https://ebookmass.com/product/faith-and-science-in-russianreligious-thought-teresa-obolevitch/
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
The French Revolutionary Tradition in Russian and Soviet Politics, Political Thought, and Culture Jay Bergman
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-french-revolutionary-tradition-inrussian-and-soviet-politics-political-thought-and-culture-jay-bergman/
ebookmass.com
Science, Technology and Innovation in the History of Economic Thought Estrella Trincado Aznar
https://ebookmass.com/product/science-technology-and-innovation-inthe-history-of-economic-thought-estrella-trincado-aznar/
ebookmass.com
Medjugorje and the supernatural : science, mysticism, and extraordinary religious experience Klimek
https://ebookmass.com/product/medjugorje-and-the-supernatural-sciencemysticism-and-extraordinary-religious-experience-klimek/ ebookmass.com
The Afterlives of the Bhagavad Gita: Readings in Translation Prof Dorothy M. Figueira
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-afterlives-of-the-bhagavad-gitareadings-in-translation-prof-dorothy-m-figueira/ ebookmass.com
Her Favorite Rebound (Cider Bar Sisters Book 4) Jackie Lau https://ebookmass.com/product/her-favorite-rebound-cider-bar-sistersbook-4-jackie-lau/
ebookmass.com
Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, and – Ebook PDF Version
https://ebookmass.com/product/risk-communication-a-handbook-forcommunicating-environmental-safety-and-ebook-pdf-version/
ebookmass.com
The Life and Music of John Field 1782–1837: Creator of the Nocturne Patrick Piggott
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-life-and-music-of-johnfield-1782-1837-creator-of-the-nocturne-patrick-piggott/
ebookmass.com
The Linguistics of Crime John Douthwaite
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-linguistics-of-crime-johndouthwaite/
ebookmass.com
History of Policing, Crime, Disorder, Punishment Peter Joyce
https://ebookmass.com/product/history-of-policing-crime-disorderpunishment-peter-joyce/
ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/wall-street-a-history-charles-r-geisst/
ebookmass.com
FAITHANDSCIENCEINRUSSIAN RELIGIOUSTHOUGHT FaithandSciencein RussianReligious Thought TERESAOBOLEVITCH GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries ©TeresaObolevitch2019
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2019
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018964760
ISBN978–0–19–883817–3
Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Preface Theproblemoftherelationshipbetweenscienceandreligionhasbecomeone ofthemostdynamicandpopulartopicsofcontemporaryphilosophy.The philosophicalandmethodologicalissuesthisinterdisciplinarydialogueraises areoverwhelmingandtimely.Andyet,thefocushasbeen fixedmostlyon Westerntheologicalandscientificpractice,andsohasnotventuredintothe widerhorizonthisencounterentails.Therearerelativelyfewbooks in comparisonwiththeCatholicandProtestanttraditions dealingwiththis issuefromtheOrthodoxperspective.¹Thereasonisquiteobvious: “the EasternChristianworldhasbeenlessengagedwithmodernsciencethan thatoftheWest.”²In1909,therenownedRussianphilosopherSemenFrank (1877–1950)explainedthelackofinterestinthesubjectinthefollowingway: “Thetopicoftherelationshipbetweenreligionandscience,knowledgeand faith,becomesthemostpressingproblemoftheWesternEuropeanreligious movement incontrasttotheRussianmovement,which,duetotheunderdevelopmentofourscientificthinkingandournationalcontemptforexact knowledge,lookeddownonsciencefromtheverybeginning.”³ Nonetheless,bynomeanscouldonesaythatthechallengeofsolving,or moreprecisely,reflectinguponthequestionofthemutualrelationbetween scientificinvestigationandChristianRevelationislessdecisivefortheOrthodoxtraditionthanitisforCatholicismandProtestantism.Moreover,someof theconceptsandmodesofthinkingcreatedunderByzantineandmodern EasternChristianinfluencewillinjectuseful nova intocurrentWestern research,unsettlingsomeofourhabitualparadigmsandofferingdifferent waysofconfrontingthedifficultiesofdialogue.
¹SeeNicolaidis, ScienceandEasternOrthodoxy;Buxhoeveden,Woloschak, Scienceandthe EasternOrthodoxChurch;Katasonov, Dvagrada:Dialognaukiireligii [TwoCities:ADialogue ofScienceandReligion];Puhalo, TheEvidenceofThingsNotSeen:ASeriesofLectureson OrthodoxyandModernPhysics;Nicolescu,Stavinschi, ScienceandOrthodoxy,aNecessary Dialogue;Arabadzhi, Umnoedelanieiestestvoznanie [AMentalDealandPhysics];Welker, TheSpiritinCreationandNewCreation:ScienceandTheologyinWesternandOrthodoxRealms; Pavlov,Tanev,Dragas, OrthodoxTheologyandtheSciences;Ionescu, Théologieorthodoxe& science Approcheapologétiqueetpatristique;Ionescu, Théologieorthodoxe&science Question d’ordremétodologique;Ionescu, Théologieorthodoxe&science.Lesdéfisthéologiquesdela recherche;thebooksbyAlexeiNesteruk: LightfromtheEast:Theology,ScienceandtheEastern OrthodoxTradition; UniverseasCommunion:TowardsaNeo-PatristicSynthesisofTheologyand Science; TheSenseoftheUniverse andaspecialissueofthejournalofOrthodoxChristian thought “TheWheel” 11(2017).
²Buxhoeveden, “Preface,” xi.³Frank, “Religiyainauka” [ReligionandScience],92.
ThemostrepresentativeandoriginalexampleofEasternChristianreflectionisRussianreligiousphilosophy.Itisawell-establishedfactthatitwas shapedasaresultofthefruitfulcollaborationbetween fides and ratio,revelationandrationalconsideration,mysticismandspeculation.Thequestionof therelationshipbetweenfaithandscienceisaparticularizationofthemuch widerissueofthecorrelationbetweenfaithandreason.Whereasthelatter themeisoneofthedominantareasinphilosophicalstudies,⁴ theviewsof Russianphilosophersonscientificknowledgehavenotyetbeenfullyexplored. AlthoughthehistoryofRussianscienceisoftenseparatedfromthehistoryof Russianphilosophyandtheology,infactthethreebrancheshaveoften intersectedandinfluencedeachother.Hence,oneshouldstudytheminthe widespreadandcomplexcontextoftheirmutualconnectionsanddevelopment.Inouropinion,suchanapproachallowsustobetterunderstandnot onlythepeculiarityofRussianthoughtbutalsosomeaspectsoftherelationshipbetweenscientific,philosophical,andtheologicalknowledgeingeneral. Inthepresentbookwewillalsopayattentiontothelessknownandmore specificquestionregardingthepresenceandroleofscienceassuch(and variousscientifictheories)inrelationtoreligiousbeliefs,aswellasthe consequencesoftheseorotherattitudesconcerningtheirrelationship.As wewillsee,Russianreligiousphilosophycouldberegardedasaspacefor theclosecooperationof fides and ratio and,inparticular,asanareaofthe confrontationoftheologicalandscientificworldviewsandanattemptattheir reconciliation.
