This is the text of a discussion organized by the Editorial Board of this journal on December 9th, 2015. The debate was devoted to the issue of scientific status of theology and the place of theology among other academic disciplines. Participants of this discussion: historian Olga Vasil'eva (Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, since 2016 - Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation), philologist Nikolay Grintser (Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration), historian Askold Ivanchik (corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences); sociologist Boris Knorre (Higher School of Economics), philosopher Svetlana Konacheva (Russian State University of the Humanities); Alexander Kyrlezhev (scientific editor of this journal); theologian Konstantin Polskov (St.-Tikhon's Orthodox University), scholar of religion Vladislav Razdiakonov (Russian State University of the Humanities); theologian Andrey Shishkov (SS Cyril and Methodius Theological Institute of Post-Graduate Studies).
Keywords: theology, higher education, Russia, criteria of science, philosophy of science, falsifiability.
our magazine editor -in- moderated the , we publish transcript below theology. nauchnosti table by (Institute Society " and "Religion Center with jointly abroad" for and Russia in church religion, " Gosudarstvo, magazine editorial year 2015 IN DECEMBER Dmitry Uzlaner.
participation: Olga Vasilyeva, of Historical , the of of the Russian of National Economy and Public Administration the of Education of the Russian Nikolay Grintser of Philology of the of Actual of the Russian Askold Ivanchik of Corresponding Academy of
Round table in the editorial office of the journal on the topic "What is the scientific nature of theology?" / / State, religion, Church in Russia 205
"What Is the Scientific Status of Theology as a Discipline? Round-Table in the Editorial Office of the Journal", Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom 34(3): 205-223.
page 205
Boris Knorre Professor of the National Research University-Higher School of Economics; Svetlana , Ph. D., Head of Department Contemporary Problems of Philosophy Russian State Pedagogical University; Alexander Kyrlezhev, Scientific editor journal "State, Religion, Church in Russia and "; Konstantin Polskov, Archpriest, Ph. Philosophy , Candidate Historical Professor Studies Andrey Shishkov, Research Associate St. Cyril and Postgraduate and Doctoral (now Secretary Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission Orthodox Church)
* * *
Dmitry Uzlaner: Recently, theology was recognized as a scientific discipline, which implies the assignment of appropriate scientific degrees. In the course of our discussion, we would like to work together to find out what exactly is the scientific nature of theology.
The opinions we hear about the scientific nature of theology are unsatisfactory to me.
If we take the classical religious studies position, which is critical of theology, then, in my opinion, it is based on naive positivism. There is a science to which religious studies refers, and there is a non-science to which theology is declared, and the criteria of scientific character here are purely positivist. The weakness of this position lies in the fact that representatives of the natural sciences often also deny the humanities the right to be a science. So, in one of the radio programs, a physicist participated, who, when asked about theology, said something like this:: "What about theology? I don't mind. One pseudoscience more, one pseudoscience less. We have philology as a science, so why not theology?" And this is a fairly common approach. Or take, for example, the opinion of Richard Dawkins. He is a well-known representative of evolutionary biology, but at the same time his position on the humanities is exactly the same: they are not sciences at all; and, in particular, religious studies is not a science, but some kind of agreement with the priests, because it is clear that in reality religion is just ignorance and nothing there is no one else behind it...
page 206
The naive positivist attitude puts forward such criteria as verifiability, falsifiability, objectivity, and so on against theology. However, the question arises: do these criteria work in the humanities? Does this approach not destroy humanitarian knowledge as such? Therefore, if we are trying to prove that theology is not a science, then we must offer some subtle distinction that will allow us, on the one hand, not to destroy the scientific nature of humanitarian knowledge, and on the other hand, to somehow separate it from theology. Or vice versa: to say that there is a single space of humanitarian knowledge, of which theology is a part.
If we talk about the position of theologians, it is also not completely clear, because it is still unclear what theology is. Despite the fact that it is officially recognized. What do theologians study? What is the subject, object, and method of theology? And how does theology relate to other humanities, including religious studies? For example, some provincial universities have departments that are called departments of theology and Religious Studies. After talking to representatives of such departments, I realized that they do not separate theology and religious studies in any way. And on one of the relevant websites, I read that the task of the department is to prepare graduates for catechetical work. But a religious scholar should hardly be engaged in catechetical work. In other words, the distinction between theology and religious studies is not made, and the theological specifics are not clarified.
