Religious expertise in the light of general scientific principles

We are publishing an article by Ekaterina Elbakyan, a religious scholar, Doctor of Philosophy, professor at the Academy of Labor and Social Relations, who analyzed the role of religious expertise in high-profile trials involving religious organizations, as well as the principles on which such expertise should be based.

"Adomonere voluimus, non

mordere; prodesse non

laedere; consulere moribus

bominum, non otticere"

Erasme

"We intended to warn, but not to offend,

to benefit, but not to hurt,

improve people's morals, but do not offend people"

Erasmus of Rotterdam

"Votta a petrella, e tira a manella"

(“Throw a stone and hide your hand behind your back”).

Venetian proverb

"The Power of Keys" [1]

Any knowledge and information can be transmitted in various ways - phonetically, that is, through a set of sounds of oral speech (if there is no written language or, for one reason or another, it is not used); symbolically - through text written in letters (signs) on some medium - clay tablets, papyrus, paper, and now also on “electronic media”, which do not always imply “paper versions”; finally, symbolically, when the meaning of this or that information is encrypted either in some “pictorial” symbols, or in a context that acts as a symbol. In the latter case, wittingly or unwittingly, in order to comprehend the true meaning of the text, the reader is forced to resort to a number of hermeneutic procedures, up to empathy, i.e. “feeling” into the text, when the information lying on the surface contained in it is completely transformed and acquires a deep, often different, meaning in the process of understanding the context. It is this meaning, as a rule, that acts as the “key” to understanding the entire text (in the broad sense) as a kind of meaningful set of signs and symbols.

A special place, in this regard, belongs to the sacred text, which acts as a kind of mediator between a believer and the sacred thing that he worships. Religious consciousness, whether it be a deep-seated feeling, a vague idea, or a distinct idea, needs verbal expression. Religious feelings, ideas and ideas enshrined in words become the basis of beliefs that unite co-religionists into religious groups, communities, confessions and religions.

The verbal layer of religions is expressed in oral tradition (folk beliefs, teachings, sermons, instructions, etc.), in sacred texts and church traditions, in theological and religious-philosophical treatises. It is constantly changing; some of its parts become obsolete and die out, others are refined and filled with new meaning. From time to time, new words and terms appear that reflect changes in religious consciousness and correspond to the spirit of the times. This essentially endless process is clearly visible in numerous commentaries on sacred texts, glossaries, dictionaries, reference books, and encyclopedias. The study of this literature allows us to trace the development of religious thought, its history and current state.

At the same time, most sacred texts remain ancient, and their reading and perception by modern people differs significantly from their understanding by people of other eras. In this sense, each text lives many lives, while at the same time supporting many lives. Various, often directly opposite, conclusions can and are drawn from a book - it all depends on the point of view of the reader and his interpretation of what he read. The deep, meaning-forming element of any text, cleared of historically limited details, its “key,” remains its own for everyone - on the one hand, and, at the same time, claims to a certain universality - on the other. This is the “power of the keys”.

In order not to incur accusations of “solipsism,” I note that, of course, I understand the importance of emphasizing the objectivity of the text, when sometimes it, completely detached from its author, begins to live its own life, leading to consequences that the author did not intend at all. Nevertheless, subjective perception plays a crucial role in the existence and development, in the fate of the text, including, of course, the sacred.

In recent years, a wave of lawsuits related to sacred texts and literature of various religions has swept across Russia. This is the trial in Tomsk of the book “Bhagavad Gita As It Is,” which is considered a sacred text by believers, since it presents comments by the founder of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, acharya Swami Prabhupada, and the shock for Islamic religious organizations, which was the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court in Novorossiysk about the ban on the semantic translation of the sacred Koran into Russian, carried out by Elmir Kuliev. We should also add here a number of religious publications of Jehovah's Witnesses, which regularly supplement the Federal List of Extremist Materials of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation as a result of court decisions. By the beginning of December 2015, the number of items on the list exceeded 3,152 items. From a number of religious texts, this document also included individual books, brochures, magazines of Jehovah's Witnesses, and individual works of Ron L. Hubbard, which are perceived by his followers - Scientologists - as sacred. The apogee of the fight against sacred texts today was the appeal to the prosecutor’s office of a St. Petersburg lawyer regarding the “extremism” of the Bible.