ItshouldbemadeclearthattheRussianword nauka hasabroadermeaning thantheEnglish “science,” whichisreservedfortheso-calledexactand naturalsciences,likemathematics,physics,astronomy,biology,etc. Nauka embracesanyrationalactivityaswellasaprocessofitsachievement,or scholarship.Russianthinkersusedthiswordtodescribeboththehumanities andnaturalsciencesaswellasphilosophyitself(intheAncientGreek, Aristotelianmeaning)andeventheology(theso-calledtheologicalscience bogoslovskayanauka).Inthisbookwewillonlyconsidertherelationship betweenfaithandnaturalsciences(nauka inthenarrowsenseinuseinthe Anglo-Saxonworld).
InviewofthemultiplicityandvarietyofRussianphilosophico-theological concepts,wewillanalyzecertainselectedconcepts theonesmostdemonstrativeandrelevantforthepurposesofthisresearch.Throughoutthecourse ofRussianhistory,thekeyproblemhasshownmanydifferentfacesdepending,amongotherfactors,onthesocio-politicalsituationofthiscountry.The lineofourpresentationwillnotonlybeofachronologicalcharacter,butabove allwillbedeterminedbythedifferentfashionsofthedevelopmentofRussian
⁴ SeeObolevich, Veraiznanie:vzglyadsVostoka [FaithandKnowledge:ViewfromtheEast]; Obolevitch,Rojek, FaithandReasoninRussianThought.
religiousthoughtwhichweredistinguishedinmybook Laphilosophiereligieuse russe. ⁵ Inaccordancewiththeschemaintroducedintheaforementionedwork (whichwillbejustifiedindetaillateron),Chapter 1addressesthebeginningof RussianreligiousthoughtinmedievalKievanandMuscoviteRus.Asitwas influencedby firsttheEasternandthentheWesterntradition,wewillconsider theroleofeachintheprocessofestablishinganindigenousnativephilosophy.This willserveasapropaedeuticstageforfurtherandmoredetailedinvestigations.
Chapter2tacklestherelationshipbetweenscienceandreligioninthe eighteenthcentury,knownastheAgeofEnlightenment.Thestatepolicyof Westernization,promotedchieflybyPeterIandCatherineII,greatlyexpanded thescopeandbreadthofscientificknowledgeand,inconsequence,resultedin the firsteffortstoestablisharelationshipbetweenscienceandtheology.We willexaminethisproblemfrombothscientificandtheologicalperspectives.
Chapter3isdedicatedto “academicphilosophy,” whichwasaunique Russianphenomenon.Russiantheologicalacademieswerethevenueforthe developmentofphilosophicalinquiry,includinginvestigationoftheroleof sciencefortheology.Theproponentsofthiswayofphilosophizingelaborated aninterestingprojectofso-calledscientificandnaturalapologetics,whichaimed todefendreligionfromatheistattacks.Then,inChapters4and5wewill examinethetopicoftherelationshipbetweenfaithandreasoninthethought ofPeterChaadaev(recognizedasthe firstoriginalRussianphilosopher)andof theSlavophiles.Wewillseethatthesethinkerspaidmuchattentiontotheroleof reasonandscienceinhumanlifeaswellastheinteractionbetweenthem.
InChapter6wewillconsiderthistopicasitispresentedinthemost influentialliterary figures,suchasFedorDostoevskyandLevTolstoy.Contrarytocommonopinion,accordingtowhichtheseprominentRussian writersdidnotconcernthemselveswithsecularknowledge,wewillreveal thepresenceandsignificanceofthisthemeintheirthought.
Theso-calledRussianSilverAge,fromtheendofthenineteenthcentury throughthe firstquarterofthetwentiethcentury,sawtherapiddevelopment oforiginalRussianthought.Itisnoexaggerationtosaythatitwasdecisivefor theproblemoftherelationbetweenfaithandreason(andwithinitfaithand science).Withtheburgeoningpositivism,whichattractedsomeRussian scientists,themaintaskforreligiousthinkerswasthe fightagainstmetaphysicalnaturalism theequivalentofatheism.Forthisreason,inRussiathere appearedtwochannelsfortheformationofphilosophyinthecontextofthe relationshipbetween fides and ratio (and,consequently,theologyandscience).
The firstoneisconnectedwiththeattempttorationalizethetruthsoffaith; thischannelisexemplifiedbyVladimirSolovievwhowasarguablythepioneer tohave “pointedoutthereligiouspassionandexaltationwithwhichthe
⁵ Obolevitch, Laphilosophiereligieuserusse.
intelligentsiapreacheditsscientificsecularism.”⁶ Hisambitiousphilosophical systemofall-unityandintegralknowledge,positinganallianceofphilosophy, theology,andscience,willbeexploredinChapter7.
Asarule,subsequentgenerationsofRussianreligiousthinkers followers ofSoloviev didnotshunscientificexplanationevenifonlywithincertain limits.Theymadeattemptstoovercomeone-sidedidealismbymoving towards “religiousmaterialism”⁷ andeliminatingtheoppositionbetweenthe ecclesiasticalandtheworldly.⁸ ThefactthatthemajorityofRussianphilosophersandtheologiansofthattimelivedinexilemeritsspecialattention.The firsthalfofthetwentiethcenturybroughtanumberofapologeticworkswhose authorsdemonstratedtherelevanceofreligionforhumanlifeandpersuaded readersthattherewasnocontradictionbetweenscienceandreligiousbeliefs. Chapter8focusesonNikolaiLosskyandhisefforttoreconcilephysicsand metaphysics,scientificknowledge(especiallythetheoryofevolution),and theologicaldogma.HecontinuedtheSolovievianapproachandtriedto “justify” thetruthsoffaithbymeansofphilosophicalterms.