In fact, we are witnessing the construction of theology today. And so we need to understand what this theology is and what it is going to do in the scientific space, in particular, in the university.
And one last introductory note. I recently read an article in Nezavisimaya Gazeta about theology, which was illustrated by a photograph of the patriarch looking through a microscope. This creates a strange idea that theology is some kind of natural science discipline that is in dialogue with biology, physics, and chemistry. This idea is reinforced by the fact that the Department of Theology was established at MEPhI. But it seems to me that if theology is a science, then it is a humanitarian science, which should be among other humanities, and it would be more correct to have it illustrated with a photo frame-
page 207
a page where the patriarch reads, say, Max Weber or Karl Marx...
We are gathered here to try to answer the question of what are the criteria for scientific knowledge of the humanities and whether they are applicable to theology.
Konstantin Polskov: In trying to answer this question, I would like to point out that the debate over the scientific nature of theology is also influenced by completely unscientific questions. If there were another possibility of legalizing church science (let's call it that), then probably the question of including it in the list of the Higher Attestation Commission, the question of scientific degrees, and so on would not be so acute. For example, you can't participate in team work if you don't have a recognized degree; if you are a doctor of divinity, you simply won't get a grant for the entire team. On the other hand, after almost 25 years of the presence of theology in our higher school, it is really necessary to understand its scientific nature. Although here theologians are not alone. For example, I have often heard at meetings of my religious studies colleagues that they, at least some of them, do not really understand what religious studies is. It seems to me that an unambiguous answer to the question of whether theology is a science is impossible, because first we need to find out what we mean by science and what we mean by theology. Otherwise, the dispute will continue indefinitely.
E. S. Elbakyan in his interview says that science has changed, but at the same time gives a definition of theology that probably goes back to Thomas Aquinas: theology as the science of God. In turn, K. M. Antonov rightly notes that such an understanding is an anachronism. Now it is impossible to define science in the terms that were relevant five or seven centuries ago, that is, without taking into account the change in the meaning of the terms "science"and " theology". After the processes that took place in the European cultural space during the transition to modernity, the understanding of both science and theology changed. Theology itself did not understand what it is for a long time, and today this term has different meanings. (I refer here, in particular, to the very informative article by A. I. Kyrlezhev "What is theology?", published in 2009 in the journal "Continent", N 140.)
On the one hand, there is a certain doctrinal core, and it corresponds to theology as a discussion of dogmas that can be applied to a particular person.,
page 208
once formulated by the church, they can no longer be changed. On the other hand, theology includes a number of ecclesiastical sciences: biblical studies, church history, historical liturgy, etc., which follow the methods of the humanities. But at the same time, something third remains - the general semantic field of theology. In this third sense, theology is the understanding by a community of believers of their own experience of religious faith. And in this sense, theology is open. It is the space where religious people have questions about their faith, however-in connection with the normative statements of religious tradition.
If we return to the question of science, then theology in the form of specific disciplines uses the methods of all related humanities, and there is nothing shameful for theology in this. No self-respecting theologian today can do without philology, history, statistics, sociology, etc. In this respect, the scientific nature of theology is similar to that of philologists, historians, and other humanitarians: the theologian follows the same Bakhtinian path from sign to meaning. The difference is that when a theologian has to make an assessment, he goes beyond not only "scientific positivism", but also the humanities in a broad sense.
In other words, theological disciplines fully meet the criteria of scientific (at least humanitarian) character in terms of organizing the research process. We hold conferences, we have theological schools and theological publications (which are even included in the list of the Higher Attestation Commission). But at the same time, there are some limits beyond which it is already more difficult to talk about the scientific nature of theology, and we should rather talk about its specifics, which are similar to, say, the specifics of philosophy. This specificity is primarily related to the theological tradition. Here I agree with Ye. S. Elbakyan: of course, there can be no non-confessional theology, because theology is always based on the tradition that gave it birth, which gives it a certain normativity. Attachment to tradition is the first limitation.
