can help them not only rethink their role in society. Such a dialogue will meet the needs of the society itself, which needs to understand the role of the scientific community, but also the church community in shaping a new cultural and social configuration. In addition, such a dialogue can be a preventive measure against the actualization of the old "ideological" conflict between science and religion.

On the other hand, the dialogue between Orthodox theology and the humanities and social sciences in the post-Soviet situation is one of the dimensions of the general civil dialogue on the public good. An important aspect of such a dialogue should be a discussion on anthropology, covering the latest topics of bioethics, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, ecology and, in general, the role played in modern societies by the latest technologies generated by the progress of scientific knowledge. For the question of the social and cultural projection of modern technoscience requires finding criteria that allow us to judge not only the prospects for sustainable development, but also the humanitarian and ethical consequences of the development of scientific knowledge itself. Problems of this kind are characteristic of late modernity and indicate a crisis of the modern paradigm, which can only be overcome by joint efforts of various cultural forces. One of these forces today is religion, which is called upon to offer a vision of the world and man in a dialogue and productive interaction with science that could help overcome the absolute autonomy of the scientific approach to reality and open up new prospects for solving the fundamental problems of modern man-made civilization.

One aspect of the general question of the relationship between science and religion is the question of the status of theology as one of the sciences. In historically Christian countries that did not undergo the radical secularization of the Soviet type, theology still retains the status of a scientific discipline within the educational system, as well as the academic community as a whole. In the post-Soviet cultural situation, the question of such a status remains debatable.13
13. See: Theology in the system of scientific knowledge and education. Materials of hearings in the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation. Public Chamber

page 178
It can be assumed that this is primarily due to the stereotypes inherent in the minds of many "secular scientists" who consider religion (and, consequently, theology). as the sphere of the irrational, fundamentally incompatible with science as the sphere of the rational. In addition, opponents of the recognition of theology as a scientific status, as a rule, are also opponents of any return of religion to the public sphere. As a consequence, the formal features of scientific research that are present in many special theological disciplines are not perceived as a sufficient basis for academic institutionalization of theology.

In this situation, it seems logical to pay attention to the correlation of the religious and the scientific within theology itself in a broad sense (by analogy with philosophy). In the general theological space, "faith" and "science" are related not only in terms of content, but also in terms of formal distinction. Theological disciplines that involve following the procedure and methodology of scientific research, according to these formal characteristics, can be classified as scientific disciplines, including: biblical studies, church history, patrology, history of faith and theology, canon law, history of church art, historical liturgics, and so on. At the same time, it is important to pay attention to the fact that these disciplines are part of the scientific universe, that is, they exist and develop in the space of world academic science (individual actors of which are both personally religious and non-religious scientists). At the same time, theology as a systematic and /or creative religious thinking based on its own foundations (again, by analogy with philosophy) can be attributed to the sphere of extra - scientific intellectual activity (so that only the results of this activity are in the sphere of scientific attention-for example, religious studies or the "history of ideas"). In this dimension, theology is one of the types of rational activity, cognition and knowledge (in accordance with the concept of the specific diversity of knowledge).

Таким образом, определенные теологические дисциплины могут быть опознаны в качестве научных по формальным призна-

Russian Federation, 2008; Antonov K. Theology as a scientific specialty / / Voprosy filosofii. 2012. N 6. pp. 73-84.

page 179
kam - methodological (procedural) and organizational (institutional). In the socio-cultural perspective, theology as a whole (as an intellectual dimension of religion) gains legitimacy due to the fact that it belongs to the religious subsystem of society.

In conclusion, here are some practical considerations and recommendations.

In the modern dialogue between science and religion, the most important role belongs to philosophy - first of all, the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of science. The experience of this research project, where the majority of participants were professional philosophers, only confirmed the importance of philosophical mediation when considering the relationship between science and religion. 14 At the same time, an important methodological conclusion concerning the development of the dialogue between science and religion is that the productivity of a meeting between representatives of religious and scientific minds depends not so much on the presence of professional philosophers among the participants in the discussion-as a certain "third party" acting as a "disinterested moderator", but on the implementation of the philosophical approach and the use of philosophical rationality on the part of both religious and scientific representatives. In other words, the ability to philosophize qualitatively on both sides is a necessary condition for the effectiveness of the dialogue.

This raises the question of the most productive dialogue formats, as well as the personal composition of discussion groups that are designed to carry out a dialogue between science and religion in specific areas and topics. The most general answer to this question is as follows.

The main strategy for developing a dialogue between science and religion in the Russian context should consist in organizing a mutually interested and focused discussion within small groups.

14. The thesis about the mediation of philosophy in the dialogue between religion (theology) and science in the Russian context is often found in the formulation proposed by the mathematician and Orthodox theologian Alexey Nesteruk: "Science as a participant in the dialogue with theology cannot enter into this dialogue in a" purely scientific " mode; it will inevitably be interpreted in a broad cultural and linguistic sense and social context in such a way that it puts the global perception of science in a meta-scientific perspective. Philosophy thus plays the role of a linguistic and conceptual intermediary between the rational models of science and the boundless apophaticism of theology." Nesteruk A. Logos and cosmos: Theology, Science and Orthodox Tradition, Moscow: St. Andrew's Bible and Theological Institute, 2006, p. 91.

page 180
groups'. These groups should include scientists and theologians, each of whom has not only sufficient competence in their field, but also the ability to reflect philosophically. Only if there is a core of such participants in the dialogue is it possible and necessary to involve "philosophically naive" representatives of the scientific and religious communities, whose role will be to present relevant ideas and points of view and respond to the reactions and arguments of "philosophers" 15.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the public significance of such dialogical meetings - both one - time and regular-depends not only and not so much on the fruitfulness of the discussion, but on the public response that they will receive. Therefore, promoting the results of such discussions in the public and cultural space requires additional organizational efforts-taking into account the specifics of modern mass media, which form public opinion, as well as, to a large extent, individual consciousness.

