Reflections on the Theme: "Science and Religion"

1. Entity type Lemma
2. Original titleРазмышления на тему: «наука и религия»
3. Language term Russian
4. lemma author Asliturk, Miriam
5. lemma category Complementarity - Orthodox critique of science
6. Publication date 28-07-2018
7. lemma work Кизим, Антон [Author]. Размышления на тему: «наука и религия»
8. lemma manifestations Русская Православная Церковь. Храм Живоначальной Троицы на Воробьёвых горах
9. Keywords Russian Orthodox Church - atheism - Historiography - History of Science - christian approach to history - Galilei, Galileo (1564-1642) - Copernicus
10. Url Click Here
11. Citations
    1. <p>Кизим, Антон (2017). Размышления на тему: «наука и религия».<em> Русская Православная Церковь. Храм Живоначальной Троицы на Воробьёвых горах</em>. Retrieved from: <a href="http://hram-troicy.prihod.ru/nauka_i_religija_razdel/view/id/1171488">http://hram-troicy.prihod.ru/nauka_i_religija_razdel/view/id/1171488</a> </p>
12. Lemma body

    1. The article traces the relationship between religion and science. Its author, Anton Kizim, is a graduate of the historical faculty of the St. Tikhon Orthodox University and a history teacher. He looks at whether religion and science contradict each other, and into the question of whether religion is a hindrance to science.

       The author points out that these questions first appeared in Christian Europe and were formulated by atheists. However, one should define clearly what religion and what branch of science he/she is talking about. The author states that humanity is still not able to say how many religions existed throughout its existence, nor it is possible to predict how many or what kind of religions will appear in the future. Even if it will become possible to prove one day that the Christian (or some other) doctrine contradicts science, “there will be a new preacher who will create a new teaching, taking into account the advanced achievements of science.” Thus the thesis of a “contradiction” will turn out to be wrong again. Finally, scientific “truths” themselves can change over time.

       As to the question of religion being an obstacle to science, the author shows the inconsistency of the argument. The oft-quoted examples of Galileo or Copernicus fall apart once one remembers that both were deeply religious people: the conflict thus was not between believers and non-believers but between Christians having different opinions. He then points out that today’s priests use all the new and advanced technologies available to the rest of humanity (transport, communication, medical equipment, etc.) The Russian Orthodox Church is not even against the development of weapons as the Church “wants its parishioners to be able to defend themselves.” Finally, the often frequent argument about the subjectivity of Christians as far as history is concerned can be refuted by the equally true statement about the subjectivity of all history. The author concludes by stating that it would be more rational to discuss the issue of the contradiction between Christianity and science with believers, and not with atheists.