The second limitation is related to the experience of faith. Where is the boundary between a religious historian or a religious philologist and a theologian? At what point does S. S. Averintsev begin to study theology and stop being a philologist? Or at what point about. John Meyendorff becomes a theologian and ceases to be a church historian? Apparently, theology is impossible without some kind of re-
page 209
religious experience, and in this sense it is hardly possible to demand strict scientific knowledge from theology.
Thus, modern theology is a kind of centaur. On the one hand, it is completely scientific, and on the other hand, theology has such features that do not allow it to be described in terms of scientific content without theology losing itself. But I think that there is nothing wrong with this - the same applies to philosophy as a special way of thinking.
Alexander Kyrlezhev: It is characteristic that from the very beginning of the discussion, we cannot remain within the framework of the task set - to talk about the scientific nature of theology without reference to pragmatics (this was stated in the speech of O. K. Polskov). The current discussion about the scientific nature of theology is closely connected with the question of its legalization and legitimation in the scientific and public space. Or, more precisely, with the question of the legitimation of theological discourse after its complete displacement in the Soviet era. And the problem is that such legalization and legitimation are carried out through state bodies that regulate science and education.
If we talk about scientific content, then we need to introduce some criteria. Someone will limit themselves to three criteria, Elbakyan suggested much more. Someone stands on a rigid positivist position, and someone takes into account other factors related to the self-understanding of science. This means that we do not have a consensus on scientific criteria that would apply to all recognized sciences - outside of natural science. Therefore, it seems to me that science is primarily a convention, that is, a certain agreement of the participants in the scientific process on what science is and what non-science is. And there are several such conventions. Within the institutionalized scientific community, there are different conventions in the natural sciences and in the humanities and social sciences. In addition, these conventions change diachronically (say, in the sense of T. Kuhn's "scientific revolutions"). And the scientific revolution itself, in the proper sense, which led to the emergence of modern science, was a process of transformation of the convention of scientific.
Now about theology. You can't talk about "theology in general". When it comes to fitting in with the humanitarian convention on scientific character, we have in mind, first of all, those special disciplines that K. Polskov called "ecclesiastical sciences". These disciplines fit well into science in a number of ways-
page 210
minimum criteria. But at the same time, they also contain the very "theological third" that already goes beyond the limits of science as a procedure. Here, too, I would argue against the "scientific nature of theology." More precisely, against attempts to squeeze theology into the framework of the so-called "normal science", which is a very boring thing. It involves the production of an infinite number of scientific-like texts, that is, created according to formal rules, which are nothing more than"texts about texts". For the most part, this is quite an extensive activity.
More important, in my opinion, is that theology is like philosophy, where there are historians of philosophy, and there are actually philosophers. Beyond the boundaries of the history of philosophy as a humanitarian science, philosophy is not a science in the strict sense, although it is institutionally inscribed in the scientific space. Creative, prophetic philosophical thinking goes beyond the routine of scientific research. Similarly, theology as a particular type of thinking cannot be scientific in terms of form and procedure. But, like philosophy, it can be written into" science " institutionally - in accordance with a certain convention. So far, we don't have such a convention, but it seems that this is what we are talking about when we talk about recognizing theology as a scientific status.
Olga Vasilyeva: As a historian, I am always interested in the question of how specialties are ranked at different universities. When I was at Trinity College, Oxford, about ten years ago, I got this answer: theology comes first, classical English literature comes second, then law and everything else. And when I asked why theology came first, the answer was short but clear:"If we teach theology, we will teach everything." I would say that theology is a worldview science.
As for history, it certainly has scientific criteria. History deals with facts, just as the natural scientist deals with facts. But at the same time, any historical fact is somehow interpreted, interpreted. Until recently, we had 216 textbooks on the history of the XX century, and in them the facts known to us were presented in different ways. Because every historical fact that is essentially objective, in the interpretation of the historian, becomes "subjective" in the sense that it is interpreted within the framework of the ideological position that the scientist takes. Cause-and-effect relationships-
page 211
zi certainly exists, but history is a worldview science. I think that the same applies to theology, which relies on the general worldview of believers, the whole church, even if it uses modern scientific and humanitarian knowledge.
