Hovorun, Cyril. “The Dialogue Between Science and Religion in Russia.” In The Science and Religion Dialogue: Past and Future, (edited by Michael Welker, Peter Lang, 2014: 123-27).

Michael Welker (ed.)

The Science and Religion Dialogue Past and Future

mm HMk&MR:. MNk. i

l«r

IMW, -jSt.

VJ in** ^7

.- wan ipt'fom r^"

l i U l i l l

m H I H ^ H H I I • •

PETER LANG E D I T I O

Michael Welker (ed.)

The Science and Religion Dialogue This book documents the conference on The Science and Religion Dialogue: Past and Future, held at the University of Heidelberg, Germany, October 25-29, 2012. The conference commemorated the 100th anniversary of the birth of Sir John Templeton and the 25 th anniversary of the establishment of the John Tem­pleton Foundation. It brought together about 60 active participants, all of them prominent scholars from many countries and many academic fields. Most of them have been engaged in the Science and Religion Dialogue for the last two or three decades. This book reports on multi-year international and interdisciplinary research projects at leading institutions. The contributions start with presentations

by Hans Joas, Martin Nowak and John Polkinghorne and range from Astronomy, Mathematics, Physics and Biology to Phil­osophical Theology and Religious Ethics. Special topics of the dialogue between Science and Religion are also dealt with, such as Eschatology and Anthropology; Cosmology, Creation, and Redemption; Evolutionary Biology and the Spirit; and The Role of Thought Experiments in Sci­ence and Theology.

The Editor Michael Welker is a senior professor at the University of Heidelberg and the director of the Research Center International and Interdisciplinary Theology.

Michael Welker

The Science and Religion Dialogue

Past and Future

PETER LANG E D I T I O N

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografle; detailed bibliographic data is available in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in- Publication Data The science and religion dialogue : past and future / [edited by] Michael Welker. - 1 [edition].

pages cm ISBN 978-3-631-65185-8 1. Religion and science-Congresses. I. Welker, Michael, 1947-editor. BL241.S3185 2014 20T.65-dc23

2014025690

Cover illustration: © gdw-design Heidelberg,

Universitat Heidelberg

ISBN 978-3-631-65185-8 (Print) E-ISBN 978-3-653-04874-2 (E-Book)

DOI 10.3726/978-3-653-04874-2

© Peter Lang GmbH Intemationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften

Frankfurt am Main 2014 All rights reserved.

Peter Lang Edition is an Imprint of Peter Lang GmbH.

Peter Lang - Frankfurt am Main • Bern • Bruxelles • New York • Oxford • Warszawa • Wien

All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without

the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in

electronic retrieval systems.

This publication has been peer reviewed.

www.peterlang.com

Contents

Introduction 9

I. Celebrating the Past - Shaping the Future

'lhomas Pfeiffer The Science and Religion Dialogue: Past and Future 13

Michael Welker The Science and Religion Dialogue: Past and Future 15

John M. Templeton, Jr Opening Address 19

Stephen Post Commemorating Sir John Templeton (1912-2012) 23

Michael Murray

Science and Religion Dialogue 33

II. On the Engagement of Science and Religion

Hans Joas The Natural History of Religion 41 Martin A. Nowak God and Evolution 47

John Polkinghorne

The Search for Truth 53

HI. The Science and Theology Dialogue I: Multi-Year Research Projects

John Polkinghorne A Contribution to the Eschatology Session 63 Michael Welker Eschatology, Anthropology, and Concepts of Law 67

6 Contents

Denis R. Alexander The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion - the First Seven Years 73

Friederike Nussel, Robin Lovin Theological Inquiry and the Science and Religion Dialogue 87

Ted Peters Science and Redemption: The Future of Creation 93

Robert John Russell

Scientific Cosmology and the Theologies of Creation and Redemption 107

IV. The Science and Theology Dialogue II: Multicontextual Dimensions

Cyril Hovorun The Dialogue between Science and Religion in Russia 123 Niels Henrik Gregersen The Role of Thought Experiments in Science and Religion 129

/. Wentzel van Huyssteen A Postfoundationalist Approach to Theology and Science 141

Willem B. Drees

Insiders and Outsiders in 'Religion and Science' 157

V. Astronomy and Mathematics

Chris Impey Cosmology and the Human Condition 173 Matthias Baaz

Note on Formal Reasoning in Theology 193

VI. Physics and Biology

G. A. D. Briggs The Search for Evidence-Based Reality 201

Contents 7

Simon Conway Morris If the Evolution of Intelligence is inevitable, then what are the Metaphysical Consequences? 217

GunterP. Wagner

The Use of Metaphors when Talking about the Nature of Organisms 233

VII. Religious Ethics and Philosophical Theology

Kelly James Clark Atheism and Analytical Thinking 245 William Schweiker Freedom within Religion. Religious Ethics and Social Life 257

VIII. Philanthropic Investment and the Future Generations: Three (of Sixty) Winners of the John Templeton Award for Theological Promise (2007-2011)

Jan Stievermann The Templeton Award and Professional Development for Young Scholars 267

Daniel Munteanu "The Divine Fire in All Things" - Orthodox Cosmology in Dialogue with Science 273

Eva Harasta God's Spirituality. The Trinitarian Dynamics of Prayer 289

Contributors 295

Cyril Hovorun

The Dialogue between Science and Religion in Russia

I would like to begin my paper with an affirmation that there is a dialogue be­tween science and religion in Russia. However, it evolves differently from the same dialogues in the west. The differences are conditioned by the contexts of these dialogues. The Russian context is remarkably different from the west­ern one. It is post-soviet and post-atheist. Soviet atheism was a special sort of atheism. It was extremal, much anti-, namely anti-religious, and as such, quasi-religious. It was called 'militant'. At the same time, it was also declared 'scientific'. It became a full embodiment of the Soviet phenomenon of science being turned into an instrument of propaganda.

Birth of the 'scientific atheism' was 'blessed' in 1954 with the decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR called About signifi­cant failures in the scientific-atheistic propaganda and measures of improving it'. In 1958, the Department of propaganda and agitation of the Central Commit­tee produced a classified report where it recommended along other measures of atheistic propaganda the following:

'The Ministry of the Highest education of the USSR and Faculties of Philosophy of Uni­versities should secure training of philosophers with profound knowledge of atheism, who would be able to propagate efficiently scientific atheism. Relevant changes should be introduced to the educational plans and programs of the Faculties of Philosophy.'1

Soon after this report was produced, the Central Committee of the Communist Party issued a document, also classified, where it urged all the party and state or­ganisations in the Soviet Union to implement the recommendations of the above document. As a follow up of this party imperative, in 1959, a course of'Basics of the scientific atheism' was introduced as a part of obligatory curriculum in the highest educational institutions of the Soviet Union.

In 1964, an 'Institute of scientific atheism was established. It became a part of the Academy of Social Sciences, which in turn was an institution of the Central

1 PrAHM. cp. 4. On. 16. A- 554. A. 5-13. noariMHHMK. Published on the site of the Russian Association of Scholars in Religion: http://www.rusoir.ru/03print/02/239/ [accessed Aug 15,2012].

124 Cyril Hovorun

Committee of the Communist Party. The Department for ideology of the Central Committee managed the activities of the newly established Institute. Among its responsibilities was coordination of the atheist studies in all academic and edu­cational institutions of the Soviet Union. The Institute developed massive pub­lishing activities. For instance, it published a periodical 'Questions of scientific atheism'. 39 volumes in sum have been published, each approximately 20 thou­sand copies.2 The policy of forceful infiltration of the 'scientific atheism' to all the branches of the Soviet Academia shaped a specific approach to the relationship between science and religion among those who went through the system of the higher education during the Soviet period. This approach affected not only those in humanities or social sciences, but also in science. This approach was built on the 'scientific materialism' similar to the Positivism of the 19th century.