As a rule, the reason for accusing religious literature of preaching religious exclusivity and extremist actions against believers of other confessions or non-believers are free interpretations of phrases taken out of context or simply ignorance of the elementary foundations of the doctrine and cult practice of a particular religious movement.

Here again the “key” is lost. Because if you find it, then you can understand that the religious consciousness in general is characterized by both the doubling of the world into the hereafter and this world, and the dichotomy of this world into one’s co-religionists and all other people. This characteristic feature of all religions determines the positions of any religious organizations - from very small ones to global ones. For some religious movements this is clearly visible even from the names themselves. For example, Byzantine Christians called themselves Orthodox , and Roman Christians called themselves Catholics (Greek Catholicos - universal, universal). Adherents of Islam call themselves true believers . There is also a True Orthodox Church in Russia.

Turning to the history of religions, it is not difficult to notice that from the moment of their origin to the present stage of development, in each of them there is a clearly visible position that asserts the truth exclusively of itself, where all the calls to fight against infidels - with pagans in early Christianity, infidels - in Islam, Brahmanists - in Buddhism, not to mention the Protestant-Catholic disagreements of the Reformation era, were expressed either in military or, as in the case of Orthodox-Catholic disagreements, in theological and dogmatic disputes.

Almost every sermon of Jesus Christ, recorded in that part of the Bible called the New Testament, emphasizes the dissimilarity of his faith from all others - in particular, from the Jewish and pagan ones, to which the New Testament teaching is contrasted. The entire history of the formation and establishment of world religions - Christianity, Buddhism, Islam - was associated with the strict assertion by their founders - Jesus, Buddha and Muhammad - of the exclusive truth of only their creeds and the call of supporters to defend them in any way.

Criticism of traditional Christian churches and other religious organizations is part of continuous interreligious disputes in which all religions and religious movements of the world participate to one degree or another. But, representing a special aspect of religious existence, can these disputes be considered as “inciting religious strife, enmity and hatred”? Moreover, is it fair to blame such disputes only on certain religious movements?

Only the pattern in which supporters of a particular religion consider only that religion to be true, and all others to varying degrees as delusions, motivates their missionary work through the dissemination of information - sermons (written and oral) about their religion. Without this, religions cannot preserve their traditions, nor count on development, or indeed on their very existence.

It is interesting that the apostles and members of early Christian communities, as history testifies, were very successful in convincing pagans and Jews of the truth of their religion. It was during this apostolic period that they largely advanced along the path of assimilation with the cult practices of paganism or theological understanding of individual problems in Judaism, without which neither the cult nor theological development of Christianity as a whole was possible.

The moment of origin and initial formation of a particular religion, as a rule, is reflected in its sacred texts, which contain the original “key” of this religion. Misunderstanding of this “key” does not give the right to constructive criticism, much less denial or condemnation, which often occurs today. Texts sacred to religions and publications of religious organizations registered in Russia obviously cannot be viewed through the prism of searching for calls to extremist and other illegal actions in them. They can only be an object for searching for a meaning-making “key”. Only then can the “power of keys” give the tireless seeker the “key of power.”

Forensic allusions

One of the most sensational court cases in recent years is the so-called “case of 16”, the first trial of which lasted since 2011 and ended in Taganrog on July 30, 2014. We are talking about the conviction of 16 Jehovah's Witnesses for extremist activities in accordance with Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (incitement of hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity).

Demanding the maximum sentence, in accordance with Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, prosecutors accused believers of creating a criminal group, involving minors in it, humiliating other religions (!), etc. Moreover, the four elders of the congregation (community) of Jehovah's Witnesses acted, from the point of view of prosecutors, as the organizers of the criminal group, and the rest of the believers were its members.

The result, despite the fact that all the arguments of the prosecutor’s office were defeated by both the lawyers and the invited religious specialist, was the verdict of seven defendants, four of whom received suspended sentences from 5 to 5.5 years, the rest were ordered to pay fines. Nine accused were acquitted.