The development of a dialogue between science and religion in modern Russia (and more broadly in the post-Soviet space) is an urgent need: first, for the religious community, which is gaining new publicity after decades of forced ghettoization; second, for the scientific community, which is facing increasing publicity of religion and is forced to determine its attitude to it; third, for the scientific community, which is, for a society as a whole that is undergoing a process of cultural transformation and whose members need an answer to the question of the relationship between science and religion at the present stage of historical evolution.

The productivity of the dialogue between science and religion in modern conditions will be determined by the awareness that its moral basis is a common responsibility: on the one hand, a "religious mind" that is open to the specific contribution of science to the public good, and on the other - a "scientific mind" that is aware of its borders and free from anti-religious bias.

15. These preliminary conclusions regarding the philosophical mediation of dialogue and the configuration of discussion groups require further elaboration, as well as testing during specific experimental meetings.

page 181
Bibliography/References

Antonov K. Theology as a scientific specialty / / Voprosy filosofii. 2012. N 6. pp. 73-84.

History and theory of atheism. Training manual/Bakanursky G. L., Borunkov Yu. F., Vinokurov V. V., Dmitrieva N. K. et al.; Editors: Novikov M. P. (executive editor), Ovsienko F. G., Ugrinovich D. M., Yablokov I. N. 3rd ed., dorab. Moscow: Mysl, 1987.

Kasavin I. T. Posnanie [Knowledge] / / Novaya filosofskaya entsiklopediya. T. N. 3. Moscow: Mysl', 2001, pp. 259-263.

Kyrlezhev A. Postsekulyarnoe: kratkaya interpretatsiya [Postsecular: a brief Interpretation]. N 3 (82). 2011. p. 100-106.

Kyung G. The Beginning of All Things, Moscow: St. Andrew's Bible and Theological Institute, 2006.

Luhmann N. Teoriya obshchestva [Theory of Society], Moscow, 2000.

Logos and Cosmos: Theology, Science and Orthodox Tradition, Moscow: St. Andrew's Bible and Theological Institute, 2006.

Fundamentals of the Russian Orthodox Church's Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights (http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/428616.html, accessed from 13.12.2014). Parsons T. Sistema sovremennykh obshchestv [The system of modern Societies]. Moscow: Aspekt-press, 1998.

Theology in the system of scientific knowledge and education. Materials of hearings in the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, Moscow: Publishing House of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, 2008.

Uzlaner D. Sovetskaya model ' sekularizatsii [The Soviet model of secularization]. 2010. N6. 62 - 69.

Shishkov A. Nekotorye aspekty desekularizatsii v postsovetskoy Rossii [Some aspects of desecularization in post-Soviet Russia]. 2012. N 2. pp. 165-177.

Antonov, K. (2012) Teologiia kak nauchnaia spetsial'nost' ["Theology as a Scientific Discipline" in] // Voprosy filosofii 6: 73 - 84.

Casanova, J. (1994) Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Istoriia i teoriia ateizma. Uchebnoe posobie (1987) [History and Theory of Atheism. The Manual]/Bakanurskii G. L., Borunkov Iu.F., Vinokurov V.V., Dmitrieva N. K. i dr.; Redkol.: Novikov M.P. (otv. red.), Ovsienko F.G., Ugrinovich D.M., Iablokov I.N. 3-е izd., dorab. Moscow: Mysl'.

Kasavin, I.T. "Poznanie" [Cognition] (2001), in Novaia filosofskaia entsiklopediia. T. N. 3, pp. 259 - 263. Moscow: Mysl'.

Kiing, H. (2006) Nachalo usekh ueshchei [The Beginning of All Things - Science and Religion]. Moscow: Bibleisko-bogoslovskii institut sv. ap. Andreia, 2006.

Kyrlezhev, A. (2011) "Postsekuliarnoe: kratkaia interpretatsiia" [Post-Secular: A Brief Interpretation], Logos 3 (82): 100 - 106.

Luman, N. (2000) Teoriia obshchestva [The Theory of Society]. Moscow.

Nesteruk, A. (2006) Logos i kosmos: Bogoslovie, nauka i pravoslavnoe predanie [Logos and Kosmos: Theology, Science, and Eastern Orthodox Tradition]. Moscow: Bibleisko-bogoslovskii institut sv. ap. Andreia.

Nongbri, B. (2013) Before Religion. A History of a Modern Concept. New Haven and London: Yale University Press

page 182
Osnovy ucheniia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi о dostoinstve, svobode i pravakh cheloveka [The Russian Orthodox Church's Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights] (http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/428616.html, accessed 13.12.2014).

Parsons, T. Sistema sovremennykh obshchestv [The System of Contemporary Societies]. Moscow: Aspekt-press, 1998.

Shishkov, A. (2012) "Nekotorye aspekty desekuliarizatsii v postsovetskoi Rossii" [Some Aspects of Desecularisation in post-Soviet Russia], Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom 2: 165 - 177.

Teologiia v sisteme nauchnogo znaniia i obrazovaniia. Materialy slushanii v Obshchestvennoi palate Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Theology in the System of Scientific Knowledge and Education. Proceedings of the Hearing of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation] (2008). M.: Izd. Obshchestvennoi palaty Rossiiskoi Federatsii.

Uzlaner, D. (2010) "Sovetskaia model' sekuliarizatsii" [The Soviet Model of Secularization], Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia 6: 62 - 69.

page 183

Permanent link to this publication: