Do not mix science with religion

The doct told about his attitude to the emergence of theology in Russian secular universities . East. sciences, member- Corr. RAS, ch. scientific. sore. Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, member of the Council of RGNF, deputy. Chairman of the Council for Science under the Ministry of Education and Science Askold Ivanchik .

- How do you feel about the emergence of aunts or departments of theology at Russian universities ?

- When they talk about the presence of departments and faculties of theology at secular universities, they usually refer to Western experience. Indeed, in the West, the university system grew out of religious education (although the first Western University, Bologna, was originally a school of study of Roman law, unlike, say, from Paris, where theology prevailed from the very beginning) and universities were largely controlled by the church, and the professors were clergy.

According to tradition, theological faculties are now preserved at universities in Germany, Great Britain and several other countries and were established in the formation of universities in the United States on the model of British (in cases where they were not based as religious schools).

At the same time, in France, where the church is very consistent from the state, in no state university there are no theological faculties. The only exception is Strasbourg, the capital of Alsas, where after 1918 a number of laws inherited from Germany and not existing on the territory of the rest of France continue to operate. One of these Alsatian features is the presence of two theological faculties at the University (Catholic and Protestant).

In Italy, also after the transfer of universities from the control of the Catholic Church, theological faculties were closed to the state control of the state, such as, for example, in the Roman Sapienza. Theology in these countries is taught in confessional, in particular Catholic, universities, institutes and seminaries with private status.

In my opinion, the system of theological education should follow the tradition in the country. In Germany or Great Britain, its own tradition. It was also perceived by some Orthodox countries under direct Western influence (theological faculties are at the universities of Athens and Sofia, where German dynasties that ruled there appeared on the initiative). In Russia, the tradition is different: from the very beginning, universities were secular: neither in St. Petersburg, nor in Moscow, nor in the later-founded universities there were no theological faculties. Exceptions were made only for universities for the alos ": at the Derpt University, intended for German -speaking students, by German tradition, the faculty of Protestant theology acted. At the University of Warsaw, before its closure in 1831, the theological faculty also existed, however, when the university was restored as the Russian -speaking, theological faculty in it was abolished.

In Russia, traditionally theological education received, defended dissertations and conducted theological research in theological academies and similar institutions. The same thing is: there are spiritual academies, there is an Orthodox Holy Tikhon University (with a very good level of not only theological, but also humanitarian education) and other similar institutions, there are educational institutions of other faiths-that is, our situation is now similar to the fact that the principle of separation of the church from the state is carried out sequentially.

Actually, the existence of theological faculties at universities is justified, in my opinion, only by tradition, and they themselves were largely secularized. A significant part of their teachers and employees, including wearing a rank, is engaged in ordinary scientific research in the field of history, philology, archeology, philosophy, law, etc.

I can judge this, among other things from my own experience: I was quite closely connected with the University of Friburbur in Switzerland, worked in it for two years, later defended my habilitation there (an analogue of our doctoral dissertation). This university has one of the most authoritative faculties of Catholic theology; I collaborated a lot with his teachers, and in one of the series he published, my first book was published.

Those with whom I dealt were large scientists: among them were, for example, a professor about. Dominic Barteli, the largest specialist in the textology of the Old Testament and the author of his critical publication, or the Ice of Kel, a specialist in archeology and iconography of the ancient Middle East and Egypt. Neither confessional affiliation nor even the belonging of many professors to the monastic order of the Dominicans were reflected in their research: the same texts could be written by quite secular scientists.

This did not interfere with the same about. Dominica to write purely theological works; His beautiful book “God and His image” is translated into Russian. However, these two spheres of activity did not intersect: working on scientific topics, he worked as an election scientist.

Of course, there can be no doubt about the appropriateness of the stay of such scientists at the university. However, the question arises, why they are listed precisely according to the faculty of theology, what is its specificity. Indeed, exactly the same topics and on the basis of the same methods are engaged in professors of other faculties not only in other universities, but often in the same.

Sometimes this fact is confirmed by rather curious situations. At the same University of Friburbur, one of the professors of the Faculty of Theological Faculty, the Dominican, violated Celibath and became a father. Naturally, he was supposed to leave the order and take off his dignity, and with him he had to lose his professorship, which the Vatican demanded. However, on the other hand, according to the rules of the university itself, it could not be deprived of a life -related professorship.

The decision of this conflict was found: it was transferred to the secular faculty of literature, where he continued teaching and research in the new quality of a professor of religious studies, replacing only a faculty affiliation. Thus, this group of professors is not specific to the faculties of theology and cannot justify their separate existence.

The representatives of theology in the proper sense of the word are specific: specialists in dogmatic, moral or pastoral theology, homiletics, etc., that is, church disciplines that cannot be taught at secular faculties.

However, the question arises here, how much these disciplines can be considered scientific and how much their place is at secular university. In my opinion, the answer to this question is negative. Theology in the proper sense of the word does not have a number of signs that other sciences possess and which they, in fact, are determined (the principles of verification, falsification, rationality, etc.). In particular, theology does not have the property of universality, but has confessional affiliation.

The Christian theology, based not only on recognizing the existence of God, but also on attributing to Him and its manifestations in the world of certain qualities and properties in accordance with Christian dogma, not only atheist, but also a representative of monotheistic Islam and Judaism, and even more so Hinduism or Zoroastrism, does not recognize the science. Moreover, even inside Christianity, Orthodox, Catholic, monophysitic or Protestant theology have a very narrow joint ecumenical field, moreover, not all recognized.

“The last issues of being”, such as the existence of God, the meaning of human life and the existence of the Universe, the immanence of morality, which often attribute to theology, are no less belonging to the sphere of philosophy, and the border between them passes precisely by the degree of precession. The philosopher, including a religious philosopher, can afford to question and refute any dogmas, while the theologian has much less freedom in this regard.

It is unlikely that it would occur to anyone to call theologians such religious philosophers as Vladimir Solovyov or Nikolai Berdyaev precisely because they reasoned outside the framework of a certain denomination and did not feel limited by its dogma. The boundaries between theology and religious philosophy, for example, are clearly visible in the case of sophiology - a teaching that developed a number of Russian religious philosophers, among which there were priests, for example, Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov.

If initially, doubts about the belonging of sophiology to theology could initially arise, they disappeared after the Russian Orthodox Church condemned it as heresy. Of course, it is impossible to imagine that sophiology was taught at the faculty or department of the Orthodox (or Catholic) theology, or in the Theological Academy - it can be mentioned only in the review of heresies and sects.

The confessionality of theology, by the way, creates huge problems for those countries where theological faculties are traditionally preserved, since it conflicts with the principles of neutrality and the state and science in relation to denominations. Since any theological faculty belongs to some kind of faith, representatives of others feel infringed and begin to achieve the creation of the theological faculty for themselves and if they have sufficient pressure tools, then they achieve.

I have already mentioned the presence of two faculties of theology in Strasbourg, in Tubingen University, for example, there are three such faculties: Catholic, Protestant and Islamic. Legally, there is nothing to object to such requirements, and the only restraining factor here is the insufficient pressure force of the corresponding confessional groups: otherwise the number of theology faculties would exceed the number of other faculties at any university.

When they talk about the creation of departments in Russia and faculties of theology at secular universities, by default they mean Orthodox theology. But why, actually? The law requires an equal attitude to all religions, and, having opened the faculty of Orthodox theology, you will have to think about the discovery and faculties of Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist theology - this is only if you follow the very controversial law on “traditional religions”.

At the same time, the lack of Catholic and Protestant theology will look strange - because they are the most developed and “scientific” university theologies in the world. And if you create faculties for them, then representatives of any other religion - for example, quite rooted and important for several subjects of the Russian Federation of Shamanism or parody pastafarianism, can rightfully require the creation of their own theological faculties. Any provision of privileges in this area with one or more faiths will contradict the constitution and the secular nature of the Russian state.

Therefore, the creation at state universities of departments and faculties of theology seems to me an idea of ​​unreasonable in essence and short -sighted. This does not mean that I consider the problem of obtaining high -quality religious education - on the contrary. But such an education should be given in confessional educational institutions like spiritual academies. Do not mix science and religion, to which, of course, theology belongs to the sphere, and you should not give the state status to what is the personal affair of everyone - namely, such is the status of religion in a secular state.

- How do you relate to the inclusion of theology in the category of Vakov disciplines ?

- The answer to this question follows from the above. I see no sense in this. The dissertations on topics that are not related to theology in the narrow sense of the word, such as church archeology, the history of the church, biblicalism, patrician, canonical law, etc., if they are confessional neutral, may well go through the department of relevant secular disciplines and defend themselves in the relevant councils.

If their conclusions are made under the influence of religious beliefs, and not on the basis of objective data and generally accepted methods of scientific analysis, then they are outside science. But now they will be artificially given scientific status after passing through theological councils and the corresponding expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission. Accordingly, the state will be recognized that a person who is not related to science is a scientist. This will lead to an even greater erosion of the boundaries of science, and so in our country, admitted, not very clearly defined in the public consciousness. When asked what science is, and what is not, it will become even more difficult to answer.

In addition, as I have already said, it is impossible to organize an extra -operational dissertation (or Vakovsky expert) theology council. Imagine what a scientific advice will look like, consisting of Orthodox, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists, in which the imam and rabbi will discuss the dissertation of the Orthodox priest on the problems of trinitarianism or the Buddhist dissertation about the relations of Sansara and Nirvana, and the lama and the Orthodox clergy will prove the dissertation-corn There are no scientific novelty problems.

What is not the theater of absurdity? And if the members of the council are representatives of other faiths common in Russia - not only Catholics, Protestants, Monophysites, but also shamans? Or for each denomination you need to create your own advice and your expert council in the Higher Attestation Commission? All this idea will inevitably turn into profanity and theology, and religion, and science.

The inclusion of theology in the category of Vakov disciplines looks, in my opinion, especially absurd against the background of parallel to a number of universities, the right to independently award the degree. Spiritual educational institutions already have this right, and they actively use it. Why, with one hand, take him from the Theological Academies, and give the Moscow State University, St. Petersburg State University and other universities with the other? If the problem is the insufficient authority of theological degrees, then the Higher Attestation Commission will not help the case here - it is necessary to increase the level of defended dissertations.

- How would you comment whether the inclusion of the chairman of the department of external church ties of the Moscow Patriarchate , head . The department of those ogi in the NIYAU MIFO Metropolitan Ilarion of the Ilarion in the Council of the RGNF ?

- I have great respect for Metropolitan Hilarion, this is a very educated person (he has, among other things, a doctoral degree of Oxford University) and an acting scientist. In addition to purely theological works, he is the author of a large number of publications on patrician and history of the Church, including monographs about St. Simeone New Theologian and Rev. Isaac Sirina, as well as translations from the ancient Greek and Syrian.

As a scientist, without a doubt, he deserves membership in the Council. Members of the RGNF Council represent not institutions or departments in it, but the scientific areas in which they work perform expert functions in personal quality and protect the interests of all humanitarian science as a whole. I really hope that Metropolitan Hilarion sees his role in the Council, will not use his membership to promote the positions of the Russian Orthodox Church to the detriment of the interests of science. In my opinion, it would be completely inappropriate if, for example, theology was included in the list of specialties financed by RGNF grants, which would reduce the small amounts that go to finance the humanities in our country.

- Is there , in your opinion , the threat of clericalization of the scientific and education of the Tel sphere in Russia ?

- For science itself, I think, there is no serious threat, except for the problem that I spoke about - erosion of the boundaries of science and rational knowledge. The clericalization of education, both secondary and higher, is a very real threat. Generally speaking, the clericalization of secular institutions, which undoubtedly occurs, is a very dangerous phenomenon for both the state and the church.

This is very worried about not only as a citizen of the Russian state, but also as a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. I am convinced that in the modern world the greatest danger to the Church is its transformation into the State Institute and the bearer of state ideology, as was the case in the Russian Empire.

This destructively acts on the spiritual foundations of the Church, forces it to be unnecessarily care about worldly affairs, to give Caesar not only cesarean, but also much more. At the same time, this leads to the fact that confidence in the church as a public institution falls, since it begins to be perceived simply as an ideological department of the state machine. Unfortunately, the signs of such a Caesaropathic development in our country are obvious.