From Orthodox Christianity to the phenomenon of nuclear energy: fragmentary use of the methodology of anthroposocial interpretation

  1. Lemma
  2. От православия к феномену ядерной энергии: заимствование фрагментов методологии антропосоциального толкования’
  3. Russian
  4. Asliturk, Miriam
  5. Ethics - Co-existence - Complementarity - Mutual dependence
  6. 10-01-2017
  7. Комлева, Евгения Владиславовна [Author]. От православия к феномену ядерной энергии: заимствование фрагментов методологии антропосоциального толкования
  8. Сборники конференций НИЦ Социосфера
  9. Nuclear energy - Nuclear storage facility - World Russian People’s Council - Russian Orthodox Church
  10. Click Here
    1. <p>Комлева Е. В. (2012). От Православия к феномену ядерной энергии: заимствование фрагментов методологии антропосоциального толкования. <em>Сборники конференций НИЦ. </em>Retrieved from:  <a href=""></a></p>
    1. The nuclear energy industry has been developing for a long time in Siberia. Komleva states that Russian society has not yet formulated a clear opinion on nuclear energy from either an ethical, moral or religious point of view. Religion, the author argues, represents two levels of existence: hell and paradise. Nuclear energy can provide humans with either of these levels. This is why nuclear energy can have positive characteristics only if it is seen in the context of the wholeness of humanity. Orthodox Christianity sees the actual world as non-perfect, but believes that humans do have a potential to progress spiritually. It admits, however, that if spiritually imperfect people gain power over others with the help of nuclear energy, it will represent great danger for everyone. That is why the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) encourages dialogue with science and the scientific community. The author believes that nowadays science and religion are not antagonistic to one another and share a common moral and ethical basis. The ROC believes that finding spiritual values for scientific progress is important for humanity as a whole. In the framework of the science-religion dialogue organized by the World Russian People’s Council (WRPC) (an affiliate of the ROC), a conference was held at the Russian nuclear energy research centre in Sarov devoted to the themes of “Nuclear weapons and Security of Russia,” and “Problems of interaction of the ROC and scientific research centres in Russia.”

      Komleva also mentions that the Patriarch Kiril, Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus, received an Honorary Doctorate at the National Nuclear Research University (2010) and at the Moscow State University (2012) as a sign of reconciliation between science and religion. She also cites A. Osipov (b. 1939), professor, religious scholar, and president of the yearly science-religion conference at the Joint Institute of Nuclear Research in Dubna, who warned that modern nuclear physicists without the help of priests were “like Papua savages.”

      The author points out possible shared aspects for science and religion: cosmism/wholeness of the universe; Trinity; unity with humans; rejection of ethnic division in the biblical sense; God creates forms for himself; “judging by our deeds and our thoughts”; belief in one’s work; firmness in ideas; value of old traditions. According to the author, religious institutions such as monasteries should monitor scientific nuclear energy centres as far at ethics and morals are concerned. The author remarks that St. Petersburg has both religious institutions and scientific centres but that the interaction between the two is not active due to the secular character of the city. The author suggests monitoring of the nuclear storage facility in the Murmansk region by the nearby Murmansk monastery, and similarly in Krasnokamensk by the Krasnokamensk and Chita Eparchy. In conclusion, Komleva cites the former head of the Russian Nuclear Agency RosAtom Kirienko, who confirmed that the nuclear energy industry needed social approval and support for its own survival.