Next,partlyasanalternativetoSolovievandNikolaiLosskyandpartlyasa complementtothem,wewilllookattheapophatictraditionwhichcouldbe designated “philosophywithintheology.” Accordingtoit,truephilosophyis possibleonlyintheframeoftheologybecauseitderivesitsnotionsand categoriesfromrevelation.Thistrend,stemmingfromtheapophatictradition, highlightedtheimpossibilityofrationalcomprehensionofthetruthsoffaith, evenifdidnotrejectthesignificanceofeitherphilosophicalreflectionor empiricalscience.Chapters9and10willexplorethisprojectbypresenting themodesofthecorrelationoffaithandscienceassociatedwithFr.Pavel FlorenskyandSemenFrank.Theyintendedtoexposetheabsolutepriorityof theologyand “justify” secularbranchesofknowledgeusingtheologicaltools. Whilst,ontheonehand,theBolshevikswerespreadingatheisticpropaganda intheSovietUnionand,ontheotherhand,thelogicalpositivistsintheWest declaredthetotalsupremacyofempiricalknowledge,Florensky(intheUSSR) andFrank(inGermanyandlaterinFranceandEngland)remainedattentive totheexistenceofaspiritualrealityaswell.
TheotherdirectionofRussianreligiousthought existentialphilosophy (representedbyLevShestovandNikolaiBerdyaev)initsrelationtoscientific knowledge willbeaddressedinChapter11.Aswewillsee,thesethinkers stressedthelimitationofrational(especiallyscientific)discourseinfavorof faith,although,atthesametime,theydidnotdenytheroleofscientific knowledgeassuch.Forthem,humanexistence,theperson,freedom,and individualitywerecrucialcategoriesthatalsoregulatedtheirmodelofthe relationshipbetweenfaithandscience.
⁶ Monas, “Introduction,” 15. ⁷ Cf.Epstein, “IdeasagainstIdeocracy,” 21. ⁸ Cf.Antonova, “ChangingPerceptionsofPavelFlorenskyinRussianandSovietScholarship,” 79.
AsRussianphilosophyhasacloseconnectionwiththeologyandphilology, Chapter12willbedevotedtotheexaminationoftheproblemthroughthe prismoflanguage,asinthethoughtofSergiusBulgakovandAlexeiLosev. Theirreflectiononthenatureoflanguageofscienceandtheologywas provokedbythereligious-philosophicalmovementofonomatodoxy,accordingtowhichthenameofGodisnotsomethingconventional,dependenton thepossibilityofhumanlanguage,butisreal parexcellence.Thisperspective determinedthemethodologicalquestionsconcerningthepossibilityoftheologicaldiscourseonGodanditsrelationwithscientificknowledge.
Chapter13describestheoriginalprojectofRussianCosmism,asexemplifiedespeciallybyNikolaiFedorov,KonstantinTsiolkovsky,andVladimir Vernadsky,inthecontextoftherelationbetweenscienceandtheology. Althoughtheyhadasomewhatcriticalattitudetowardtheofficialdoctrine oftheOrthodoxChurch,therepresentativesofscientificcosmismprofessed afaithbasedontheuniversalReason,Order,andHarmony.Thecosmists drewscientists’ attentiontomoralresponsibility,theaimofscientificprogress,andproblemsofecology.Forthisreason,thisconceptisofparticular importancetoday.
Finally,wewillpresentthecurrentstateofthediscussiononthistopicby payingattentiontooneofthemostinfluentialphilosophicalandtheological movementsincontemporaryOrthodoxthought theNeopatristicsynthesis, ortherenovationofthePatristicheritage whichisoftenregardedasan alternativetotheRussianidealisticphilosophyoftheSilverAge.Inthe concludingchapterwewillmakeabriefcomparativeanalysisofRussian andWesternapproachestothedialoguebetweenfaithandscience.
RecentdecadeshaveseenthefalloftheCommunistregimeand asa result revivedinterestinreligiousissuesinRussia.Sincesciencewaspreviouslyusedasavehicleforatheisticpropaganda,nowadayswecanobservea backlashintheshapeoftheinclinationtostresstheinalienableplaceof religion.Sometimesthisprocesshasresultedintheideologizationofreligion, whichmightintimetakeonafundamentalistcharacter.Supportedbysome ChurchcirclesinRussia,therapidgrowthofso-calledOrthodoxcreationism (inspiredbyanAmericanhieromonkoftheRussianOrthodoxChurchOutsideRussia,Fr.SeraphimRose,1934–1983⁹)mayserveasthemostcelebrated example.TheRussianOrthodoxChurchhasnotmadeanyofficialstatement regardingtherelationshipbetweenscienceandtheology.Nevertheless,there areanumberofsupportersofaconcordisticapproach.Forthisreason,the generalsurveyofthekeytopicpresentedinthebookisnotonlyofhistorical interest,butalsoofgreatsignificanceforabetterunderstandingofthecurrent situationbothintheEasternandWesternChristianworlds.
⁹ SeeRose, Genesis,Creation,andEarlyMan;Feldman, “Creation,Faith,andScience.”
Acknowledgments Theresearchforthisbookwasmadepossiblethroughthegeneroussupportof a “Science,PhilosophyandPoliticsinRussianReligiousPhilosophy” grant fromtheNationalScienceCentre,Poland(UMO–2014/15/B/HS1/01620). Iwouldliketoexpressmygratitudeforconversations,constructivecomments, suggestions,andbibliographicadvicetoRandallPoole(CollegeofSt.Scholastica, USA),GeorgePattison(UniversityofGlasgow,UK),PaulValliere(Butler University,USA),AlexeiNesteruk(UniversityofPortsmouth,UK),Adrian Reimers(UniversityofNotreDame,USA),CatherineEvtuhov(Columbia University,USA),VladimirGolstein(BrownUniversity,USA),AndrzejWalicki (UniversityofNotreDameandPolishAcademyofSciences),MichaelHeller (CopernicusCenterforInterdisciplinaryStudies,Krakow),GeorgeV.CoyneSJ (LeMoyneCollegeinSyracuse,NY),AaronRiches(EdithSteinInstitutof Philosophy,Granada,Spain,BenedictineCollege,Kansas),ElenaPribytkova (ColumbiaLawSchool),Paweł Rojek(JagiellonianUniversityinKrakow, Poland),KateřinaBauerová(CharlesUniversity,CzechRepublic),GeluCãlina (UniversityofCraiova,Romania),AndreiGrib(A.A.FriedmannLaboratoryof TheoreticalPhysics,St.Petersburg,Russia), †SergeyGrib(PulkovoObservatory, SaintPetersburg,Russia),AlexanderTsygankov(InstituteofPhilosophy,Russian AcademyofSciences,Moscow),AlexanderErmichev(RussianChristianAcademyfortheHumanities,St.Petersburg),GennadiiAliaiev(PoltavaNational TechnicalYuriKondratyukUniversity,Ukraine),theparticipantsofKrakow MeetingsannualconferencesonRussianphilosophyinKrakow(Poland)and theSummerSchoolorganizedbySt.Andrew’sBiblico-TheologicalInstitute (Moscow,Russia).IalsowishtothankAeddanShawand ŁukaszMalczakfor proofreadingthetext.