Askold Ivanchik: The question of the presence of theological faculties and theological disciplines at the university and in science in general is primarily a historical question, that is, it is connected with tradition. And each country has its own tradition. Historically, all science - not only humanities, but also natural sciences-has grown out of theology. Medieval universities were created precisely as theological schools. Even today, according to tradition, German and Anglo-Saxon universities have theological faculties that play an important role. In France, on the contrary, after the Revolution and the laws on secularism (laïcité) - a very strict division: no state university can have theology. Only the University of Strasbourg has theological faculties - Catholic and Protestant, and this is explained by the fact that Alsace and Lorraine became part of France after the First World War, and France partially retained German laws and regulations there, making, in particular, some exceptions to the laws on secularism. In the Russian tradition, there were no theological faculties in the first universities, neither in Moscow nor in St. Petersburg; nor were there any in the imperial universities founded later, except those intended for non - Orthodox ones (Dorpat for Protestant Germans, who followed the custom of German universities). This was a principled position, because theology belonged to theological academies. That is, in the Russian tradition, both before the revolution and now, there is a parallel system of theological degrees, and, in my opinion, this is an excellent system.
When we talk about theology, the essential difference with the humanities is not in the object of research, but in the fact that only a person belonging to a particular denomination can be a theologian. Here I agree with E. S. Elbakyan and K. Polskov: non-confessional theology is nonsense. It is difficult to imagine, for example, a discussion about theological issues between a shamanist and a Catholic.
Regarding history: of course, history is a science. No matter what some representatives of the natural sciences may say, the-
page 212
thawing that the humanities are not sciences. If a historian supports his statements with historical sources, then he is engaged in science. And those who indulge in non-source - based chatter on historical topics are outside of history as a science.
Theology is a science by its historical merit, because science itself grew out of theology. But this is a special science, which differs from all other sciences in that its subject covers everything - all other sciences, and which differs from them in its view of the world. At the same time, it is pointless to talk about one theology - you need to talk about "Orthodox theology", "Catholic theology", "Islamic theology". So, today the University of Tubingen has three theological faculties: Catholic, Protestant and Islamic.
Alexander Kyrlezhev: A remark about the previous statement. Despite the fact that there were no theological faculties in Russian pre-revolutionary practice, it should be noted that among the members of the Imperial Academy of Sciences there were also theologians representing church science - historians and specialists in canon law. Indeed, only representatives of these ecclesiastical and theological disciplines, but in this way they moved out of the actual spiritual and academic space into the general scientific space.
In addition, not all theology is confessional. In the Christian context, there is another one - the so-called "ecumenical theology". This is a very interesting phenomenon: representatives of different faiths gather and create a completely new discourse that does not coincide with any of the confessional discourses.
Svetlana Konacheva 1: First of all, I must say that science as a theoretical attitude is a European phenomenon (let us recall Edmund Husserl's "Crisis of European Sciences"), and we can only speak of theology as a science as a European phenomenon, taking into account what is emerging in the context of the dialogue between the Judeo-Christian tradition and European philosophy sciences.
As for the criteria of scientific character, they undoubtedly depend on the ways of philosophical thinking. Elbakyan re-
1. The presentation was prepared with the support of grant RGNF 15-03-00802 "Aestheticization and eventfulness in modern phenomenology".
page 213
It presents a positivist discourse, and what is traditionally called historical theology may well fall under its proposed criteria of scientific character. For example, biblical studies, patrology and other, so to speak, specific theological sciences. Here the methods, with certain adjustments, do not differ in any way from those sciences that are associated with the introduction of hermeneutical problems and Dilthey's division into Naturwissenschaften and Geisteswissenschaften - "natural sciences" and "spiritual sciences". In the "sciences of the spirit" it is not a question of generalizing particular phenomena in an attempt to deduce objective general laws, but of the individual and unique; here the method is not explanation, but experience, understanding, and interpretation. Every interpretation involves certain assumptions and beliefs that are conditioned by a previous life attitude to things. These assumptions should not determine the results in advance, they relate to the method, the way the question is posed. Interpretation presupposes pre-understanding as the opening of a horizon of questions in which understanding is possible. Out of interest in the subject, one or another way of posing questions arises, what the question is directed at. If we don't accept this, then all the humanities are not sciences. In the same way, the historian probably cannot eliminate his preliminary questions posed by this very "vital world", "vital interest". It is another matter to what extent these preliminary life interests are reflected by the researcher himself and to what extent they are taken into account by him.