Disproportionate punishment given to people who have not committed an offense.

In August 2014, the verdict was appealed simultaneously by both the lawyers of Jehovah's Witnesses and the prosecutor's office in the Rostov Regional Court. On December 12, 2014, the verdict was completely overturned both in the accusatory part and in the acquittal part, and on December 26, 2014, the case was again sent for retrial to the Taganrog City Court. A new round of torment began for believers, who, instead of going to work, taking care of family affairs, or going somewhere - to visit relatives or on a business trip - were forced to spend days, weeks, months in a stuffy courtroom. And on November 30, 2015, a new sentence was passed: three defendants were sentenced to 5 years and 6 months of probation, another was given a suspended sentence of 5 years and 3 months, 12 people were sentenced to fines, but were exempt from paying them due to the expiration of the terms how old the case is. The justification for this decision was given by the representative of the prosecutor's office Oksana Sukhareva: “The court found that the four organizers of an extremist criminal group, knowing that the Rostov regional court recognized the religious organization Jehovah's Witnesses as extremist and banned its activities in Taganrog, Neklinovsky and Matveevo-Kurgan districts of Rostov region, continued to develop its activities. In addition, they involved minors in the banned organization.”

Honestly, among the many questions raised by this process, one (the simplest one) arises: where does the taxpayers' money go? To fight against believers belonging to a state-recognized religious organization? Why not with bandits, murderers, embezzlers?

Since the author of these lines participated as a specialist in this and some other similar trials, in the preparation of judicial and extrajudicial expert opinions, observing everything that was happening both from the outside, as a religious expert, and “from the inside,” I would like to share some thoughts . In particular, regarding who can act as the author of an expert opinion and by what principles and methodological procedures such a conclusion should be regulated (bearing in mind exclusively the sphere of competence of a religious scholar).

Religious expertise as a factor contributing to the fairness of judicial decisions

Types of examinations

In modern Russia, we increasingly hear about claims by state bodies against certain religious organizations, mainly related to the so-called “religious minorities.” The consequence of this is judicial precedents, when individual religious organizations are forced, often repeatedly, to apply to courts of various authorities, including the European Court of Human Rights, to resolve problems that arise with them. Sometimes the state brings charges against religious organizations.

A significant role in such, as a rule, very lengthy litigation is played, of course, by the prosecutor and lawyer, who usually have little understanding of religious issues. The opinion of an expert on the issue under consideration should be a significant help for them. Such an opinion, as a qualified specialist in the field that is the subject of consideration and in which the representatives of the parties are less competent, is expressed by the expert, as a rule, in the conclusion of the forensic examination. In addition, an extrajudicial examination can be used with an expert summoned to court for questioning at the request of the defense or prosecution.

According to the Federal Law “On State Forensic Activities in the Russian Federation” (Federal Law No. 73 of May 31, 2001), forensic examination is “a procedural action consisting of conducting research and giving an opinion by an expert on issues the resolution of which requires special knowledge in the field science, technology, art or craft, and which are put before the expert by a court, judge, investigative body, person conducting the inquiry, investigator or prosecutor, in order to establish the circumstances to be proven in a specific case.”

An examination is considered judicial if it is appointed by the court, or at the request of the parties participating in the trial, i.e. the prosecution, the defense, the plaintiff or defendant and, finally, the judge himself, and sometimes the investigator. The conclusions contained in the forensic examination are the evidence base when considering a case in court and can influence the judge’s decision-making. A forensic examination is part of a procedural action subject to regulation by the relevant norms of administrative, civil and criminal law, and the author of a forensic examination (expert) bears criminal liability for the unreliability of the content of his conclusion.

An extrajudicial examination is an expert’s research conducted with the aim of resolving controversial situations by establishing facts. Such research can only be carried out by a professional with special knowledge in this field. An extrajudicial examination does not have the same legal status as a forensic examination; the expert does not bear criminal liability for his conclusions. However, it can also be part of the evidence base and the basis for a court decision or for initiating a criminal case.