Introduction RussianResponsestoaGlobalChallenge PaulValliere
InhisbiographyoftheeminentOrthodoxtheologianGeorgesFlorovsky, AndrewBlanerecountsaconversationinwhichFlorovskyreminiscedabout oneofhismentorsattheUniversityofOdessa,theexperimentalpsychologist N.N.Lange(1858–1921).Aconvincedpositivist,Langeofferedthebudding religiousthinkerthefollowingadvice:
“Youmaydometaphysicsifyouwant,” he[Lange]said, “solongasyoumakea thoroughstudyofthepositivesciencesincludingthecompletionofacreative workofyourown.Aslongasyoudonotignorethepositiveaspectofknowledge andareascompetentasagoodpositivistis,knowingthe fieldandkeepingup withthecurrentworkofscholarsandscientists,youcanbeforgivenifyouchoose somethingelse.Thatisaman’sownbusiness.”
And,FatherGeorgesaddedwithatwinkleinhiseye, “Iagreewithhim.”¹
AsTeresaObolevitchdemonstratesinherexpertmonograph,Florovsky’ s respectforthescientificenterprisewasnotanexceptionintheannalsof Russianreligiousthought.Onthecontrary,thelargemajorityofRussia’ s religiousthinkerssharedFlorovsky’spositiveattitudetowardscience,and some,includingFlorovskyhimself,achievedahighlevelofcompetencein scienceormathematicsbeforetakingupthecauseofreligiousthought. Readerswhorelish “thewarfareofsciencewiththeology” (asanAmerican rationalistoncecalledit)will findlittletoedifytheminthestoryObolevitch tellsinthesepages.Tobesure,theputativeantagonismbetweenreligiousfaith andsciencewasaconspicuousfeatureofRussianthoughtintheSovietperiod, butthe “warfare” ofthatperiodwastheunilateralinventionofMarxist propagandistswhoseideologydemandedthatthereshouldbesuchaconflict.
¹Blane, “ASketchoftheLifeofGeorgesFlorovsky,” 29.
Russianreligiousthinkerstooknopartinmanufacturingit,norhavepostSovietRussianreligiousthinkerspromotedtheidea.
InthescholarshiponRussianreligiousthought,issuesoffaithandscience meritcloserattentionthantheyhavereceived.Whilescholarshavenotmadea consciousefforttoavoidthesubject,theyhavetendedtofocusonotherthings. Intheliteratureonnineteenth-andearlytwentieth-centuryRussianreligious thought,themainfocalpointshavebeenRussianidentity,Russia’shistorical path(includingstrugglesforreforminRussia),andthereligioussignificanceof culture.TheappropriationofthePatristicheritagehasbeenthefocusofthe literatureonthereligiousthoughtofthetwentieth-centuryRussianemigration. Withoutminimizingthesignificanceofanyofthesefocalpoints,Obolevitch invitesustoconsideranotherone:faithandscience.Sodoing,sheoffersafresh perspectiveonthedynamictraditionofRussianreligiousthought.
Obolevitchisnotworkingonthissubjectforthe firsttime.Herearliest publishedworksdealtwithfaithandscienceinthethoughtofVladimir Soloviev.Innumerouspublicationsthereafter,shehasinvestigatedtheviews ofmanyotherRussianreligiousandscientificthinkers.Butthisbodyof specializedwork,writtenmainlyinPolish,isnotaccessibletomostreaders. Inthemonographthatfollowshere,Obolevitchsynthesizestheresultsofher earlierscholarlyworksinalucidsurveydesignedtointroduce,nottoexhaust, thestoryoffaithandscienceinRussianreligiousthought.
Obolevitchbringsanintimateacquaintancewithcurrentscholarshipon Russianreligiousthoughttohersubject.Shehasachievedthisexpertisenot justthroughwidereadingbutthroughherleadingroleinorganizingthe internationalconferencesonreligionandcultureinRussianthoughtatthe JohnPaulIIPontificalUniversityinKrakow,wheresheisprofessorof philosophy.TheKrakowconferencesareoneofthebestvenuesintheworld todayforscholarlydiscussionofRussianreligiousthought.
ObolevitchdevotesmostofherbooktopresentingwhatRussianreligious thinkersactuallyhadtosayaboutfaithandscience.Shesurveysallmajor schoolsofthought,describinghoweachconstruedtheissuesinquestion.For themostpart,sheaccomplisheshergoalbyallowingustoheartheactual wordsofthethinkersshepresentsratherthanmerelysummarizingtheir views.OneofObolevitch’smanyvirtuesasascholarlywriterishercapacity todefertohersubjectsratherthantryingtodominatethemor fitthemintoa preconceivedscheme.Heraiminthisbookistodisplaythevarietyofviewson faithandsciencearticulatedbytheRussianthinkersthemselves.
Itwasawidevarietyindeed.ThefactthatmostRussianreligiousthinkers heldagenerallypositiveviewofthescientificenterprisedidnotmeanthey agreedwitheachotherabouthowtheclaimsoffaithandscienceshouldbe construed,muchlessreconciled.TheproposalsObolevitchsurveysincludethe criticaldifferentiationofscienceandfaithasnon-overlappingconcerns,integralistsynthesesofthetwo,Leibnizianrationaltheologies,boldlyspeculative
cosmologies,andviewsofsciencefromtheperspectiveofNeopatristictheology.ThereisalsoachapteronDostoevskyandTolstoywhereObolevitch arguesthatbothmenheldmorenuancedviewsonfaithandsciencethanthose thatarecommonlyattributedtothem.Bypresentingthepositionsofawide rangeofthinkersinaclearandconcisemanner,Obolevitchhonorsthevitality ofmodernRussianreligiousthoughtwhilecontributinghighlyrelevantdatato theburgeoningcontemporaryliteratureonreligionandscience.