I would like to support A. I. Kyrlezhev in highlighting the so-called systematic theology. As we know, beginning in the fourth century, " theology "was understood as the doctrine of the Trinity, that is, the doctrine of God itself (even the doctrine of God's actions was not considered" theology"). Only later, in scholasticism, did the word theology begin to be used in a broader sense - as Christian teaching in general. Just as there is a "history of philosophy" in which dissertations are defended, and there is a proper "philosophy", so it is probably possible to defend dissertations on the anthropology of the Apostle Paul, and it is impossible to defend as a dissertation, for example, "Idol and Distance" by Jean-Luc Marion. Heidegger will defend his dissertation "Duns Skot's Doctrine of Categories and meaning" and will not defend as a dissertation "Being and Time", because it is
page 214
completely different tasks. As part of the fight for recognition, which all our academic degrees are aimed at, we are talking about demonstrating knowledge and ability to interpret some fragments of tradition, nothing more. And here all the criteria of scientific knowledge work. But as soon as we are talking about something else and the most interesting things begin, then theology, of course, comes closest to philosophy. I have in mind the philosophy of a certain direction - phenomenological-hermeneutical. We all remember the famous words of Heidegger: "Science doesn't think." In this sense, philosophy is not a science precisely because it thinks. Here we are not talking about rational-calculating methods, not about grasping due to the structures of the knowing subject, but about certain ways in which something affects us and we allow something to affect us. Then theology is not a science of God, but a matter of thinking about the divine. For example, Heidegger will say quite definitely that "theology is not a speculative knowledge of God", just as philosophy is not a speculative knowledge of being, which presupposes that we will say: "Being is this and that." As philosophers, we will never say this, we will not define being. And in this sense, God is not a subject of theology that can be defined.
At the same time, if theology is the science of faith as a particular mode of existence, then it can be said that it becomes a "science" of the ways in which God is given. Such a science is possible if, on the one hand, we have phenomenal ground under our feet, and on the other hand, if we can really expand the sphere of experience; that is, when experience is not limited exclusively to external empirical experience and at the same time is not limited to the sphere of intuition, the intentional structures of the subject. It is in this intermediate sphere that we can really talk about the way God is given. Even if the topic to which the theologian devotes his thought is never a phenomenon in the strict sense, an existential phenomenon is-thanks to the Revelation, self-revelation of God, incarnation in Christ-what God does in man. Only on this basis can we speak of God at all. Here the theologian is able to point out phenomena, existential evidence: there is forgiveness, there is freedom, there is faith, hope, and love, all pointing to some specific " other
page 215
side", on the living basis of our existence, its "addressee addressee".
Concerning confessional theology. On the one hand, if theology is the science of faith, then, of course, participation in religious faith is participation in a particular community. But, on the other hand, we do now see non-denominational theology, and not only in the form of ecumenical theology. Take such modern theological texts as:" God after Metaphysics "by John P. Manousakis," The Existence of God "by Richard Swinburne," The Idol and Distance "by J.-L. Marion," The Weakness of God: An Event Theology " by John Caputo. The author may be Orthodox or Catholic, but does the text contain any confessional affiliation? Or is it a question of belonging to a particular theological school as a style or way of thinking? Swinburne's text is based on an analytical way of thinking; Marion's and Manousakis ' texts are based on a postphenomenological way of thinking; and Caputo's is a deconstructivist text. These examples show that today theology is not necessarily confessional-based, and that in this case we should rather talk about a particular way of thinking.
Dmitry Uzlaner: Can we say that theology, if we try to put it in the context of humanitarian knowledge, is the closest to philosophy? That in theology, on the one hand, there is a space that is not defined by scientific criteria, and, on the other hand, there are specific disciplines that meet the criteria of scientific character? Just like in philosophy: there is philosophy as free thinking, and there is the science of "history of philosophy".
