Christian Anthropocentrism as the Methodological Foundation of Science, Education and Environmental Protection?

  1. Lemma
  2. Христианский антропоцентризм-методологическая «основа» науки, образования и охраны природы?
  3. Russian
  4. Asliturk, Miriam
  5. Scientific theories and disciplines > Biology - Modes of interaction > Conflict - Ecumenism and dialogue > Education - Ecology and the environment - Concepts of knowledge and modes of reasoning
  6. 08-11-2017
  7. Савинов, Александр [Author]. Христианский антропоцентризм-методологическая «основа» науки, образования и охраны природы?
  8. Политобразование
  9. environmental protection - Anthropocentrism - Russian Academy of Sciences - Russian education system - Primary Education
  10. Click Here
    1. <p>Савинов, А., Христианский антропоцентризм - методологическая «основа» науки, образования и охраны природы? <em>Политобразование</em>, 2016. Retrieved from: <a href=""></a> </p>
    1. The article deals with the problem of a possible "synthesis" of science and religion advocated by some scientists. The author believes that such a synthesis is impossible due to fundamental differences between science and religion. Science states that phenomena are conditioned by nature while religion affirms their divine origin. Science is based on doubt, while religion relies on faith. Finally, science believes that the world is cognizable, whereas religion considers the cognitive abilities of man to be “miserable.”

      That is why the author, Savinov, is highly critical of the advocacy of reapprochement between science and religion manifested by V. K. Zhirov, biologist and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Zhirov makes the case for a comparative analysis of biocentrism versus Christian anthropocentrism in the context of environmental protection. In his paper, Zhirov underlines the potential danger contained in the biocentric conception. Its ideas about equal rights of all living organisms, including man, in combination with ideas about the need to address the problem of population growth contain, according to Zhirov, a potential threat to human society. Savinov criticizes Zhirov’s position, explaining that it dangerous and unscientific as it “radically narrows the ecological perceptions of man”. As a result, Savinov argues, man can decide that he needs a very small quantity of plant and animal species and basically just get rid of what is not viewed as necessary for human survival. Such a policy would inevitably entail the destruction of the equilibrium in ecosystems.

      Savinov also criticizes Zhirov’s “alternative theological-biological approach” to environmental protection. Practically, it consists of the integration of activities of secular and monastic botanical gardens and the creation of missionary and educational complexes that would unite monasteries with botanical gardens. Savinov mentions that this approach was also harshly criticized by the Russian Botanical Society. In conclusion, he states that the problem of coexistence of scientific (materialistic) and religious world outlook is currently of strategic importance in Russia. He believes that it is urgent for the Russian Academy of Sciences to reveal its position on this issue, in particular given that a course on religions has recently been integrated into primary school curriculum.