HowtoexplaintheRussians’ generallypositiveestimationofsciencein the firstplaceisanopenquestion.Obolevitchaddressesitatvariouspoints inhersurveywithoutsettlingonanoverarchingexplanation.Inthisshe showsgoodjudgment,sincethestudyoffaithandscienceintheRussian religioustradition nottospeakoftheRussianscientifictradition needsto advancefurtherbeforewecanexpectittoprovideasolidfoundationfor generaltheories.However,itispossible,bywayoforientation,toidentify someofthebackgroundfactorsthathaveshapedRussianattitudestoward faithandscience.
OneofthefactorsisOrthodoxChristianity,theprimaryconfessional referencepointformostRussianreligiousthinkers.Itistemptingtothink thatOrthodoxyisinherentlyfriendliertowardsciencethanmanyother religioussystems.Orthodoxapologistshaveoccasionallyadvancedthis claim,sometimesbyappealingtofeaturesofOrthodoxy’sPatristicheritage, sometimesbyappealingtothedeeplysacramentalappreciationofthematerial worldinOrthodoxy.Theseappealsmeritattention,althoughoneshould approachthemwithcaution.Fundamentalistandanti-scientificattitudes mayassumedifferentformsinOrthodoxythaninotherreligioustraditions, butsuchtendencieshavebeenasrealintheOrthodoxworldaselsewhere.
Oneshouldcertainlytakenoteofastrikingcontrastinthehistorical situationofformaloracademictheologyinOrthodoxyascomparedwith WesternChristianconfessions.IntheWest,formaloracademictheologywas cultivatedformanycenturiesbeforetheriseofmodernscience.Itwas ensconcedinallWesternuniversities,and,intheRomanCatholiccase,it wasinterwovenwithpre-modernscientifictraditionsinheritedfromthe ancientandmedievalworlds.Hence,intheWest,ahugeacademicand ecclesiasticalestablishmentexistedwithwhichmodernscience,whenitappeared,inevitablycollided.
ThesituationoftheologyintheOrthodoxworldwasentirelydifferent. BetweenthefallofByzantium(1453)andmoderntimes,academictheology wasnotmuchcultivatedintheOrthodoxworld.InmedievalandMuscovite Russia,therewerenotheologicalschoolsoruniversities.Whenmodern sciencecametoRussiaasastate-sponsoredimportintheeighteenthcentury, theRussianAcademyofScienceswassetuptoprovideitwithaninstitutional base(1725).The firstenduringuniversityinRussiawastheUniversityof Moscow,foundedin1755.Itdidnotincludeatheologicalfaculty,norwould
futureuniversityfoundationsinimperialRussiaaccommodatetheological faculties.The firstOrthodoxtheologicalcollegeintheEastSlaviclandswas foundedinKievin1631.Atthattime,Kievlayoutsidethebordersofthe RussianstateinthePolish-Lithuaniankingdom.Asimilar,iflessdistinguishedtheologicalschoolwasfoundedinMoscowin1685.Thesetwo academiesplayedaroleinpromotingtheideaofhighereducationinRussia, andPetertheGreat(1672–1725)tappedsomeoftheiralumnitohelphim reformtheRussianstate.YetanetworkofRussiantheologicalschoolswas createdonlyduringtheeighteenthcentury,andnotuntilthefollowingcentury didsomeoftheseinstitutionsadvancetothelevelofgraduatetheological academies.Inshort,modernscience,highereducation,andacademictheology allcametoRussiaataboutthesametimeandgrewupsidebysideinseparate institutionalcontexts.Thethreeenterpriseswerenotindirectcompetition witheachother,nordidanyoneoftheminheritanestablishmentthat regardedtheotherplayersasunwelcomenewcomers.Certainly,someOrthodoxchurchmenweredismayedbythenewscienceandothermanifestationsof modernlearning,buttheydidnotpossesstheinstitutionaltoolsrequiredto translatetheirvexationintolastingobstruction.
AnotherfactortoconsideristheattitudeofearlyRussianscientiststowards theologicalbelief.Inourday,theEnlightenmentisusuallyviewedasthetime whentheWesternmindbrokeloosefromitstheologicalmoorings.Theologicallyspeaking,however,therewereatleasttwoEnlightenments.The first Enlightenment,fromDescartesthroughNewtonandLeibniztoChristian Wolff,wasatimeoftremendousintellectualoptimismwithrespecttotheology.FarfromoverturningbeliefinasublimeandalmightyGod,thenew scienceappearedtovalidateit,andevenbetter,tovalidateitonthebasisof universalreason.Thefactthatthenewrationaltheologydivergedinsignificantwaysfromtraditionaltheologydidnotnecessarilyfalsifyitandmayhave contributedtoitscharisma.OnlylaterintheEnlightenment,withthegrowing influenceofBritishempiricismandFrenchmaterialism,andwiththeapplicationofscientificanalysistohumanbehavior,didmodernscienceand theologicalbeliefbegintodiverge.However,theinfluenceofthissecond Enlightenmentoneighteenth-centuryRussianthoughtwasmarginal.Most earlyRussianscientistssharedthetheologicaloptimismoftheearlierperiod. MikhailLomonosov(1711–65), “Russia’ s firstgreatscientist” and “themost learnedRussianoftheeighteenthcentury,”²wastheperfectembodimentof thetype.HehadevenstudiedinGermanyunderChristianWolff.Lomonosov stoodoutnotjustforhisscientificdiscoveriesandinnovations,butforhis religiouspoetry.WhilehisSlavonicizedRussianwouldnotdefinethecourseof Russianverseinthelongrun,hisjustlyfamousodesonthegrandeurofGodin
²Graham, ScienceinRussiaandtheSovietUnion,17;Hamburg, Russia’sPathtoward Enlightenment,356.
creation(“MorningMeditationontheGrandeurofGod” and “Evening MeditationontheGrandeurofGodontheOccasionoftheGreatNorthern Lights”)arestillregularlyanthologized.Lomonosov’suniversewasanything butgodless.
Thereligiousphilosophycraftedinthe firsthalfofthenineteenthcentury byChaadaev,Khomiakov,andKireevskyalsopromotedapositiveviewof scienceeventhoughsciencewasnotthechiefconcernofthesethinkers.Their chiefconcernwasreligiousfaith,andforKhomiakovandKireevsky,this meantecclesiallygroundedOrthodoxChristianfaith.Yetthesefounding fathersofRussianreligiousphilosophywereallwell-educatedlaymen.They hadnointerestinyokingthecauseofreligiontoanti-intellectualism.Moreover,faithalonedoesnotaccountforthekindofreflectiontowhichthey devotedthemselves.AllthreewereinfluencedalsobyEuropeanRomanticism andGermanIdealism.Themostcapablephilosopheramongthem,Kireevsky, hadstudiedinGermanywithbothHegelandSchelling.Thegenesisof modernRussianreligiousthoughtisasunimaginablewithoutIdealismasit iswithouttheChristianfaith.