Svetlana Konacheva: Exactly so. But this does not mean that theology or philosophy, which transcends the formal limits of science, lacks rigor or methodic thinking. For example, Heidegger's "Being and Time" is an example of strict analytical thinking that seeks to express a conceivable object. It shows the work of thinking, which has its own laws and criteria. Similarly, in the case of theological texts. Christian theology especially needs methodological rigor and discipline of thought. Otherwise, it becomes unreliable for thinking contemporaries, as if it were not true.
page 216
"chatter about the uncontrolled." But going beyond speculations and subject-object schemas, truly conforming to one's subject, does not mean following the criteria of natural sciences or even specific humanities.
Alexander Kyrlezhev: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, for example, in the 19th century in the German space, when they talked about science, they meant just coherence, consistency with logic, persuasiveness, evidence. Philosophers, dealing with philosophical problems, believed that they were engaged in science. This, by the way, also applies to Russian philosophy. Accordingly, this type of theology also understood itself as a science. But then it went away.
Svetlana Konacheva: The question is when it started to go away. Even Schleiermacher's Speeches on Religion to Educated People who Despise It (at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) say that religion does not explain the world, that it is not metaphysics or ethics, but something else: a religious feeling. That is, on the one hand, we really see university theology in the same German tradition, which appeals, among other things, to rationality, to scientific criteria, and on the other hand, there is a constant reminder that in theology we are talking about some other experience that fundamentally changes the very disposition of the subject.the object scheme, where a person touches the deep basis of the universe in the very basis of personality. It is no coincidence that Schleiermacher emphasizes: "The measure of knowledge is not the measure of piety." And gradually, following it, the basic requirement for understanding the essence of religion and all religious phenomena begins to form: religious experience cannot be evaluated on the basis of non-religious or scientific criteria, but only in relation to the semantic elements contained in the religious consciousness itself and according to its own criteria.
Vladislav Razdyakonov: Still, so much has been said about this problem, and all to no avail. The parties once again voiced their positions, and I was once again convinced of the alliance of modern "humanitarians"and " theologians". Both of these conditional groups equally proceed in their reconstructions of the past from the thinking of the subject under study. People who dare to apply for uni-
page 217
versioning objectivity in their judgments is equally condemned by both. This approach does not bode well for analytical religious studies. I think Wittgenstein once told Russell that everything in his dissertation was true, from the first line to the last. And only with such an attitude could he in principle come to her defense. Now you are afraid to take a step without first telling us how limited you are in your judgments by your own values. And, of course, they are present when completely different people call themselves by the same word - religious scholars. Let's honestly admit that some of them are not religious scholars after all, and try to find out which of them misled themselves.
You can, of course, create a map of these values. There are many of them, but the main ones, in my opinion, are two. Conditionally, on the one hand, we have Kant, specifically perceived by modern humanitarian thought, which is looking for ways to protect the subject. Here the main tools are language, culture, that is, everything that separates one nation from another, one community from another. This is a whole tradition, many representatives of which have already been remembered: Schleiermacher, Kant, Dilthey, Heidegger, Wittgenstein... And on the other hand - Comte, who is known how he finished, but first created, in fact, the first philosophy of science. Here the main message is an opportunity to understand reality as it really is; an attitude without which knowledge in principle becomes impossible, turning into a kind of kaleidoscope of worldviews and opinions.
As for historical textbooks, in this case I agree with the position of Askold Ivanchik, who pointed out the importance of sources. Humanitarians are not just specialists who understand the subtleties of other people's worldviews; they are scientists who deal with historical facts. You may not like the word fact, but the power of fact remains the same for anyone who has ever encountered reality in one way or another. Before the brightness of individual facts, any textbooks fade like some darkened photos of the past! Any history textbook is ultimately an ideology (although it may be necessary). But the real science is contained in scientific research, in concrete archival and field work.
I would also like to note that the discussion itself seems meaningless to me. The scientific nature of theology can, in principle,
page 218
it can be set if we move the conversation to a more specific direction. After all, each of us has a specific understanding of theology and science. It is necessary to go to a clearer level - for example, to the level of philosophy of science or, even better, epistemology - and look at the specific arguments that social constructivists use in criticizing the claims of scientific knowledge to objectivity. It is these ideas that were voiced here, and it is not entirely clear who is forced to justify themselves - theology or science.