At the same time, I would like to draw attention to such a fundamentally important point as the moral responsibility of the expert for the consequences of the examination he performed. This is a very delicate issue, since legal liability is much easier to establish. Moral responsibility is more difficult to qualify. In this case, I can only say one thing: if behind the name of the organization and its institutional structures one does not see living people with their unique personal destiny, in which religion plays a significant role, and often, especially when it comes to new religious movements, where the religious experience of believers is very intense , the main role, then, alas, there is no need to talk about the moral consciousness of the expert. With the stroke of a pen, such an expert can destroy the lives of many people. Of course, faith cannot be destroyed in this way; moreover, as we know, it only grows stronger in trials, but it is possible and even quite successful in creating noticeable difficulties in social life for followers of “non-titular” religious movements. That is why the personal moral responsibility of an expert according to the principle of “do no harm” seems so important - that is, asserting the truth and only the truth.

In addition to the status, examinations can be divided into primary , (conducted for the first time) and secondary (repeated), which are carried out if doubt arises in the validity of the conclusions of the primary examination. In addition, for the first time, the examination is the main one , but with its failure or the occurrence of new circumstances that are not considered in the main examination, an additional examination may be prescribed.

Examinations are divided into sole (prepared by one specialist) and commission (conducted by a group of experts), and in addition, to homogeneous (within the framework of one industry) and complex (requiring specialists for their implementation in two or more knowledge sectors). Naturally, a comprehensive examination is always a commission.

Religious examination is most often part of a comprehensive psychological-linguistic commission examination. However, it can be homogeneous, and sole, and commission. The main thing that should distinguish between a religious examination is its strictly scientific and independent nature, which becomes possible when following certain methodological standards.

The principles of scientific

An independent religious examination should be strictly scientific in nature and follow certain methodological standards. It is important to understand that religious studies is a science of religion, which arose about 150 years ago in Western Europe and formed around the subject (various sides of the manifestation of religion in human and society) and the object (religion as a sociocultural phenomenon) of its study using the methods of other sciences (sociology, psychology, history, ethnology, anthropology, etc.).

What is the essence of "scientific"?

The classical science, which is based on the mechanistic picture of the world, as a norm proclaims objectivity , that is, the correspondence of our ideas about the object of the external world or about some external phenomenon by this object or phenomenon. This, in turn, involves the elimination (elimination) of the subject, that is, the detachment of the expert from his personal characteristics, worldview orientations, and values ​​scales.

The arising at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries as a result of the crisis in physics as a result of discoveries at the level of the microworld, in particular, quantum mechanics, non -classical science is based on the cognitive abilities of the subject. The consequence of this is the “assumption” of the subject into the world of objects, and the ideas of the identity of perceptions and things, language and reality are very popular in many philosophical concepts of the 20th century. The emancipation of the subject of cognitive activity aroused interest in the problem of subjectivity as a whole, and the interaction of individuals in the social process was reflected in the actualization of the problem of the “I” and “other”, in accordance with the solution of which not only models of interpersonal interaction, but also the coordination of the interaction of social groups are built and the solution systems, including religious.

The post-non-classical stage in the development of modern science, which began in the 1970s, involves a certain integration of various scientific areas, the interdisciplinary scientific research. This is facilitated by the computerization of science, which involves new approaches to obtaining and storing information, the inability to solve a number of scientific problems without the integrated use of knowledge of various scientific disciplines, without taking into account the place and role of a person in the studied systems. Therefore, post-non-classical science in a certain sense contributes to the convergence of natural science and the social-humanities.

The method of “objective” or “external” description of objects and/or phenomena, first of all, was supplemented by social in this regard by the method of studying “from the inside” - from the point of view of people who form social, including religious structures, and operating in them . Here, the priority significance remains for comprehension (explication) of meaning, when not so much an explanation is used as the main methodological procedure (as in the natural sciences) as an understanding . In this case, the description of the studied processes, which is of great importance in natural science in this case. It is complemented by the interpretation of the text in the broad meaning of this concept. Gnostics also spoke of the importance of interpretation, based on the fact that we all see the same thing, but we perceive it differently.