TheIdealistlegacywascrucialforthewayinwhichtheRussianthinkers regardedscience. Wissenschaft (science, nauka)wasoneofthefundamental valuesofIdealism,andeventhoughIdealistsappliedthetermverybroadly, theirusageneverexcludedthenaturalsciences.AstheIdealistssawit, “higher” speculativereason(Vernunft)doesnotnegate “lower” analytical reason(Verstand)butgroundsit.ThissignaturedistinctionofIdealism appearsofteninRussianreligiousphilosophyinoneformoranother,and whilethepointisusuallytopromotethe “higher” callingofreason,the constructclearlyrulesouttheanti-scientifictemptation.
Oneshouldalsokeepinmindthecentralityofscientificconcernsinthe originofIdealismitself.ModernIdealismsprangfromKant’sinnovationsin philosophy,andtheoverarchingquestiontowhichKantappliedhimselfwas, ofcourse:Howissciencepossible?Thequestionremainsasrelevanttodayas everdespitethefactthatmanypopularizersofscienceandevenmany scientistsdonotstoptothinkaboutit.Scientificendeavorissosuccessful, anditsfruitsaresowidelydisseminated,thatitiseasytotakethewhole enterpriseforgranted,asifsciencejusthappens.Butsciencedoesnotjust happen.Itisanextraordinaryactivity,anditisnoteasilyexplainedwhenone takesacloselookatit.
AsimportantasIdealismwasinthedevelopmentofmodernRussian thought,itwasseverelychallengedduringthe1860swhenphilosophicradicalismenteringRussiafromtheWestwenthandinhandwiththeattackon tradition,religiousfaith,andestablishedinstitutionsunleashedbytheGreat Reforms.ThiswasthemomentinRussianintellectualhistorywhenasignificantnumberofeducatedRussiansbegantoregardscienceascontradictoryto religiousfaith.The1860swerealsothemomentwhenthenumberofRussians
equippedtoengageinintellectualdebatebegantoexpandexponentially.In theeighteenthcenturyandthe firsthalfofthenineteenth,Russianintellectual culturewastheprovinceofasmallaristocraticeliteandafeweducatedclerics. AsthesizeoftheeducatedpopulacegrewfollowingtheGreatReforms,sodid theimpactofnewideas,includingskepticismandatheism.EvgenyBazarov, the fictionalradicalinTurgenev’ s FathersandChildren (1860),isanunforgettableportraitofaprovincialintellectualwhoseenthusiasmforscience inspirestheoverthrowoftraditionalvaluesinallsectorsoflife.
Itisimportanttonote,however,thatphilosophicradicalismhadscarcely beguntopresentitscasetotheRussianpublicbeforeremarkablerebuttals appeared,suchasthe fictionofDostoevskyandTolstoy,thephilosophyof VladimirSoloviev,andagrowingbodyof first-ratescholarshipissuingfrom thetheologicalacademiesoftheOrthodoxChurch.Skepticsandunbelievers claimingtheauthorityofsciencewouldremainafeatureofRussianintellectuallifetotheendoftheimperialperiodandbeyond,buttheydidnotescape intelligentcriticism.NordidthemostarticulateRussiandefendersofreligious beliefsharetheiropponents’ viewofscienceasinimicaltofaith.
Intheend,TeresaObolevitchhaswrittenabookthatinvitesreadersto thinknotjustaboutRussianreligiousthoughtbutaboutRussiaitselfandits contributiontoworldcivilization.Russiaisaplacewhereadynamic,widely disseminatedscientificcultureexistssidebysidewithadynamicandsophisticatedtraditionofreligiousthought.Suchasituationisnotunique,yetitis notascommonasonemighthope.Whilereligiousfaithiswidespreadinthe contemporaryworld,traditionsofreligiousthought modern,articulate, philosophicallysophisticatedandcontinuous aremuchrarer.Asforthe scientificenterprise,itmaynotberare,butitisveryunevenlydistributed (toputitmildly).Sowhenone findsaplacelikeRussia,wherescienceand religiousthoughtnotonlycoexistbutinteractinallsortsofinterestingways, oneshouldrecognizethatonehascomeuponapreciousresourceforcontemporarycivilization.ThestoryTeresaObolevitchtellsinthefollowingpages isRussian,butitisalsoglobal.
September13,2018
ReligiousThoughtinMedievalRus Itisawell-establishedfactthatRussianreligiousphilosophywasshapedunder theinfluenceoftwointellectualandspiritualtraditions:theByzantine(especiallyinMedievalRusorRuthenia)andtheWestern(especiallyinthetimeframeoftheeighteenthcentury).LetusconsiderboththeEasternand WesternChristianlegacyanditssignificanceforRussianreligiousthought, whichisrelevantforthekeyproblemoftherelationshipbetweenfaithand reason(includingscience).
1.1.PATRISTICINFLUENCES Tobeginwith,itisworthmentioningthatintheEasternChristiantradition philosophywasalwaysregardedinthePatristicsenseofatonceadivine wisdomandawayoflife.St.JohnDamascene,inhis Dialectica,orPhilosophicalChapters aworkwidelypopularizedintheOldChurchSlavonictranslationbyJohn,theExarchofBulgaria,asthe firstpartoftheDamascene’ s trilogy, TheFountainofKnowledge listssixdefinitionsofphilosophyderived fromPlato,Aristotle,andtheStoics.Thus,philosophyis knowledgeofthingswhichareinsofarastheyare,aknowledgeofthenatureof thingswhichhavebeing.Andagain,philosophyisknowledgeofbothdivineand humanthings,thatistosay,ofthingsbothvisibleandinvisible.Philosophy, again,isastudyofdeath,whetherthisbevoluntaryornatural...Stillagain, philosophyisthemakingofone’sselflikeGod...Philosophyistheartofartsand thescienceofsciences...Philosophy,again,isaloveofwisdom.But,truewisdom isGod.Therefore,theloveofGod,thisisthetruephilosophy.¹
ThisdefinitionwasoverwhelminglyacceptedinMedievalRus²andforalong timepredeterminedthedevelopmentofintellectualandspirituallifeinthis
¹St.JohnofDamascus, “TheFountainofKnowledge,” 11. ²SeeHors’kyi, “TheConceptionofPhilosophyintheCultureofOldKiev.”