Of course, formally theology is a science, because we now have a corresponding law. On the other hand, theology is not a science, because it introduces something that has always been left out of brackets in real science: it introduces God, and it does not just introduce Him as part of an ontology. It introduces a specific understanding of God in thinking, which is reflected in the corresponding texts of orthodoxy. The goal of the theologian is to discuss the relationship between God, man, and nature. The real and ultimate goals of science are known: this is self-knowledge, knowledge of Nature and knowledge of the Other.
Konstantin Polskov: Regarding positivism. Is there really a humanist today who will insist on the need for verification, as it was in the middle of the XX century? Of the criteria proposed by E. S. Elbakyan, almost all the others remain. But verification and falsification is an issue that needs to be considered. What is verification in theology? It exists, but it is different than in the natural sciences. Elbakyan says: "Is it possible to add something to the Symbol of faith?" They added to the Nicene one, and it turned out to be the Nicene-Tsaregrad one; then the Catholics added more, and it turned out to be another confession. And the principles of objectivity, rationality, methodicality, truth, and consistency are quite suitable for theology. The principle of axiological neutrality, I think, does not work in religious studies either. I love religious scholars very much, but I don't believe in their absolute axiological neutrality.
Theology has two tasks - internal and external. Internal: theology should use the language of modern culture to convey the eternal values that it has been broadcasting for two thousand years. External: theology should be a bridge, as Bernard Lonergan said, between culture and the community of believers.
page 219
Theology always evaluates phenomena from the point of view of the normative tradition and says how much this or that phenomenon corresponds to the vector of salvation understood by the tradition. This is what theology has always done and will continue to do.
Regarding historical aspects. We know how theology got to Strasbourg. But even in the Russian Empire there was a university where theology was present, and in 1918 the academic councils of two of the oldest Russian universities, St. Petersburg and Kazan, decided to include in their composition as faculties of the corresponding theological academies, which at that time were already being persecuted. Everyone understands why these solutions were not implemented.
Nikolai Grintser: In the terms that are used here, I am, of course, on the positivist side. The discussion is based on the principle: are there any criteria or are any criteria conditional? I think that we should be on the side where these criteria exist, although I understand perfectly well that the talk is about scientific truth, about the argumentation system, and so on. they may be questioned.
I'll try to put it as simply as possible. There are two phenomena: one is conventionally called "science" and the other is called "theology". Let's imagine that we are dealing with "black boxes" (which is appropriate, since we cannot define these phenomena). We need to compare whether these "boxes" are the same or not, evaluating what we have at the input and what we have at the output. At the output, there is a difference - as K. said. Polskov, theology in the system of assessments, in the system of final results, is different from what is called science. There is also a difference in the input. In order to enter the" black box " of science, there is no fixed, maximally formalized requirement - no matter how much we talk about ideological attitudes, about the choice of a scientific school, a specific university, and so on. Roughly speaking, in order to be a philologist, you need to be able to read and know something else, without ideological restrictions. In theology, however, there is a doctrine at the entrance; moreover, as we have said, there is no non-denominational theology. Is it possible to imagine a theologian coming to science and defending a dissertation on a scientific discipline, which, in fact, was done by all the members of the Imperial Academy who were theologians? Yes, you can. But in the opposite case, you must meet an additional criterion - belong to a religious denomination. Poeto-
стр. 220
му, как мне кажется, любая наука, позитивистская или нет, скажет, что эти два "черных ящика" - разные. Хотя при этом можно говорить, что это - разные "науки".
Борис Кнорре: Мне кажется, что, если говорить об особенностях теологии как науки, нужно учитывать то, что сегодня называется "множественными современностями". Существуют разные интерпретаторские традиции, которые стремятся институциализировать свой метод, и религиозные конфессии также имеют право на институциализацию своего взгляда на мир. Кроме того, определять соответствие новых теологических направлений (таких, как "теология освобождения" или "теология процветания") конкретной конфессиональной традиции - это скорее задача именно теологов, а не религиоведов.