Not only Positivism was imported from the 19th century as a precondition of radical divorce between science and religion in the Soviet Academia. There were other pre-Soviet situations that helped the Communist Party to polarise theology and science. Among those situations was a separation of theological education from University. Theology was never a full part of the University in the Russian Empire. From the very beginning of the Russian University, it was decided that theology should function separately from it. Theology was confined to its own locus, the theological academies. They constituted a self-sufficient sys­tem. Although this system was fully recognised and sponsored by the state, it was not allowed to be a part of the University. After the Bolshevik revolution 1917, this separation helped the Soviet regime to get rid of theology in the educational system altogether.

All these factors became a serious obstacle for revival of theology after the fall of the Soviet regime. Still, theology struggles to achieve two important things: 1) to be recognised as a proper academic discipline, and 2) to be re-introduced to the educational system in Russia. Although there is no much success in achiev­ing these goals, some steps were made forward in the dialogue between science and theology. There are, first, official contacts between the Church and the Rus­sian Academia. The Synodal Biblical and Theological Committee of the Rus­sian Orthodox Church bears official responsibilities for the dialogue. Apart of facilitating occasional meetings between theologians and scientists, it maintains a dialogue with the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Science.

The Dialogue between Science and Religion in Russia 125

Report by Zuev, Yury. Published on the website of the Russian Association of Scho­lars in Religion: http://www.rusoir.ru/2009.php?action=view&id=486 [accessed Aug 15,2012].

Partially the Commission on theology of the recently established Tnterconcil-iar Board' of the Russian Orthodox Church undertook a task of dialoguing with science. This institution has been commissioned to produce an official document of the Church regarding the dialogue with science. The document is still in the process of preparation. There are also many unofficial interactions between the Church and the world of science in Russia. Some of them happen in a natural way, as there is a good number of converts from science to theology. Moreover, majority of the most prominent theologians in the Russian Orthodox Church are former physicists, mathematicians, chemists etc. Their massive conversion caused a situation that science constitutes now a basic thinking framework for theology, not philosophy or proper academic theology, like in the West. It is pos­sible to affirm that theologians and scientists in Russia speak a more common language than their colleagues in the West. They do not have as many platforms to talk to each other, however, as their western colleagues have a sort of platform for interactions between science and religion constitute parishes, which have been established at the Universities. This is a trend of the recent years to plant ecclesial communities in the academic environment. Some of them are quite successful and really facilitating the cooperation between the two realms. An ex­ample of such success is St. Tatiana's church at the Lomonosov State University in Moscow. Its rector is himself a graduate of the Classical department of the Uni­versity. The church functions as an effective bridge between the University and the Church. St. Tatiana, however, is an example of a re-established community, which existed before the revolution as a Moscow University church. There are also examples of communities, which have been established in the places where they never existed. An example of such community is the one recently estab­lished at the 'National Research Nuclear University', formerly known as 'Moscow Institute of Engineering and Physics'.

A usual paradigm of how ecclesial communities at the Universities function is the following. They are normally established with the support of the rectors of institutions who believe that a parish at the University will fill a lacuna in moral formation of their students. However, they normally do not believe that theology is something to be taken seriously. There are also some protests against establish­ing such communities from the side of students.

Observers are now speaking of 'anticlerical reactions' to the active return of the Church to the public square in Russia. Voices of rebuking are heard also from the academic environment. The loudest among them was a so-called Tetter of academicians'. This was an open address to the President of Russia Mr Putin titled 'Policy of the Russian Orthodox Church: consolidation or collapse of the

"

126 Cyril Hovorun

country?'3 Ten members of the Russian Academy of Science signed the letter. Remarkably, among them were just two biologists and one medical doctor. The rest seven were physicists, including Noble Prize winners, Zhores Alfyorov and Vitaliy Ginzburg.