land.OnthebasisofSt.JohnDamascene’swork,theRussianwriterscreated theirowntexts,suchasthesixteenth-centurytreatisebyMetropolitanDaniel titled OnPhilosophy:BewareandYouShallnotSin.Inthetwentiethcentury, NikolaiBerdyaev(1874–1948)admitted:
Orthodoxyis, firstofall,notadoctrine,notanoutwardorganization,not establishedrulesofoutwardconduct,but spirituallife... Orthodoxyhasnot passedthroughacenturyofscholastics;ithasonlylivedthroughpatristic centuries ...TrueOrthodoxtheologyisatheologyofspiritualexperience.³
Althoughthe firstRussiantranslationsofancientphilosopherswereproduced onlyintheeighteenthcentury,philosophyhadalreadyhithertoexistedwithin theframeworkoftheologyandhadaverydistinctexistentialdimension,when comparedtoitsWesterncounterpart.Thus,thetitleof “philosopher” was giventotheFathersoftheChurch,paintersoficons(as “speculationin colors”⁴),monks,orexegetistsoftheBible.Onesuchword,a “truephilosopher” (contrarytoa “paganphilosopher”)meantnothingbut “aChristian.” GiventhepeculiarityofRussianreligiousthought,MikhailEpsteineven suggestslabelingitwiththeoriginalRussiantermof “filosofia ” ratherthan “philosophy,” asthiswordexpresses “thedistinctionbetweentheanalyticalcriticalandthesynthetic-constructiveapproach” : “filosofia isthatphilosophy thathasnotdetacheditselffromtotalthinking,hasnotbecomeanarrow specialtystudyingtheconditionsandpossibilitiesofknowledge;instead,it triestopreservethescaleandshapeoftotalwisdom,combiningelementsof criticismandfantasy,scienceandpoetry,analysisandsynthesis,historicism andutopia” invariousways.⁵ ItistruethatinRussia
philosophyissooftenindistinguishablefromtheologyfromtheWesternpointof view.Itisnotamethodologicalerror,butratheradirectconsequenceofan alternativeapproachtothesupposedrelationbetweenreligionandculture.⁶
AstheRussianémigréthinkerNikolasZernov(1898–1980)noticedinthis context:
Greecehadtwogreatachievements,herartandherlogicalthought.YoungRussia eagerlyabsorbedthe firstandlettheothergo.⁷
Despitethisfact,intheoldRussiananthologies(suchas TheBee, Izbornikof 1073, Izbornikof1076)onecould findfragmentsofAristotelianlogicand dialecticsaswellaselementsofastronomy,geography,history,andsoon. “For Russianphilosophicalculture,whichhadnoantiquityofitsown,patristics
³Berdyaev, “TheTruthofOrthodoxy,” 250,252.
⁴ Cf.Trubetskoi, Icons:TheologyinColor. ⁵ SeeEpstein, “SymposionandRussianFilosofia. ” ⁶ Mrówczyński-VanAllen,Obolevitch,Rojek, “Introduction, ” 3.
⁷ Zernov, ThreeRussianProphets,29.
acquiredexceptionalsignificanceasalmostitssolereliablesourceof knowledgeconcerningancientphilosophy.”⁸ Furthermore,inRussia,art (andthenaesthetics)wasseeninafashionquitedifferentfromthatof Westernstandards asasynonymfortheologyorphilosophywhichcovers thewholenessofculture.⁹
UndertheswayoftheEasternFathersoftheChurchintheOldRussian culturethenotionof “mind” (νοῦς)wasdistinguishedfrom “ reason ” (διάνοια) thefacultyforlogicalreasoning whileatthesametimebeingidentifiedwith “heart” (καρδία)asthecentralorganoftheinner,spiritualintegrationofa personandtheircognition.Accordingtothistradition,Godassuchisbeyond anyknowledge.Noone neitheramannoranangel canperceivethedivine essence(οὐσία),butonlyitsactionsorenergies(δυνάμεις, ἐνέργεια)manifesting inthecreatedworld.AsSt.BasiltheGreatwroteinLetter234:
FromHisactivities(ἐνέργειαι T.O.)weknowourGod,butHissubstanceitself wedonotprofesstoapproach.ForHisactivitiesdescendtous,butHissubstance remainsinaccessible.¹⁰
Inturn,St.MaximustheConfessoridentifieddivineenergieswith logoi (λόγοι)—“creativerealities,causesofwhicheachvisiblethingisan ‘imitation’ ormanifestation,”¹¹themodelsofallcreation(ταπαραδειγματατωνγένετων). Thepresenceof logoi intheempiricalworldmakesitintelligibleandknowable.Hence,humanrationalityisareplicationofthedivineLogos.Theseideas wouldberediscoveredandwidelypromotedinthetwentiethcentury. Theteachingonthedifferentiationbetweenthedivineessenceandthe divineenergiescametoconstitutethecoreofHesychasm amysticaltraditionwhichallowedmantoachieveunitywithGod(or,moreprecisely,with thedivineenergy)throughprayerandinvocationofthenameofJesus.Inthis connection,St.GregoryPalamas(1319/23–circa1391),theferventdefender oftheHesychastmovement,distinguishedbetweentwokindsofknowledge: thenaturalway(viacognitionofthematerialworld)and theognosia,orthe mysticalvisionofGod.¹²Itmeansthatdisciplescan see Godbutcannot partake of Hisessence.¹³Although “St.GregoryPalamasdoesnotreject worldlywisdomwhichlookstotheknowledgeofbeings,” heargues “that thishumanknowledgeneitherconstitutesnoraidsinanywaytheattainment ofdivineknowledgewhichistheresultofpurificationoftheheartand illuminationofman’ snous. ”¹⁴
⁸ Abramov, “PhilosophyatTheologicalAcademies,” 24.
⁹ SeeBychkov, TheAestheticFaceofBeing,13.¹⁰ St.Basil, Letters,373.
¹¹Sherrard, HumanImage:WorldImage,92.
¹²SeeChristou, “DoubleKnowledgeAccordingtoGregoryPalamas.”
¹³Athanasopoulos, “St.GregoryPalamasastheResponseofOrthodoxMysticalTheology,” 64.