If theology gains legitimacy in the secular scientific and expert space, then it allows legitimizing certain theological opinions without regard to the church authorities, which largely depends on the political context. In other words, the new institutional form of the presence of theology makes it possible to challenge the monopoly of the hierarchy in various issues, especially in the question of the church's attitude to the world, where the hierarchy often tries to either avoid problems or follow the point of view that is determined by the situational political context. For example, while the clergy prefer to avoid "sharp corners" in order not to provoke various fundamentalist groups to discontent, some of these groups continue to be theologians. This theology is often radicalized and results in a literal reading of sacred texts, in the development of a kind of"theology of war". It is no secret that conspiracy theories and ideas of external opposition to a hyperbolized enemy are still very strong in our church environment.
Because our church has been preserved for 70 years, taken out of the process of cultural and social development, it has lost the culture of discussion that it had before the revolution. Although Orthodoxy also lacks a culture of self-criticism on a global level. This was noted by the Archpriest. Alexander Schmeman, when he said that " the tragedy of Orthodox history is always seen in the triumph of external evil: persecution, the Turkish yoke, the betrayal of the intelligentsia, Bolshevism. Never -
page 221
in "inside""2. The secular institutionalization of theology can help bring this self-criticism into the Orthodox tradition, and teaching theology in secular universities can help to humanize church neophytes. Of course, there is a danger that theology may be ideologized, that it will be used as a screen for teaching some quasi-Orthodox nationalist ideology, but the danger of distorting any phenomenon does not negate the need for the phenomenon itself.
Andrey Shishkov: I would like to touch upon the issue of orthodoxy. It is generally accepted that there is no dogmatics in science and it is impossible to talk about orthodoxy in the sense in which it is spoken about in relation to religion. However, the sociology of scientific knowledge suggests that within the framework of individual scientific schools, a kind of orthodoxy is formed and, accordingly, there are also "heretics". Another thing is that in science there is a space for alternative thought, and you can form your own scientific school or go to another one.
If we say that modern theology is not strictly confessional and is divided into theological schools associated with a special way of thinking, then we can also observe something similar in theology to scientific schools. For example, in the Moscow Theological Academy, Christological disputes are conducted, that is, there are two scientific and theological schools that interpret doctrinal orthodoxy in different ways. And in modern Christian theology as a whole, the set of strategies for theological thought is so broad that it is hardly possible to speak of a strict, unambiguous orthodoxy. At the same time, we must, of course, distinguish between the orthodoxy protected by the institutional church hierarchy and those interpretations of orthodoxy offered by individual theologians who are not connected with the church authorities.
Alexander Kyrlezhev: In my opinion, the proposed image with two "black boxes" is very productive, because it emphasizes the fact that theology cannot be squeezed into the Procrustean bed of science. Any theology, both in traditional and traditional forms.
2. Schmeman A., prot. Diaries. 1973-1983. Moscow, 2005. p. 108.
page 222
and in its modern forms, it is illegal to measure the criteria of modern science. Just like philosophy.
Therefore, the main question is not so much about the abstract scientific nature of theology,but rather about its institutionalization. This institutionalization is necessary in order to write a dissertation; but a dissertation is only the completion of education. As in philosophy, it was said that Heidegger defended his dissertation in order to get a degree, and "Being and Time" is no longer a science. Although this unscientific text then becomes material for subsequent scientific research.
In other words, the question of the scientific nature of theology is primarily organizational and, I would say, routine: a theologian must belong to the scientific community in order to be hired at the university, and then be given a salary supplement when he defends his doctorate... And it is necessary to observe scientific conformity - only then will the theologian be recognized as a member of the scientific community, and not as a stray visionary.
But the main thing that hinders the recognition of the scientific nature of theology is precisely the fundamentally positivist attitude that E. S. Elbakyan speaks about in his interview. And no quantum mechanics changes this setup in essence. The essence of this attitude is that modern science as such deals only with some immanent objective reality-be it the world-cosmos or the world-society - and studies its internal, immanent structures and patterns. And despite all the differences between the "natural sciences" and the "spiritual sciences," humanitarianism, as part of the general scientific complex headed by natural science, cannot abandon this general scientific positivist attitude. Humanities and social sciences still study what exists by , that is, in principle, does not depend on us. Otherwise, it is not science.
In this sense, if Christian theology is a science, it is fundamentally anti-scientific and anti-positivist in its attitude, which, although it can sometimes drive itself into the Procrustean bed of science, is always in opposition to the main objective pathos of modern science.
page 223
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2020-2025, LIB.AM is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of Armenia |