Religious studies as a separate branch of scientific knowledge arises in the paradigm of classical science, objectivity and impartiality for which are the most important criteria of scientific. Science studies only what exists in itself and regardless of the subject. She is not interested in why it is, what could it be, what should be and how good or bad. That is, strictly speaking, the scientific approach excludes the subjunctive and axiological judgments.

In general, science is based on evidence, so it makes sense for it only what can be confirmed or refuted. To date, a number of criteria for scientific community are recognized as the following fundamental principles: one can distinguish:

1. The principle of verification (from lat. Verus - true and facere - do), by virtue of which only the knowledge that can be confirmed is scientific. This principle was proposed by Bertrand Russell.

2. The principle of falsification (from lat. False - lies and facere - do), by virtue of which only knowledge is scientific, which can be changed: refuted or supplemented. This principle is proposed by Karl Popper.

3. The principle of objectivity - postulation of what belongs to the object and does not depend on the subject, that is, those phenomena or processes that do not depend on the will or desire of the cognitive subject (individual scientist or scientific community).

4. The principle of rationality (from lat. Ratio - reason). Rationality -related to reason, validity of reason, accessible to a reasonable understanding, in contrast to irrationality as something unreasonable, inaccessible to reasonable understanding. In the methodology of scientific knowledge, rationality is understood in two ways. Most often, it is interpreted as compliance with the laws of the mind - the laws of logic, methodological norms and rules. Sometimes, rationality is understood as expediency, a certain goal -setting, which implies certain logically verified steps to achieve the goal. It is rational that which contributes to the achievement of the goal, and what prevents this is irrational. The birth of a phenomenon of rationality is associated with the indigenous reform of European philosophy in modern times, expressed in its socialization and methodologization. The founder of this reform is considered to be R. Descartes, who called on the human mind to free himself from the “shackles of mysticism and revelation” and from the rational limited scholasticism.

5. The principle of methodicalness is the sequence of logical procedures, aimed in advance to achieve a specific goal.

6. The principle of truth , which means the correspondence of knowledge (wider - information) to the cognized subject (wider - object). On the basis of a sign of truthfulness, the complementary sign of the objectivity of knowledge is formulated, namely: all knowledge should be objective knowledge, that is, to be characterized by the attitude to the knowledgeable existing outside him, because if there is no knowledgeable, then there is no knowledge.

7. The principle of systematicity : only that information is scientific, which is properly structured. Structuring will easily determine its role and place in the general knowledge system, that is, it provides the possibility of finding the necessary information.

8. The principle of changes in parts : only that information is scientific, the components of which can be changed, that is, refuted or supplemented.

9. The principle of intersubjectivity expresses the property of universality, compliance, universality of knowledge (wider - information) in contrast, for example, from an opinion characterized by indecency, individualism.

10. The principle of axiological neutrality , which implies the inadmissibility of the adoption of appraisal judgments about the object under study.

Religious examination in the light of general scientific principles

Among the different types of examinations - linguistic, psychological, art history, etc., a religious examination occupies an important place. Religious science is academic science. The key principle of scientific religious expertise is objectivity, the real achievement of which is possible only in the position of intersubjectivity and axiological neutrality. As the Western researcher of religion M. Thompson noted, “between science and religion there is a significant difference, which is that science tries to ignore the scientist’s personal reaction to the object being studied, while precisely a personal reaction is an integral feature of religion” [2] .

Considering general scientific principles in relation to religious examination, it is necessary to pay attention to the following fact: only in the case of the application of general scientific principles in the preparation of expert conclusions, can we talk about a truly religious examination . Since religious studies is a science that meets all the criteria of scientificity, a religious examination can be neither non -scientific, nor, moreover, anti -scientific. During its implementation, the expert is obliged to be guided by the principles of verification, falsification, objectivity, rationality, methodological, truth, systemicity, changeability of parts, intersubjectivity and axiological neutrality.

Consider the “work” of these principles on a specific example. For example, it is necessary to make an expert opinion on the topic whether a certain community that proclaims itself religion, a religious organization is. In addition to the analysis of its title documents, we, using the principles of scientificity, carry out a religious examination in accordance with the understanding of the religion in modern religious studies: a) the structure of religion; b) the typology of religious organizations; c) classification of religions.