¹⁴ Hierotheos(Vlahos), “OrthodoxTheologyandScience,” 133.
FaithandScienceinRussianReligiousThought
TheofficialrecognitionoftheHesychastmovementinByzantiumandthe wholeoftheOrthodoxworldlies “atthespiritualoriginofthecomplicated relationsbetweenscienceandRussiansocietyandalsoconstitutedtheideologicalbasisofSlavicmysticism.”¹⁵ Wewilldiscussindetailsomeoftheconsequencesofthisspiritualtraditionlater;nowoneshouldnotethattheEastern Christiandiscourseofenergy(thetermoriginatedbySergeyKhoruzhy¹⁶)has notalwaysbeenknownenoughthroughthecourseofRussianhistory,even thoughitenjoyedpopularityamongRussianmonks.
OnecanobservetwotendenciesinEasternChristiancosmology,reflecting twooftheaspectsofGod(thetranscendentandtheimmanentones:thedivine essenceandthedivineenergies).Ontheonehand,thisaccountsupposesthat thereisaclear-cutborderlinebetweenthedivineessenceandcreationand, respectively,betweentheologyandscience.Thetaskofphilosophyisnothing otherthantoexposethelimitsofhumanreasoningandespeciallyscientific knowledge.ThistrendwastypicalofHesychasm,rejectingtheattemptsofthe so-callednaturaltheologyandemphasizingtheweaknessofhumanreason.In otherwords,theemphasistherewaslaidonthetranscendenceofGodandHis incomprehensibilityofrationalactivity.TheonlywaytoperceiveGodisby wayofspiritualpracticeandasceticismleadingtothetransformationofthe wholeman:hismind,feelings,deeds,andsoon.InHesychasm, “knowledgeof Godisconvertedfromthepurelyintellectualcognitiveparadigmtothe integral,holisticparadigmofloveandcommunion.”¹⁷
Yet,sincethedivineenergiespenetratetheempiricalrealmandactinit, “pouroutintheWorldofNature,”¹⁸ someOrthodoxthinkersareinclined tounderstandcosmologyasapartoftheology.Inthisway, “thereisno ‘unbridgeablegap’ betweenreligiousfaithandscientificknowledge,theyare bothharmonizedintheintegrityanduniversalityofhumanpersonality.”¹⁹ Indeed,theGreekFathersoftheChurchencouragedtheexplorationofnature. Forinstance,St.GregoryofNazianzus(329–390)admittedthatGodispresent intheworldasanartistinhiswork;also,otherPatristicauthorsperceived natureasa locum ofdivineaction, somapneumatikon a “spiritualbody” whichisnothingotherthananenvironmentforhumanactivity.Inthiscontext, thematerialworldisseenasa “sacrament,”²⁰“Eucharist,”²¹ “aChurch,”²² “the
¹⁵ Nicolaidis, ScienceandEasternOrthodoxy,104.¹⁶ Horujy, “BreaksandLinks,” 279.
¹⁷ SeeHorujy, “HowExactlyistheSpiritinCreation?,” 100.
¹⁸ Cf.Berdyaev, “TheTruthofOrthodoxy,” 253.
¹⁹ ArchimandritePlaton, “TheRelationshipbetweenScienceandReligion,” 57.
²⁰ SeeSzmeman, TheWorldasSacrament. ²¹SeeZizioulas, IlcreatocomeEucaristia;Zizioulas, “PreservingGod’sCreation”;Theokritoff, “TheCosmologyoftheEucharist.”
²²SeeNesteruk, “TheUniverseasHypostaticInherentintheLogosofGod,” 183.
divinecosmos”²³and,respectively,science asa “divineliturgy.” Throughout thecourseofhistory,Russianreligiousthinkersadaptedandelaboratedboth approachesconcerningthepossibilityofthecognitionofGodthroughcreation and,asoneoftheconsequences,alinkbetweentheologyandscience.
1.2.AMEETINGOFFAITHANDREASON Admittedly,theworksofearlyChristianwriterswerefarfromwidelyknown inMedievalRussia,butthespiritoftheFathersoftheChurchinspired investigationsinthediverse fieldsofculture.Sincephilosophywasassociated withtheloveofGod,reasonwasconsideredtobeagiftfromtheCreator.The tracesofthisconvictioncanbefoundinthe firstphilosophicalworkin Russia—“TheSermononLawandGrace,” whichwasdeliveredbyMetropolitanHilarionofKiev(died c.1055).Hepointedoutthatrevealedwisdomdid notinanywaycounterhumanspeculation.HoldingupasanexamplePrince VladimirtheGreat(died c.1015),who “grewtoripenessofmanhoodand reason, ”²⁴ Hilariontriedtodemonstratethatreasonisasourceoffaithand knowledgealike,andthereuponexposedtheroleoftherationalperceptionof faith.Aswellasthis,thesonofVladimir,grandprinceYaroslavtheWise (c.978–1054),whowasrepeatedlytermeda “loverofbooks,” contributedto thepromotionofeducationinmedievalRus.²⁵ Anotherillustrationof “philosophizingwithintheology” istheconceptof “harmoniousreason” proclaimedbySt.CyrilofTurov(1130–с.182), “afounder” oftherationalist traditionofphilosophizing,amethodofallegoricalinterpretationofthe HolyScriptureand,asaresult,aforerunneroftheintegratingtendencyin Russia. “ThephilosophicalprincipleofCyril—‘believingcognition’ or ‘believe andknow’—reinforcedtheideaofreligiousjustificationoffaithbymeansof logicandrationalthinking” aswellasit “coincidedwiththequestofWestern scholastics.”²⁶
WhenspeakingaboutMedievalRus,itshouldbestressedthatthecountry waslaggingbehindtheachievementsofotherEuropeancultures,because,as FrederickCoplestonnoted, “while ...westernEuropewasconstructingthe civilizationoftheMiddleAgeswithitseducationalandintellectuallife,Russia wassubjectedtotheMongol,orTartar,yokeandwasinnopositiontodevelop thecultureofearlydays.”²⁷ Longbeforethisstatement,themagnificent
²³SeeClément, “Lesensdelaterre.” ²⁴“Ilarion’ s ‘SermononLawandGrace’ , ” 18.
²⁵ SeeObolensky, “TheHeritageofCyrilandMethodiusinRussia,” 59–60.
²⁶ Cf.Zamaleev, Vostochnoslavyanskiemysliteli [EasternChristianThinkers],118.
²⁷ Copleston, PhilosophyinRussia,1.