The authors of the letter express their anxiety about an 'increasing clericali-satioh of the Russian society and about active penetration of the Church to all spheres of the social life'. They accentuated their major concern as follows: 'We cannot remain indifferent about attempts to doubt the scientific Knowledge ... and to substitute knowledge accumulated by science, with faith.' Thus, they con­sider science as essentially incompatible with religion. The main point of this incompatibility, in their view, is the materialistic nature of science. They state: All achievements of the modern science are based on the materialistic outlook on the world. There is nothing else in the modern science.' Thus, the Russian academicians declare themselves to be materialists. All true scientists are also materialists, in their belief. One can easily see in this appeal the rudiments of the Communist approach to the science, when there can be either religion or sci­ence, never together. No wonder therefore, that Zhores Alfyorov, for instance, is a member of the Russian Parliament from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

There are also increasing protests against the 'clericalisation of Academia among those who do not share Communist ideology and who even consider him- or herself to be religious. These protests reflect the discussions about the role of the Church in the modern Russian society and relations of the Church with the political establishment. Many in Russia disagree with the tendency of a too close rapprochement between the Church and the state. This tendency casts shadow on the dialogue between science and theology.

The ten academicians raised in their letter another important issue. This is an issue of legalisation of theology in the academic system of Russia. The academi­cians objected to it because they believe that science is based on the materialistic philosophy. There are many figures in the Russian Academia who do not share materialism confessed by the ten academicians. Yet, they do not believe that the­ology is an academic discipline and can be treated equally with other disciplines. They can be very positive about religion and even build churches on the cam­puses of their universities, but they want theology to stand outside of the doors of the university auditoria.

Published in the 'Novaya gazeta' on July 22, 2007: http://old.novayagazeta.ru/ data/2007/kentavr03/00.html [accessed Aug 15,2012].

The Dialogue between Science and Religion in Russia 127

Theology experiences resistance on all educational levels in Russia. Until re­cently, elementary religious education was not allowed to the secondary school. Only a couple of years ago it started to be introduced to the schools as an op­tional subject called 'Basics of the Orthodox culture.' On the University level, the Church for many years fought for theology to be introduced to the curriculum. Only in 2010 the educational standards for Bachelor and Master programs were accepted by the state, though theology constitutes only approximately half in these programs. A serious problem remains the recognition of dissertations in theology. In the Russian educational system, there is an institution, which has an ultimate responsibility for defences of dissertations. It is called 'Highest At­testation Commission'. It functions on the basis of the Ministry of Education and Science and stands above the universities. The Commission should approve all dissertations defended in any recognised educational institution of Russia. For this, a dissertation should correspond to one of the specialisations accepted by the Commission. Theology is not on the list of the Commission, and the Church for approximately twenty years struggles for theology to be included to this list. So far, the struggle was unsuccessful. Students are unable to submit their theses in theology at the institutions accredited by the state. This also remains a serious obstacle in the dialogue between theology and science.

To conclude, the dialogue between theology and science in Russia goes on under conditions of post-secularity. This post-secularity is specifically Russian. It combines elements of the communist ideology of the past, primitive positivism in understanding of the nature of science, complexities of the Church-state rela­tions etc. The post-secular character of relations between theology and science in Russia, I think, is eloquently reflected in the words of the academician Sergey Kapitsa written in response to the letter of ten academicians. Religion, for Ka-pitsa, is generally useful in 'answering the question: how a human should behave in the society.' However, he continues, 'science in relation to religion is a next step in cognition of the world. It is a passage from the mythical or mythic-poetical description of the world to its scientific description.'4 Sergey Kapitsa's position expressed many scientists in modern Russia in their attitude to religion. This attitude is positive and welcoming. However, it is not sufficient yet for a serious and equal dialogue.

4 Published in the Religious supplement to the Nezavisimaya gazeta on Aug 1, 2007: http://religion.ng.ru/events/2007-08-01/3_monastry.html [accessed Aug 15, 2012].