From the standpoint of modern religious studies, all developed religions are characterized by a unified structure. It includes four main elements:

• Religious consciousness;
• Religious activity;
• Religious relations;
• Religious organizations. Let us dwell on these elements in more detail, since it is precisely this structure adopted in religious studies that should underlie the religious examination, regardless of the specific task set in one case or another before the expert.

Religious consciousness , the main feature of which is the faith in the real existence of supernatural, has two levels of ordinary (religious consciousness of believers) and conceptual (theological and religious and philosophical research).

Religious relations are relations between believing people, developing both in the process of sending worship-worship, religious holidays, rites, etc. (cult relations), and in other areas of activity-missionary, economic, publishing, educational, etc. ( Fucked relations). In addition, in the framework of religious relations, two layers can be distinguished: objective - relations between members of the religious community, and subjective - the attitude of a believer to a supernatural force.

Religious activity is also cult and extracurricular. Cultural activity includes participation in various aspects of the departure of a religious cult (religious holidays, rituals, ceremonies, rites, sacraments). Extraculric activities include the activity of believers and religious communities as a whole in areas such as missionaries, mercifully blessing, publishing, teaching and other types of religious activities.

Religious organizations include three main types (although some researchers stand out up to 15 species and subspecies): church, denomination and sect. Researchers are distinguished by certain signs that are characteristic of a particular type of religious organization. So, for example, a church is a type of religious organization uniting followers on the basis of a commonality of creed and cult. It has a complex strictly centralized and hierarchized division system into clergymen who undergo special training, and laity. Their interactions are carried out by the functions of developing, preserving and transmitting religious information; organization and coordination of religious activities; control over the behavior of people. Belonging to the church is determined, as a rule, not by a free choice of a person, but by tradition (family or state). Her followers are mostly anonymous, i.e. There is no permanent and strictly controlled membership. Usually the church collaborates with the state, or at least does not confront it.

The sect arises as a result of the separation from the Church of part of believers who proclaim the opposition tradition and the dominant church, and often to public order, to the state. In the modern sociology of religion, the following characteristics of the sect exist:

§ unacceptability of the teachings of the dominant church;

§ Claim to the exclusivity of their role in the religious world, their doctrines and ideological principles. The messianic moods of chosenness and the tendency to isolationism are associated with this;

§ a kind of interpretation or interpretation of sacred books and religious dogmas;

§ charismatic nature of the leadership of the organization;

§ readiness for renunciation and gap with the family, society and the established life and the associated attitude towards sacrifice and suffering;

§ religious dreaminess and idealization of the future;

§ Active missionary activity and proselytism of the new adherents of their teachings;

§ relatively small number of followers and constantly controlled membership;

§ Lack of division into clergy and laity, and in some cases the general priesthood; proclamation of the equality of all members of the organization;

§ fanaticism in defending your faith, intolerance and sharp rejection of other teachings, etc.

One of the various sect can be considered a charismatic cult, which has the same main features as the sect. Its specificity is due to the fact that a key role here is played by a specific person, recognized by charismatic (endowed with divine grace) and often perceived either as close to the deity, or even the deity himself. The charismatic cult is usually small and often after the death of the charismatic leader ceases to exist. It most clearly traces the ideas about the exclusivity, isolationism and mysticism of its followers.

Denomination is an intermediate type of religious organization, combining the features of the church and sect. From the Church, she borrows a relatively high centralization system and the hierarchical principle of management, the rejection of the policy of isolationism. The preaching of the chosenness of members is combined with the possibility of salvation and spiritual revival for everyone. It is brought together by the principle of voluntariness, constancy and strict control of membership, a claim to the exclusivity of attitudes and values, the idea of ​​God -chosen. The denomination is distinguished by an active participation in secular life, effective economic activity, the desire to develop into the church, or at least it is called it.

It is important to note that this typology, proposed more than a hundred years ago by Protestant theolists, E. Trölch and R. Nibur, is effective exclusively in the field of academic religious studies with its inherent axiological neutrality, that is, in the complete absence of negative connotations of a particular type of religious organizations, existing throughout the history of the existence of developed religions. When it is a question of a particular religious organization to a purely legal plane, in particular, into the sphere of law enforcement, this typology ceases to work, because the division contained in it is not indicated in the field of law. In accordance with Law No. 25-FZ “On the Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations” (1997), there is a different division of religious organizations into centralized and local (Article 8), into religious associations and religious groups (Article 7) in jurisprudence.

Considering the classification of religions, we also distinguish a number of signs of certain classes of religions and strictly in accordance with their presence, regardless of personal sympathies and antipathies, we attribute this or that religion to early religious beliefs, ethnolocal (national-renewal), world religions or world religions, or To new religious movements. So, it is known, for example, that ethnolocal religions are characterized by politicalism, complex rituals with its inherent sacrifices, the presence of professional priesthood, etc. In contrast to this class of religions, universalism, egalitarism, the abolition of complex rites and sacrifices, etc. are characterized by world religions.

Аналогичным образом при типологии религиозных организаций, используя знания в сфере социологии религии, мы, анализируя те или иные черты религиозной организации, относим ее к церкви, деноминации или секте. Как и в случае религиоведческой экспертизы, мы применяем здесь научные принципы:

Верифицируемость – проверяем религиозную организацию на наличие в ней всех элементов религиозного комплекса – религиозного сознания, религиозных отношений, религиозной деятельности и религиозной организации как таковой.

Фальсифицируемость – мы подразумеваем, что полученное нами знание может видоизменяться и дополняться с учетом развития данной религиозной организации.

Объективность – наши представления о конкретной религиозной организации совпадают с ее основными свойствами и характеристиками. Мы ничего не придумываем, не приписываем ей и не умалчиваем ни о каких ее свойствах, не фальсифицируем полученную информацию и не «вырываем из контекста».

Рациональность – перед нами стоит определенная задача, которую мы решаем путем процедур, в основе которых лежат принципы формальной логики.

Методичность – мы логично и последовательно достигаем поставленной перед экспертным исследованием цели.

Истинность – в экспертном заключении мы представляем наши знания о данной религиозной организации соответствующими состоянию и функциям этой религиозной организации.

Системность – в экспертном заключении информация должна быть четко структурирована, что позволит сразу же определить то или иное свойство и характеристику религиозной организации.

Изменяемость частей предполагает возможности дополнения информации, содержащейся в экспертном заключении или замены каких-то его отдельных частей при сохранении целого, то есть общих выводов.

Интерсубъективность экспертного заключения указывает на то, что содержащаяся в нем информация о религиозной организации является общезначимой и свободной от личного мнения

Аксиологическая нейтральность , тесно связанная с интерсубъективностью, предполагает устранение субъективных пристрастий эксперта, а также констатацию и анализ конкретных фактов, свойств, отношений, характеристик религиозной организации. То есть предполагает некую элиминацию (устранение) субъекта (эксперта).

Ученый-религиовед будет следовать данным принципам при составлении экспертного заключении имплицитно, даже если они им не прорефлексированы специально. То же относится ко всем аспектам религиоведческой экспертизы, о которых говорится в приложении 1 к Приказу Министерства юстиции Российской Федерации от 18 февраля 2009 г. № 53 «О государственной религиоведческой экспертизе» . Так, в данном документе указывается, что «объектами экспертизы являются:

а) учредительные документы религиозной организации, решения ее руководящих и исполнительных органов;

б) сведения об основах вероучения религиозной организации и соответствующей ему практики;

в) формы и методы деятельности религиозной организации;

г) богослужения, другие религиозные обряды и церемонии;

д) внутренние документы религиозной организации, отражающие ее иерархическую и институционную структуру;

е) религиозная литература, печатные, аудио- и видеоматериалы, выпускаемые и (или) распространяемые религиозной организацией».

Довольно странным в названом документе выглядит, например, разделение пунктов в и г , ибо и то и другое, с позиций религиоведения, относится к формам деятельности религиозной организации – культовой и внекультовой. В пункте б идет смешение вероучительных текстов с культовой практикой, что, напротив, нуждается в разъединении и вынесении в отдельные пункты – основы вероучения необходимо объединить с пунктом е – религиозная литература, где, собственно, они излагаются, а практику присоединить к пункту г . Также, как можно объединить, в принципе, пункты д и а , как «мирские» документы организации. Только в таком случае, с позиций научного религиоведения, объекты исследования будут четко структурированы, то есть будут использованы принципы системности и рациональности.

Далее в приложении 1 к Приказу Министерства юстиции Российской Федерации от 18 февраля 2009 г. № 53 «О государственной религиоведческой экспертизе» читаем:

"4. Задачами экспертизы являются:

а) определение религиозного характера организации на основании учредительных документов, сведений об основах ее вероучения и соответствующей ему практики»;

Думается, что определение религиозного характера организации должно проводиться по другому основанию – насколько данная религиозная организация соответствует структуре религиозного комплекса и обладает всеми его элементами.

«б) проверка и оценка достоверности сведений, содержащихся в представленных религиозной организацией документах, относительно основ ее вероучения»;

Тут совсем непонятно, каким образом религиовед должен проверять «достоверность» сведений об основах вероучения религиозной организации, содержащихся в документах. То есть эксперт должен усомниться в том, что данная религиозная организация достоверно излагает основы своего вероучения, опираясь на сакральные тексты? Тогда как на самом деле она может иметь совсем иное вероучение, которое «тщательно скрывает», не помещает ни в какие письменные источники и тайно передает «из уст в уста»?… Таким образом, и вторая задача сформулирована некорректно.

«в) проверка соответствия заявленных при государственной регистрации форм и методов деятельности религиозной организации формам и методам ее фактической деятельности».

Для исполнения этой задачи, видимо, необходимо «включенное наблюдение», которым пользовались антропологи и этнологи второй половины XIX века, приезжая к дикарям Океании и Полинезии и десятилетиями изучая их магические приемы. В условиях современной цивилизации такое не только вряд ли возможно, но откровенно неуместно.

«При проведении экспертизы могут быть разъяснены иные возникающие при осуществлении государственной регистрации и контроля за деятельностью религиозных организаций вопросы, требующие экспертной оценки».

Последняя фраза слишком неконкретна и может быть истолкована по-разному, вплоть до диаметрально противоположных и взаимоисключающих мнений, что могло бы быть удобным, в том числе, и для свободного манипулирования таким основанием в тех или иных целях.

Таким образом, объекты и задачи, сформулированные в приведенном документе Министерства юстиции РФ, не выдерживают критики с позиций научного религиоведения. Субъектом религиоведческой экспертизы, согласно тому же документу, является Экспертный совет по проведению государственной религиоведческой экспертизы при Министерстве юстиции РФ, председатель и подавляющее большинство членов которого не являются религиоведами. На мой взгляд, подобному Совету целесообразней состоять из религиоведов и юристов, специализирующихся в области государственно-религиозных отношений, стоящих на позициях объективности, толерантности, гармоничного единства в соблюдении общечеловеческих нравственных норм, тактичного отношения к верующим различных религиозных направлений, их ценностям, а также букве и духу закона. Лишь в таком случае экспертные заключения, утверждаемые Советом, будут иметь серьезный вес для религиозного, юридического и научно-религиоведческого сообществ. Таким образом, в просвещенном в целом обществе мнения экспертов будут вызывать уважение и восприниматься основанием для формирования беспристрастного отношения к объектам экспертных исследований и способствовать осуществлению справедливых судебных разбирательств, ибо только при таких условиях «non rex est lex, sed lex est rex» (лат. «не царь является законом, а закон – царем»).

[1] «Власть ключей» (лат. Potestas Clavium) – в христианской теологии символическое выражение апостольского преемства, право отпущения грехов, имеющее свои нюансы в различных конфессиях.

[2] Томпсон М. Философия религии. M., 2001. С.325.

Та же статья в других темах:

• Unlawful anti-extremism
• Publications